he is us

Somebody reminded me of that recently when I was complaining about advocates on 2 opposing sides of an issue who wound up working together to try and get something going that really did not solve the problem, lays the ground work for more problems, and muddies the importance of the question we should be asking. Why do we do that I thought - why would we settle for something that not only is not what we were after, but complicates the problem we're trying to solve?

I think it has something to do with human nature - and probably biology. It goes back to the joke about the evolutionary process that has produced modern man - the ones who were too inquisitive got eaten! We are naturally suspicious of others and their ideas to a point where we often work to our own disadvantage. My son told me he wanted $30 for a video game - I told him he could earn it by doing 5 chores for a $1 a piece for 6 weeks. He told me that was too hard - he'd wait 6 months till his Birthday. This is kinda funny I thought, because I'm going to ave him do the chores anyway - the difference is he'd have gotten paid, and I would not have to tell him to do them - same amount of work - but somehow he thought it was easier to wait

We all point to institutions like HRC, DFAS, OSF, OTC, Congress, IRS etc. as if by abolishing the institutions and the bureaucracy we could solve our problems. We ascribe value to them that may be better ascribed to individual people who work there and the sub cultures that develop around the jobs and functions they do. People are pretty adept at changing hats – I knew a BN XO who could be the world’s most anal fellow in the office, but outside the role – he was not even close to the same person. He simply adopted the personage he needed to be the CDR’s hit man on accountability and maintenance issues – it was an enabler to fulfill his role.

Its also useful to consider why we build institutions, processes, and bureaucracy – there is either a real need, a perceived need, or a desire to attempt to make our lives easier. The last one is kind of interesting because it might mean the genesis of the idea was by someone who believed that regardless how the world really operates – their way is better. The former two though are reasonably altruistic – our desire to make something work better. Like many things though – the original function of the system, process, institution, etc. takes on a life of its own, far beyond the intended purpose. This could be good or bad, but we often take it for granted that it is still a good idea.

Now we may not be able to ascribe its worth in terms that let us consider if it should be abolished, or improved because we don’t really understand how it fits in, and probably don’t understand its original purpose in the first place. We could be talking about an Army system, or the Supreme Court. Even if there is written evidence, people will argue over the context and true intent of something to get their way – regardless of if the outcomes really benefits them or is harmful to them in the long run.

I’d say the tendency to try and create efficiencies is also human nature – it drives pursuit of technology and it is often the criteria by which we evaluate ourselves ad other cultures. The issue of efficiency vs. effectiveness is tough one to crack – even when we know from experience that there are some things that will not coincide – that somethings require blood and hard work to procure and secure, even when we know the sacrifice that was required to do so, even when we know there are people who want to take it way or advantage themselves – we still remain glued to the idea that we can have it both ways. This is why I believe you have to stay involved in these things – you can’t succumb to the delusion that you’ve fixed something – there is always somebody or something following you around unfixing it – or fixing it the way think it should be. If you abolished the Hoffman building, somebody come right behind you and build a new one and call it something else and hire all the same people back.

I think you can influence and inform the process though. We do that right here. The key is in communications that describe the risks and benefits so that we get closer to real solutions. There has to be tension and there must be some disagreements – or the truth gets muddled over and the important pieces don’t stick out – arguing (or even risking War over) should be a clear signal as to what is important.

We may not like the bureaucracy, but it provides a means to an end. Without it, lots of supporting things we take for granted would have to be recreated – and I think it would not be long before the same conditions occur – kinda like when I read the Cushman articles, or any personal accounts that recall events that have the “well, seen this one before” feel to them.

The difference I think is the role leadership plays. Leaders can animate the process, stave off the tide for awhile (or at least protect a few important things). Leaders can keep us from killing the things which are most important and can not be easily rebuilt. Leaders can convince folks with seemingly disparate interests to cooperate. I think I’ve acknowledged to myself that we’re going to go down this road again, its just a matter of time – there are just to many external factors, and as much as we’d like to believe it – events beyond our control will effect our decisions. This is another reason why I think its important to have the discussion about the changing role of the military – why its important that the CAC CDR informed Congress that we are placing importance on Stability Operations in our Capstone Doctrine – whatever else was said – part of the message is that we acknowledge that “you” the civilian control side have the better of the unequal dialogue and as such we must be prepared to do the things to support that – even if you the civilian side don’t know when or where that will be. Now getting our internal culture to acknowledge that is another matter.

Funny how a person can undervalue a well known statement like “we’ve met the enemy and he is us” – maybe it is because we hate to hear truths like that – it makes all we do seem less important – and makes us question the futility of some of our efforts. I hate that duality stuff – it makes my head hurt.

Best Rob