There are others. Lot of gray out there...Unbeatable in many respects, no question -- but sometimes the desired result will require a degree of effectiveness to be achieved that is inefficient.There's absolutely no point in preferring effectiveness over efficiency because efficiency in achieving a desired effect (= at minimum cost) is simply unbeatable.It also puts the two variables in competition.Effectiveness is only about one variable while efficiency considers two important variables - it's a much richer term.
Sometimes efficiency will win, occasionally effectiveness will.I agree with that, however, not everyone has a functioning brain. If one has functioning brain, one may occasionally run across an opponent whose brain functions a little better, causing efficiency to take second place to effectiveness.No one with a functioning brain will ever strive for the best ratio of effect and cost and willfully fail to achieve the desired level of effect by doing so.We can agree on that as wellThe damage that wasteful behaviour in the military does to the welfare of the nation is extreme.And that...Many "victories" were more damaging (net) to the "victorious" nation than staying at peace would have been.Probably true. Shame there are people out there who either don't realize that or don't care...The costs of military & war suck and threaten to badly impair the Western nations in their ability to reform themselves for the future.
Economics is indeed the dismal science. Warfare OTOH is not a scientific endeavor -- it is the application of an art. Art is inherently inefficient.
Bookmarks