Making sure that nothing bad happens under your watch may not be such a bad thing in the military. Most of the critiques in this tread sound like this comment by Davidson about the french change of leadership in Vietnam:

On arrival, Navarre was shocked by what he found. There had been no long-range plan since de Lattre's departure. Everything was conducted on a day-to-day, reactive basis. Combat operations were undertaken only in response to enemy moves or threats. There was no comprehensive plan to develop the organization and build up the equipment of the Expeditionary force. Finally, Navarre, the intellectual, the cold and professional soldier, was shocked by the "school's out" attitude of Salan and his senior commanders and staff officers. They were going home, not as victors or heroes, but then, not as clear losers either. To them the important thing was that they were getting out of Indochina with their reputations frayed, but intact. They gave little thought to, or concern for, the problems of their successors.

Just look at the ambition and creativity displayed by Navarre's "hedgehog" strategy, and the (spoiler alert: dismal) result it got for France in the Vietnam war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

Not losing may in fact be one of the requirements for winning :-)

In corporations, the consequences are not that bad - closing door is not a big tragedy. Ten of thousands dead on the other hand, and a war lost is a tragedy.

So please don't dismiss the military just because they work differently. They are on a different problem space. They need different solutions.