Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How a preventable disaster killed six marines

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 130 posts

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#111

Post by js8 »

ip26 wrote: post #104
js8 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same flaws mentioned in the article - lack of accountability in the upper layers of hierarchy, which resulted in loss of human life. Possible solution is more democratic control (by the people down in the hierarchy) over the people who are in charge, for example an independently elected accountability board with a power to penalize and recall the leaders.

So, some kind of democratically elected commander in chief who is the supreme commander of the US military?

Yes, but you need a shorter feedback loop too. The U.S. president doesn't make the decisions that would be required to fix the problems that the article is talking about.

I am not sure if it's practiced in the U.S., but in Europe lot of universities were historically actually run democratically, the management was elected by academics and students. So something like that.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#112

Post by js8 »

rmah wrote: post #93
js8 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> heirarchy and democracy coexist rather than being mutually exclusive Exactly, that is my point, in the army they are exclusive though. The people lower in the hierarchy have little say in whether they trust the people upper in the hierarchy. > Heirarchy dominates state-level organization with or without democracy, just like it does virtually all other human enterprises. That is true, but that's my point also. Why d…

The US experimented with democratic military structures during the early days of the Civil War (and perhaps before) at the regiment and company levels. Some volunteer regiments elected their officers. This did not turn out well and the practice was abandoned.

That's certainly a worthy endeavor but I don't believe you can build democracy from the bottom (by embedding it in the larger hierarchical structure), it has to start from the top. At the bottom, it will not be taken seriously.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#113

Post by js8 »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #91
js8 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you mean specifically, but this was not in a context of combat operations, where quick decisions were needed. There was plenty of time to address the complaints and fix the problems.

The question is, if you need an organization to work efficiently as an hierarchical organization at a moments notice (because that's how you have to plan), is it possible for the organization to operate the majority of the time not as an hierarchical organization.

I don't see why it would be a problem. As someone already mentioned here, the members of the U.S. military are also voters. So people have no trouble doing both.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#114

Post by jschwartzi »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #67
goatinaboat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? We give oxygen to injured people because their lungs are impaired. But you can’t force more oxygen into the blood than it can carry, it just doesn’t work like that.

Our blood rarely carries all the oxygen it can. If its suddenly saturated, that means more oxygen throughout the body for metabolic purposes.

It also fucks up your blood pH which can have pretty nasty effects on body tissue.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#115

Post by js8 »

NeuNeurosis wrote: post #107
js8 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain why people do not massively despise hierarchies in the first place.

People play lip service to hating hierarchy's but I would argue that they regularly espouse them and value them in almost all aspects of their lives. The ones they seem to hate are the faceless ones that they don't understand how they work, why they exist and who really runs them and has stakes in them. People hate facelessness especially from those in power. But they are more than happy to take orders from someone t…

As I mentioned, the exact reasons why people value hierarchies are IMHO not known. But people do value them, although differently. I recommend looking at the book The Authoritarians from Bob Altemeyer, which outlines the mindset of people who are Trump supporters.

There is also some research into universal values like Jonathan Haidt does, which shows that liberals value hierarchy less than conservatives. So people in fact do have somewhat different value systems.

Also, there was a fascinating story from Robert Sapolsky, which showed that in baboons, lack of strict hierarchy can actually benefit the group.

Personally, I am totally willing to take orders from my boss if I have good relationship with him, but I perceive it as helping a fellow human, I am not doing it out of respect to hierarchy. I think this can alternatively explain what you observe.

As I already stated, we have many possible explanations (and also perplexing examples) both pro and against hierarchies, but there is no clear unifying theory. The above is just a sampling.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#116

Post by ip26 »

js8 wrote: post #111
ip26 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, some kind of democratically elected commander in chief who is the supreme commander of the US military?

Yes, but you need a shorter feedback loop too. The U.S. president doesn't make the decisions that would be required to fix the problems that the article is talking about. I am not sure if it's practiced in the U.S., but in Europe lot of universities were historically actually run democratically, the management was elected by academics and students. So something like that.

So instead of the public electing the President who appoints generals etc, the military elects its own leaders? Not to be difficult, but I think history teaches us that's how you get a military coup.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#118

Post by js8 »

ip26 wrote: post #116
js8 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but you need a shorter feedback loop too. The U.S. president doesn't make the decisions that would be required to fix the problems that the article is talking about. I am not sure if it's practiced in the U.S., but in Europe lot of universities were historically actually run democratically, the management was elected by academics and students. So something like that.

So instead of the public electing the President who appoints generals etc, the military elects its own leaders? Not to be difficult, but I think history teaches us that's how you get a military coup.

No, military could elect its own leaders regarding matters that concern the military. Citizens would still elect normal government, to which the military would be subjected.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#119

Post by jimktrains2 »

csours wrote: post #64
dmos62 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the Japanese Navy showed up, the US Navy weighed anchor and left I'm not even an amateur pacific theater historian, but I know that this story is more nuanced than that, and your implication that the Navy didn't cooperate sounds naive. It's true that the US armed forces suffer from high division. My canonical example is the retirement of A-10 in favor of F-35.

Of course it's more nuanced than that, but imagine you are a Marine on the beach. Do you care about the nuance, or do you care about seeing the ships leave with your supplies. When I read history, I try to imagine it with at least 3 points of view - the individual soldier, the commander, and the whole conflict. It is possible to take someone's lived experience seriously while still realizing that they don't have all…

> It is possible to take someone's lived experience seriously while still realizing that they don't have all the answers and they have biases.

That's excellent advice for almost any encounter in day to day life, including tech support. Something that the people I work with love is that if they say there is a problem, I believe there is a problem. It might not be specifically what they said, or what they said might be impossible, but if you can picture their point of view, their knowledge, and try to imagine a situation that would look like what they described you can often dive directly to the problem.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#120

Post by mncharity »

tomlocke wrote: post #117

No one has yet mentioned "Lying to Ourselves," so I will. It's a great essay on this topic.

> Lying to Ourselves[: Dishonesty in the Army Profession]

A post[1] and working link[2]. The two HN submissions got no traction.

[1] https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/lying-to-ourselves-the-dem... [2] https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA615274

Post reply on HN