From mediocre fighter pilot to anti-systemic intellectual, an introduction to USAF Colonel John Boyd, America's supreme strategist.
I very much enjoyed reading and even re-reading your piece, despite the fact that I am neither an American nor a military man. In my opinion your piece raises many issues with regards to the nature of bureaucracy as a useful system of governance in the face of the seemingly every rapid change of reality. A maverick like Boyd was allowed to rampage through the institutions back in the 60's and 70's, but would that be the case today? I think the question is answered by simply asking the question. However, what was different back in the 60's and 70's? It reminds me of what I read recently about there having been a big reshuffle of the Russian brass as a response to the changing reality on the battlefield in Ukraine (politicians out and competent military strategists up). In my opinion competition defined as a comparison of different levels of organisation between peers may be of importance here. Competition forces adaptation to the ever changing reality which in turn requires changes of organisation on both sides. However, what if your ideology tells you that you are omnipotent and that your level of organisation is the best? Would an organisation that views itself as omnipotent see a need for and thus allow any rebels within its ranks?
It explains why we have 17 intelligence agencies in the u.s. government.
Why we have different air forces for all of the military branches.
All these little bureaucratic kingdoms don't trust anyone else.
Presidents come and go but the bureaucracy is unaccountable and for ever there.