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

US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

armyoe.files.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 129 posts

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#51

Post by pdonis »

scrum-treats wrote: post #35
pdonis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it? The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. > The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli. Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good desc…

> The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then. It is based on multitudes of studies i…

> While it is one use case, it is not all use cases.

Really? What other use cases are there for a military?

> It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like.

In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know.

As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that can actually win wars does.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#52

Post by AndrewKemendo »

mter wrote: post #3

Nothing the military puts out on leadership should be taken very seriously because of the UCMJ and because unhappy people can't quit with serious repercussions. Anyone can make a team be productive when you can overwork people, if things don't get done you threaten to take their money and threaten a demotion, no one can quit to get away from you, and there is a steady stream of bodies to use. Civilian leaders have to…

This is incorrect post Vietnam

The US is an all volunteer force and has to constantly and persistently provide a compelling alternative to other jobs - so in one sense, it's an employer like any other.

If it were as domineering as you insinuate (it isn't) then nobody would sign up and/or we would be admitting very destitute or people with no options, which isn't the case.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#53

Post by pdonis »

scrum-treats wrote: post #35
pdonis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it? The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. > The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli. Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good desc…

> The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then. It is based on multitudes of studies i…

> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality

Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#54

Post by pdonis »

scrum-treats wrote: post #35
pdonis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it? The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. > The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli. Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good desc…

> The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then. It is based on multitudes of studies i…

> there's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to endure post-service

Combat is traumatic by its very nature. Of course many people who experience it are going to have PTSD, just like with any other traumatic experience.

As for "cognitive dissonance", anyone who has been through a particular harrowing experience is going to have some difficulty dealing with people who not only have never had the experience, but devalue it because they don't understand it. The only way to fix that is to (a) teach civilians that people who volunteer to serve their country in the military deserve respect, not disdain, and (b) teach our political leaders that they need to not use the military unless it's really necessary, so that the public will support such usage instead of protesting against it.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#55

Post by gumby »

Love that it starts here:

> Demonstrate tactical and technical competence.

> Know your business. Soldiers expect their leaders to be tactically and technically competent. Soldiers want to follow those leaders who are confident of their own abilities. To be confident a leader must first be competent. Trust between soldiers and their leaders is based on the secure knowledge that the leader is competent.

(emphasis mine)

If only this advice were followed in other spheres (and is it observed in the Army or is it aspirational?)

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#56

Post by scrum-treats »

pdonis wrote: post #51
scrum-treats wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then. It is based on multitudes of studies i…

> While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. Really? What other use cases are there for a military? > It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like. In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know. As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that…

[flagged]

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#57

Post by scrum-treats »

pdonis wrote: post #53
scrum-treats wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then. It is based on multitudes of studies i…

> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh.

>> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality

> Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh.

No. It's just different; in some ways radically different than the niche reality of "military." .... That's the point.

Are you still in the military because you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind. Which gets into the illusion of free will and if that's real, but there's a boundedness that is tight or loose depending on the individual/group. And yours seems quite tight. As in, constricted from any thoughts outside your military programming. Scary stuff.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#58

Post by scrum-treats »

pdonis wrote: post #54
scrum-treats wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then. It is based on multitudes of studies i…

> there's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to endure post-service Combat is traumatic by its very nature. Of course many people who experience it are going to have PTSD, just like with any other traumatic experience. As for "cognitive dissonance", anyone who has been through a particular harrowing experience is going to have some difficulty dealing with people who not only…

> but devalue it because they don't understand it.

No one is devaluing it. I'm certainly not. Rather it is highlighting that humans are vulnerable, by genetic design. And it requires actual help to reprogram the brain. To take on the burden alone is quite a difficult and insurmountable task.

For your (a) and (b) you are definitely entitled to your opinion on how you want to be viewed and treated in the world. This is very much the same as women arguing that men should not have a say over their bodies; bodily autonomy is a human right, not a right reserved for only white men.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#59

Post by mytailorisrich »

warner25 wrote: post #44

It's interesting to see civilians looking to the military for leadership and management ideas. I'm a career Army officer, and when I was a young officer I looked to civilian books and other resources for management advice. Over the years, however, I've come appreciate more what the Army has written on the topic. Here's the current (2019) version of the Army's doctrine on leadership, if anyone wants to see how it has…

Historically, leadership has always been a military thing. This was really the time in which one had to lead many men and, furthermore, when the circumstances meant they would instinctively have pushed back on what was asked of them.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#60

Post by GartzenDeHaes »

mter wrote: post #19
dctoedt wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious: Have you served (in the military)?

Yes, 02-05, OEF/OIF 11b got out as an E4. I was incredibly unimpressed with military leadership. You can read about my old BC if you're interested: https://journalnow.com/colonels-wife-in-middle-of-military-w...

An E6 I knew started making some official complaints because a colonel was sleeping with his wife (also an E6). The colonel's wife sat him down and told him, "(the colonel) is going to make general soon" so you should just put up with it and stop causing problems.
Post reply on HN