...nor does it have the composition a draft-based force would. The same study also notes that nearly a third (29.82%) of West Point cadets *strongly agreed* with the idea that civilians shouldn't criticize the military. 10/25
-
-
...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
Näytä tämä ketju -
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
Näytä tämä ketju -
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
Näytä tämä ketju -
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
Näytä tämä ketju -
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
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.