From: prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: The need for an Army
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:13:51 GMT


From prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov


 Emmanuel Baechler <baechler@lia.di.epfl.ch> writes:


   It is a matter of fact that the swiss army is used to humiliate quite
   a lot its soldiers through different practices. This has caused a lot
   of anger among people (from every political side) against our army.
   That`s not new and that's admitted by almost anyone here. Our
   government is very worried by this, and it is searching a way to
   change this pretty quickly. They are especially looking at what's
   being done in this domain in Germany (there is a statement in their
   rules stating that they are here to preotect human diginity, and they
   are very strict with this, even toward their soldiers and officiers).

long before the organizational theorists developed the "Theory X" and
"Theory Y" models of human behavior, military organizations had and have
always embraced Theory X, which basically says that people are inherently
lazy, dishonest etc. and must be motivated by fear.  the success of
Theory Y in many innovative organizations will hopefully migrate to
the military.  but my theory on that kind of thing is that you have
to start at the top.  your top guy (or gal) must not tolerate substandard
performance or ethics from any subordinate.  very few people who reach
the top are able to maintain high standards of conduct for themselves,
thus finding it difficult to hold others to high standards.  people at the
drill sergeant level are going to do what they've been taught, and
so on up the line to the CinC (or corporate president, whatever).

   This point is relevant to the discussion because a militia, as any other
   army, needs a legitimity. The need is even stronger in this case, because
   everyone has to be convinced that our army is legitimate and that he is
   doing the right thing by being in the army, and that this army is doing
   the right thing.

as long as the general population feels its an "us versus them" scenario
where some self-appointed pseudo-aristocracy runs the show, they won't
want to participate.  consider the low election turnouts in the US, for
example.

   In my first paragraph I was claiming something much simpler: militia do
   not have the degree of professionalism and the quickness of reaction 
   needed by today's conflicts. A militia which needs 48 hours to mobilize
   is of little use agains an SS-18 or even a SU-27 with modern missiles.
   In addition, it is more and more difficult to edutate people to use more
   and more complex systems, which are used by professionals everywhere.
   This means that we will probably need some sort of permanent unit able
   to react immediatly at any time.

even in much earlier times, there have been spectacular failures of
amateur militias.  witness the American performance in the War of 1812.
our militias, funded and controlled by the state governments, were
slow to respond, were for the most part poorly equipped and trained
and fought well only on their home turf.  any time they travelled
onto an adjacent state's turf in pursuit of the Brits, they faltered.
with today's high-speed, massive-scale combat, a standing army of
professional volunteers would seem necessary for success against
a modern opponent.

however, a strong military will collapse without a strong economy to
support it, and in the increasingly competitive international market
few governments are going to increase defense spending and risk loss
of industry due to lack of subsidization.  an interesting Catch-22.

   Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare.

why not make war illegal and put Australian rules football in the Olympics?
higher body counts and more TV timeouts.


--
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Devon Prichard                       I haven't lost my mind;         |
 | Senior Gofer                         its backed up on tape somewhere.|
 | Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.                                  |
 | prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov                                         |
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Newsgroups: sci.military