But in case of any other kind of crisis those companies tend to do quite well.
My own experiences working with military leadership has also not corroborated any sense that they were competent or caring. Indeed, the impression I got was that they were universally just trying to wind out the clock to early retirement and use their relationships to get a cushy job while pulling down their pension at a major defense connector.
Hum, or maybe their bosses were just lying to them all of this time to support a theater of competence?...
Yes. My experience is with the British Army. It's a collection of multiple tribes with distinct and powerful local loyalties and rivalries. There may be shared trust, especially when the different parts have trained together or been on ops with each other.
[Edit]. Before I started working with them, I thought that 'uniform' meant 'something that is the same everywhere'. Boy was I wrong. There is a phenomenal variation in the regalia, badges, belt buckles, head dress, etc, etc. And the arcane career development paths, rank structures, e.g. depending on whether your ancestors were foot, cavalry, guns, etc.
[Edit] And these historical variations and beliefs translate into substantial procedural variations. E.g. is an armoured vehicle driver a glorified bus driver or a hardened warfighter? Infantry and armoured units could have very different perceptions of this role, and this would translate into variations in training, career development, prestige, etc.
The 7th is staggering around the Pacific like a drunken Irishman right now. These incidents are obviously not intentional and many are textbook cases of incompetence.
When your mission is to kill any military aged male that looks suspicious and collateral damage is acceptable then its incredibly easy to be competent.
Drone strikes killing civilians does not imply incompetence though. It's complicated ... - https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/...
Military people are usually strong leaders who understand and perform in a large organization very well. That said, there’s literally millions of soldiers, and they are in a normal curve like any other large population.
You might be a stellar naval officer, but if the navy makes a policy decision to not train seamen to navigate ships, stuff will happen in spite of your abilities. But the culture of the naval service is such that the captain has absolute authority and absolute accountability. That’s often unfair and creates other problems, but that’s how it goes.
It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.
It's very possible that this results in a slightly different management structure compared to the army.
Army Colonial says go over there and draw fire. You go over there and draw fire.
Navy Captain says go over there and draw fire. You and the Captain go over there and draw fire.
Another difference: Your boat is all by itself a strategic asset that can literally alter the outcome of an entire world war. Every submarine fits this description (even fast attack subs can carry fairly long range nuclear weapons if needed).
So the mission is important, and the people who carry it out treat it that way.
(Edit: someone downthread had explained to me that the marines are a sister organization to the us navy, and are both under a department. It makes more sense to criticize the branch based on what a sister branch did.)
As Afghanistan and Iraq show blind obedience can result in a multi decade fiasco.
The military just fights them as they should.
The people pick the wars (well, their elected leaders do), the soldiers and sailors fight them. And believe me, you don't want blind obedience at any level in the military. Blind obedience is a very, very bad thing and it will lose wars. You want loyalty, which sometimes requires disobedience (e.g. tell the captain no when he wants to turn into an undersea mountain) to work.