Agree.True but I disagree with the concept (not that anyone cares...) because it leads to esoteric discussions instead of concentration on issues.Resilience as a concept is a precursor to much of the discussion on sustainability and military concepts such as force protection.Granted on the effect -- how either Society responds though is the indicator of their real 'resilience.' Also note that 'not just in time' society may surprise you with their resilience in spite of the massive change in their norms.A resilient society can withstand privation and sacrifice much more than a "just in time" inventory society with levels and depths of brittle systems built upon each others.The 'resilience' is shown by how that force functions without contractors should they be abruptly removed. My suspicion is they would do far better than the Contractors would like to believeSimilarly the use of of contractors in the battlespace and substantial reliance on high cost weapons systems may appear to be effective but increase the brittle nature of conduct of war.You may use resiliency; I'd prefer reliable and redundant; not the same thingsOvercoming or adapting may be sexy to scream as mantras but if the systems were resilient in the first place would be unnecessary.One would hope so. Don't think I've been to a McDonalds in over 10 years.In the end resilience admonition to societies from a variety of angles and to people directly that survival is about more than having a McDonalds available in time of disaster.
I get the point, Sam -- and do not disagree with the broad context. I do, however, believe that 'resilience' is built in to military structures and to people in general. That and I shudder every time a new term du jour pops up...
Bookmarks