Bret Devereaux Twitterissä: "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"

Maa	Koodi	Asiakkaille yrityksessä
Yhdysvallat	40404	(mikä tahansa)
Kanada	21212	(mikä tahansa)
Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brasilia	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Irlanti	51210	Vodafone, O2
Intia	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonesia	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Italia	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» Näytä muiden maiden lyhytnumerot tekstiviesteille

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

And of course we have to note that before the last election, every living former secretary of defense *felt it necessary* to signal to the military that they shouldn't, you know, do a coup against the democracy https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/10-former-defense-secretaries-military-peaceful-transfer-of-power/2021/01/03/2a23d52e-4c4d-11eb-a9f4-0e668b9772ba_story.html … 12/25

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 21 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

Such things are not necessary in good civ-mil. Moreover, the concern wasn't empty. Veterans make up c. 6% of the general population, but seem to have made up something like 20% of early arrests in the Capitol Insurrection: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/21/958915267/nearly-one-in-five-defendants-in-capitol-riot-cases-served-in-the-military?utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com … 13/25

2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 26 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

So evidently *despite* the desperate pleas of 10 former SecDefs, a meaningful number of veterans *did* take it upon themselves to try to unseat the lawful transfer of power within our civilian institutions. What might possibly have made them feel they had the right? 14/25

2 vastausta 2 uudelleentwiittausta 20 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

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

2 vastausta 1 uudelleentwiittaus 20 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

...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

2 vastausta 1 uudelleentwiittaus 21 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

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

1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 19 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

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

3 vastausta 6 uudelleentwiittausta 34 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

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

1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 35 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

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

1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 29 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

...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

3 vastausta 2 uudelleentwiittausta 32 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 24. huhtik.

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

10.59 - 24. huhtik. 2021