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?
Thanks! I rarely get any feedback so it is very fulfilling to read your comment. Your last two sentences cover what I am working on for the next post. It is a combination of Nietzsche's concept of "Perspectivism" and the Orientation stage of Boyd's OODA-Loop. If an organization is failing to correctly orient to reality -- if it feels it is omnipotent and refuses to change--it will quite simply die. It will be replaced by an organization that does adapt to a changing reality. For Nietzsche, there is no one perspective that is always correct--otherwise this would be God's perspective. And so we must adapt our perspectives to find one that gives us success manipulating our way through reality. As you mention, competition is key. The Russians had not fought a real war for some time and so promotions were given to those who comply with the system, not to those who "do" in Boyd's sense of the term. It's like a sports team that only practises but never plays a game. For the first year of the conflict the Russians realized that they were not "game" ready. But they have evolved and clearly promoted some "doers" and they are now performing with a much higher level of military skill. We will see in the coming months if they translate this into more largescale offensive actions.
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?
Thanks! I rarely get any feedback so it is very fulfilling to read your comment. Your last two sentences cover what I am working on for the next post. It is a combination of Nietzsche's concept of "Perspectivism" and the Orientation stage of Boyd's OODA-Loop. If an organization is failing to correctly orient to reality -- if it feels it is omnipotent and refuses to change--it will quite simply die. It will be replaced by an organization that does adapt to a changing reality. For Nietzsche, there is no one perspective that is always correct--otherwise this would be God's perspective. And so we must adapt our perspectives to find one that gives us success manipulating our way through reality. As you mention, competition is key. The Russians had not fought a real war for some time and so promotions were given to those who comply with the system, not to those who "do" in Boyd's sense of the term. It's like a sports team that only practises but never plays a game. For the first year of the conflict the Russians realized that they were not "game" ready. But they have evolved and clearly promoted some "doers" and they are now performing with a much higher level of military skill. We will see in the coming months if they translate this into more largescale offensive actions.
Yes, the spend all their time fighting each other for their piece of the pie.