3 ms·

Peacetime armies (ie. not WWII) end up with careerists on top, not warriors. So you get the same as any mediocre corporation. The immediate stakes to national s

Peacetime armies (ie. not WWII) end up with careerists on top, not warriors. So you get the same as any mediocre corporation. The immediate stakes to national security aren't high enough to demand results "or else".

jseliger 14y ago
>Peacetime armies (ie. not WWII) end up with careerists on top, not warriors. So you get the same as any mediocre corporation. But armies don't have the pressure of potential bankruptcy that acts as a safety valve against poor performance.
- afterburner 14y ago
  Yes, good point. Although consider that many a corporate behemoth has been able to carry on for a long time with little competence at the top due to a large stable revenue stream from some product or other. It gets them in the end (probably), but for a long time they can coast on mediocrity. Example: GM.
hindsightbias 14y ago
We've been at war for over a decade. That's 3X the length of WWII.
- michaelt 14y ago
  3x the length, but only 0.03% the number of coalition troops lost. More allied troops died on an average day in WWII than coalition troops died in the entire Iraq conflict.
- afterburner 14y ago
  It's a matter of how much the civilian population is focused on the effort. WWII was a total war, everyone back home was involved in some way, usually through rationing, working a war-effort job, buying a war bond, paying increased taxes, and/or worrying about loved ones serving in the military (often though the draft). Things like Iraq and Afghanistan are basically peacetime military actions. It's a war over there... but back home, not so much. That affects what kind of talent, attention, priority, etc. goes into it.
- 001sky 14y ago
  You're comparing apples and hamburgers. Consider a single day in WWI. More casualties in <24 hours> than the <decade> you reference. The opening day of the battle saw the British Army suffer the worst day in its history, sustaining nearly 60,000 casualties. There would go on to be in excess of <1 million> casualties related to just this single battle, at Somme, western front.[1,2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualti... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme
- cmdkeen 14y ago
  Depends which start date you take for WWII - The European one of 1939, the Russian 1941 (don't ask about 39 and 40!), or the American one of late 41. Or the Chinese view that it started in 1937.
babesh 14y ago
Supposedly much the same happened to the North in the Civil War at least for the first few years. Lincoln had to keep on getting rid of his generals till he found one who was willing to fight (Grant). Same thing happened in World War I with the generals not adapting to trench warfare and just sending their men out to die again and again. Its human nature. Without a real way to measure performance, the people who get ahead are the ones who game the system.
cafard 14y ago
De Tocqueville says something like this--no doubt thinking of the US performance in the War of 1812. But the US Army of WW II was led at the highest levels by men who were careerists, graduates for the most part of West Point before WW I. (Marshall, ok, VMI, but the point holds.) Collins had held his commission for a quarter century before he was firing all those 90th Division commanders.

jseliger 14y ago

>Peacetime armies (ie. not WWII) end up with careerists on top, not warriors. So you get the same as any mediocre corporation. But armies don't have the pressure of potential bankruptcy that acts as a safety valve against poor performance.

afterburner 14y ago
Yes, good point. Although consider that many a corporate behemoth has been able to carry on for a long time with little competence at the top due to a large stable revenue stream from some product or other. It gets them in the end (probably), but for a long time they can coast on mediocrity. Example: GM.

hindsightbias 14y ago

We've been at war for over a decade. That's 3X the length of WWII.

michaelt 14y ago
3x the length, but only 0.03% the number of coalition troops lost. More allied troops died on an average day in WWII than coalition troops died in the entire Iraq conflict.
afterburner 14y ago
It's a matter of how much the civilian population is focused on the effort. WWII was a total war, everyone back home was involved in some way, usually through rationing, working a war-effort job, buying a war bond, paying increased taxes, and/or worrying about loved ones serving in the military (often though the draft). Things like Iraq and Afghanistan are basically peacetime military actions. It's a war over there... but back home, not so much. That affects what kind of talent, attention, priority, etc. goes into it.
001sky 14y ago
You're comparing apples and hamburgers. Consider a single day in WWI. More casualties in <24 hours> than the <decade> you reference. The opening day of the battle saw the British Army suffer the worst day in its history, sustaining nearly 60,000 casualties. There would go on to be in excess of <1 million> casualties related to just this single battle, at Somme, western front.[1,2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualti... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme
cmdkeen 14y ago
Depends which start date you take for WWII - The European one of 1939, the Russian 1941 (don't ask about 39 and 40!), or the American one of late 41. Or the Chinese view that it started in 1937.

babesh 14y ago

Supposedly much the same happened to the North in the Civil War at least for the first few years. Lincoln had to keep on getting rid of his generals till he found one who was willing to fight (Grant). Same thing happened in World War I with the generals not adapting to trench warfare and just sending their men out to die again and again. Its human nature. Without a real way to measure performance, the people who get ahead are the ones who game the system.

cafard 14y ago

De Tocqueville says something like this--no doubt thinking of the US performance in the War of 1812. But the US Army of WW II was led at the highest levels by men who were careerists, graduates for the most part of West Point before WW I. (Marshall, ok, VMI, but the point holds.) Collins had held his commission for a quarter century before he was firing all those 90th Division commanders.