Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
So is the civ-mil relationship healthy? Clearly not! There is a growing sense among service personnel that they are both set apart *and better* than civilian. Does warrior-ism drive this, or reflect it? I don't know, but either way it has to go as a signal of the... 15/25
...values that the force is going to adopt moving forward. Organizational culture flows down from the top, and 'warrior ethos' and 'warrior restaurant' nonsense signals that the top is on board with this warrior-ism, despite its baleful consequences. 16/25
That has to change and it is long past time for the civilian authorities - Congress, the President - to do their jobs and make it change. And to be clear, the culture of the military has *not* always been like this. 17/25
The 'warrior ethos' was added to the Soldier's Creed only in 2003 - the old version of the Creed had no reference to being a warrior, but it did have a line about "restrain[ing]...Army comrades from actions disgraceful..." which got nuked out of the current version. 18/25
The pro-warrior literature isn't that old either. Gates of Fire - the perennial target of my ire - was only published in 1998. Read some WWII veteran memoirs - 'warrior' is, in my experience, a very rare descriptor for military personnel. 19/25
Finally, @EmanThinks makes the argument that a 'warrior' mindset improves cohesion. It may well, but if it improves cohesion at the cost of the civ-mil relationship, it is worse than useless.
This is the exact mistake of elevating operational/tactical considerations...20/25
...to the strategic level. Cohesion and lethality cannot trump strategic considerations - if greater lethality comes with a threat to the democracy, you accept lower lethality. Because - as Clausewitz says (drink!) - policy must rule. 21/25
It is striking to me that this particular error in military thinking is exactly the one that tends to occur when military decision-making is insulated from civilian policy, see e.g. I. Hull above, or S. Ienaga, The Pacific War (1978). Perhaps there is a problem after all? 22/25
This kind of argument often comes with the suggestion that civilians don't understand and shouldn't have an opinion which just leads us right back up to tweet 3. "The civ-mil is great and also if you are a civ and you disagree, shut up" is a self-refuting argument. 23/25
Finally, I want to stress again that this shift to warrior-ism, and the mil-exceptionalism isn't the age-old thing that many current folks serving think it is - it's an artifact of the GWOT era and doesn't go back much further than that. 24/25
But since the GWOT turns 20 this year, most current personnel know nothing else. And that is a real proble, which needs addressing sooner, rather than later. end/25
i’m confused on this word usage what baleful consequences exactly?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
