On Jul 8, 2007, at 7:31 PM, phil henshaw wrote:
Good observation, about using young mend when they are most
maleable for making platoons and follow commands. It's the
opportunity for emergent structure, as well as in this case, people
who wish to exploite it, that makes the difference. I don't
generally buy the evolutionary value laden self interest of genes
idea for what makes systems powerful, but how the confluence of
diverse factors and a catalyst actually engage a developmental
process. And it's often contradictions like the fact that these
are not the men most fit for the job, but the ones dumb enough for
the job, that raises the questions that reveal what's actually
going on. Older men would think more. Bad for armies!
I had no idea when I read this (a revelation to me at the time)
whether it was empirical observation all senior officers in armies
understood, or grounded in biology. Both, apparently, but for
centuries, empirical observation served well enough.
As for your next two paragraphs, Phil, I do believe many in the
military understand the situation completely--my 80-year-old cousin,
who served as a member of the British SAS in WW II, yelled at me on
the phone last night: "A field army can never fight a guerilla
army." It's no secret. Whether the officers who understand it have--
or once had--the power to do anything about it I don't know, but it
seems unlikely. Those who once balked have been replaced. Our
military is quite properly under the direction of civilians. I hope
it will always be so, even when the civilians fail as egregiously to
understand things as they have failed in this instance.
"One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion,
because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not
noticed it."
Bertrand Russell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
