4 ms·

Different command structures could be part of the cause. Obamacare was a non-classified civilian project, under the leadership of civilians. The primary fumble

Different command structures could be part of the cause. Obamacare was a non-classified civilian project, under the leadership of civilians. The primary fumble was (due to corruption) using a federal-friendly (corrupt and ineffective but known to be loyal) contractor rather than an actual development firm. NSA etc are military operations with honeycombed classification schemes and cellularized access to information. Even if there were failures and waste, we'd never hear of it. I assume that corruption plays less of a role since the concern is on effectiveness, but I have nothing to base that on.

lostlogin 12y ago
The military isn't that well organized. Anyone here can name at least a dozen snafu from the last decade. A purchase, an invasion, a process a project. You name it.
- rosser 12y ago
  My inner cynic suggests it might actually be more difficult to find examples of non-fuckups.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  At the heart of the military organization, there is an essential core of operations that ensures that anything that absolutely, positively must get done can be done. The remainder is simply there to exercise and maintain the massive required capital investment while it is functionally idle. The gigantic failures exist so that when there is an actual need for aerospace engineers to respond to an actual threat, rather than the theoretical projections based on the data from the last war, it won't take 25 years to train them up from scratch. The failures are not quite as horrible when you realize that it could be more expensive in the long run to do nothing at all. But then the questions turn toward the amount of pre-emptable core capabilities we need to maintain. For a long time, the doctrine in the U.S. has been the ability to sustain simultaneous nonnuclear war in two separate theaters plus nuclear second-strike capability sufficient to create a MAD deterrent. That is expensive. And since we haven't actually needed that much war materiel since 1945, that leaves a lot of room for waste. It could be argued that the limited regional wars of choice that the U.S. has pursued since then have simply been capital maintenance, to prevent the military from decaying into expensive uselessness. I think in its deepest backrooms, the generals still gauge their effectiveness by whether they could fight both Russia and China at the same time.
  - avn2109 12y ago
    This is really interesting. Can you suggest more reading on the two-simultaneous-front goals?
    - noir_lord 12y ago
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/the-measure-of-superpower-a-two-major-regional-contingency-military-for-21-century http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/the-measure...
    - ethbro 12y ago
      Historically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act
  - CWuestefeld 12y ago
    For a long time, the doctrine in the U.S. has been the ability to sustain simultaneous nonnuclear war in two separate theaters plus nuclear second-strike capability sufficient to create a MAD deterrent. I understood it to be a bit more specific than this: sustain conventional war against our two strongest non-allies. In any case, it's also my understanding that we've been maintaining a level far higher than what would be required for this.
    - cmdkeen 12y ago
      That's just not true, the world isn't a Tom Clancy novel where the US versus China is decided by some magic bombs that suddenly appear. Look at the Iran-Iraq war for the level of casualties that some potential enemies are capable of taking (half a million fighting age males dead on Iran's side). North Korea having 9 million military age personnel brought up in a personality cult. Let along China and the size of their armed forces. The USA lost four thousand in Iraq, two and a half thousand in Afghanistan. The UK lost nineteen thousand men dead on the first day of the Somme in 1916, do you really imagine a Western nation losing that many for any conflict today? To be honest even in a war of national survival I doubt it. We lack the political will to sustain conventional war. The military knows it and acts accordingly.
psykovsky 12y ago
I suspect all the secrecy only makes it easier for corruption to flourish. Military and secrecy is a sure recipe for corruption everywhere.

lostlogin 12y ago

The military isn't that well organized. Anyone here can name at least a dozen snafu from the last decade. A purchase, an invasion, a process a project. You name it.

rosser 12y ago
My inner cynic suggests it might actually be more difficult to find examples of non-fuckups.
logfromblammo 12y ago
At the heart of the military organization, there is an essential core of operations that ensures that anything that absolutely, positively must get done can be done. The remainder is simply there to exercise and maintain the massive required capital investment while it is functionally idle. The gigantic failures exist so that when there is an actual need for aerospace engineers to respond to an actual threat, rather than the theoretical projections based on the data from the last war, it won't take 25 years to train them up from scratch. The failures are not quite as horrible when you realize that it could be more expensive in the long run to do nothing at all. But then the questions turn toward the amount of pre-emptable core capabilities we need to maintain. For a long time, the doctrine in the U.S. has been the ability to sustain simultaneous nonnuclear war in two separate theaters plus nuclear second-strike capability sufficient to create a MAD deterrent. That is expensive. And since we haven't actually needed that much war materiel since 1945, that leaves a lot of room for waste. It could be argued that the limited regional wars of choice that the U.S. has pursued since then have simply been capital maintenance, to prevent the military from decaying into expensive uselessness. I think in its deepest backrooms, the generals still gauge their effectiveness by whether they could fight both Russia and China at the same time.
- avn2109 12y ago
  This is really interesting. Can you suggest more reading on the two-simultaneous-front goals?
  - noir_lord 12y ago
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/the-measure-of-superpower-a-two-major-regional-contingency-military-for-21-century http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/the-measure...
  - ethbro 12y ago
    Historically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Ocean_Navy_Act
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  For a long time, the doctrine in the U.S. has been the ability to sustain simultaneous nonnuclear war in two separate theaters plus nuclear second-strike capability sufficient to create a MAD deterrent. I understood it to be a bit more specific than this: sustain conventional war against our two strongest non-allies. In any case, it's also my understanding that we've been maintaining a level far higher than what would be required for this.
  - cmdkeen 12y ago
    That's just not true, the world isn't a Tom Clancy novel where the US versus China is decided by some magic bombs that suddenly appear. Look at the Iran-Iraq war for the level of casualties that some potential enemies are capable of taking (half a million fighting age males dead on Iran's side). North Korea having 9 million military age personnel brought up in a personality cult. Let along China and the size of their armed forces. The USA lost four thousand in Iraq, two and a half thousand in Afghanistan. The UK lost nineteen thousand men dead on the first day of the Somme in 1916, do you really imagine a Western nation losing that many for any conflict today? To be honest even in a war of national survival I doubt it. We lack the political will to sustain conventional war. The military knows it and acts accordingly.

psykovsky 12y ago

I suspect all the secrecy only makes it easier for corruption to flourish. Military and secrecy is a sure recipe for corruption everywhere.