Hacker News Reader

Comment by clouddrover | Hacker News Reader

To actually have done something and contributed to designing and producing aircraft. To actually have an aeronautical engineering background. That's the business Boeing is in.

Putting inexpert people in positions of authority is guaranteed to damage a business, as Boeing is now finding out.

View on HN

In the anstract, do you think civilian control of the military is wrong then, too?

Should experts always be in control everywhere or are there limits?

The military likely would be more effective with generals in charge, yes.

There are downsides to that, which is why we don't do it. You can judge for yourself if those same downsides apply to Boeing.

I think that goes to the heart of it: I am not sure generals would necessarily be better at achieving the political objectives of what the military is for.

In the same way, I couldn't say if Boing would need something more closer to a priest or a technocrat.

Civilians don't run the military. The military experts run the military. That's a good thing.

And the military doesn't run the government. That's also a good thing.

The only way your analogy works is if you think it's a good idea to appoint generals and admirals who have no military experience. I hope you don't.

In most Western countries the most senior person in command is a civilian, not a general or admiral (and there are civilians in various other positions, too).

Answer what has been put to you: Do you think people with no military experience should be generals and admirals?

I don't see that as the right analogy, because the highest command authority already is with a civilian.

Anyway, why not under certain circumstances? Already now there are differences between countries what is run by the military and what isn't.

> Anyway, why not under certain circumstances?

Because someone with no military experience is inexpert. They don't know what they're doing.

In the military a lack of expertise is very likely to result in people dying unnecessarily.

So when currently in country A something is done by the military and in country B by civilians, only country A has it right?

The US army corps of engineers being in charge of levees isn't the only way, for example. A lot of generals don't fight wars. And those who do, are under civilian supervision.

Civilians control but don't manage the military. They control it, in the sense of setting the goals, but they don't generally manage things after that.

The equivalent here would be the customers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com