"Petraeus / Nagl / Kilcullen approach to counter-insurgency is antiquated/misguided"

[Tom Odom]

John Robb wrote,

OFF TOPIC:
The interchangeability of commercial thought and military thought scares me. You can't even read an article on the conflict without the terminology pervading it. War is not business.

Hardly off topic, mate! One is directly related to the other and we as a nation have struggled with this phenomenon forever. Sometimes itv has been a force for good: Elihu Root's reforms were a case in point. Then again we have the "Shock and Awe" (Translated "I'm shocked my model din't work and Aw, Sh%# they don't love us) crowd.

Best

Tom

[John T. Fishel]

Historically, it has been business thinkers who have appropriated military terminology while rarely internalizing or even comprehending the concepts. This is often seen in what business calls "strategy" which they seem to think has something to do with planning for quarterly profits.

I am reminded of the discussion among the wives of the test pilots in the film version of The Right Stuff where one says that her college friends married to businessmen talk about the vicious warfare on Wall Street but have no idea what it is like wondering if their husbands will come home from work that day alive, in a body bag, or at all.

[marct]

Hi John,

Historically, it has been business thinkers who have appropriated military terminology while rarely internalizing or even comprehending the concepts. This is often seen in what business calls "strategy" which they seem to think has something to do with planning for quarterly profits.

I'll beg to differ on this - the original relationship, at least in the modern world, was the other way; business to the military. It really starts with the Dutch in the 16th century and the application of manufacturing processes,particularly interchangeability and standardization, to producing civil militias that could fight the Spanish. It really goes into high speed in the late 18th century / early 19th century with the centralization of military logistical production (especially cannon balls) and with Napoleon's integration of civilian and military production.

I think, although I could easily be wrong, that what you are referring to is the application of the General Staff model to business organization with the development of FW Tyler's Scientific Management and the rapid spread of Fordist production techniques. That's certainly when we start to see large amounts of military rhetoric and terminology appearing in the business literature. I've also found it fascinating that most business authors and practitioners know so little about their original impacts on the military.

As far as your point about business "getting the concepts", you are totally right and I couldn't agree more. Even worse, over the past 25 years or so, the model of "military" that appears to have been adopted by business is closer to that of the "military" after the fall of the Minoan Empire. Look at the terms used: "raiders", "acquisitions", "pirates", etc. On the whole, few of them seem to have the same time horizon as the military (BTW, this is also seen in the use of the term "consumer" rather than "customer" in terms of relationship).

Marc

[John T. Fishel]

Hi Marc--

I defer to you on the early history. But the main point there is that an interaction and interchange has taken place. It probably started before the Greeks came up with the word 'Strategos' and has been bouncing back and forth incorporating other 'disciplines' ever since.

Since I am positively ancient, my personal historical frame of reference is from WWII to the present. Frederick Taylor and the Scientific Management school certainly had an influence and was influenced in turn.

Agree completely regarding the analogous business version of the military as being 'post-Minoan' or perhaps, just Caribbean pirates, or the Sumatra ones who took on a US nuclear attack sub in the early 90s in the Straist of Malacca...

Cheers

John

[marct]

Hi John,

I defer to you on the early history. But the main point there is that an interaction and interchange has taken place. It probably started before the Greeks came up with the word 'Strategos' and has been bouncing back and forth incorporating other 'disciplines' ever since.

Oh, totally true. Sorry if I sounded a bit touchy about the early modern stuff, but it's been a bit of a button for me with many of my colleagues (in Sociology especially) disregarding it. Actually, I think we could certainly make a good case for the linkages going back to at least the Minoan period - those Linear B texts from Pylos and Knossos are really pretty boring, but they do show a strong linkage on the logistics side.

Since I am positively ancient, my personal historical frame of reference is from WWII to the present. Frederick Taylor and the Scientific Management school certainly had an influence and was influenced in turn.

One influence (B2M) that I always thought was very useful was the "trouble shooters" in WWII. In some ways, I'm rather surprised that we haven't used them in this war.

Marc

[Tom Odom]

One influence (B2M) that I always thought was very useful was the "trouble shooters" in WWII. In some ways, I'm rather surprised that we haven't used them in this war.

We do, Marc. JIEDDO is just that on a mega scale.

Tom

[marct]

We do, Marc. JIEDDO is just that on a mega scale.

Hi Tom,

Sorry, I was subconsciously thinking about Canada .

Marc