The acoup blog just did a piece on chemical weapons and their dis/use in modern times. Part of that analysis was a dive into Modern v. Static armies.
Static armies are what Saddam, Assad, and the Iranians have. Though their weapons are pretty up to date, they still get squished when fighting Modern armies like the US or France. That is because their 'doctrine' is Static, mostly to be coup-proof. In Static Armies, you don't give field commanders a lot of lee-way or control. You send orders, they execute. They don't get to play jazz. This is due to regime issues that don't translate into up to date warfare.
In Modern armies, you have terribly expensive weapons too. But the training is what makes it really work. You have to train field commanders to play jazz and improvise. It's a constant blitzkrieg of movement and mechanized/digitized warfare. There is no sitting around. That takes training people to think for themselves; a big no-no in regimes.
The US is the example of a modern force, complete with fancy gadgets and fancy training.
We should expect that NYNG could get eight field hospitals going in hours. That is the entire basis of our military, to move really fast and get things done. Imperfectly? Oh hell yes. But fast is the entire name of the game.
What happens when those workers all get Covid-19? This is an invisible enemy that's already on our soil and growing exponentially with the ability to spread by asymptomatic carriers. I hope you are right....
Not to be heartless, but many militaries are fairly experienced in rapid reductions in manpower resources.
Also, acoup's blog post does a really good job of going through the differences in Modern and Static military doctrines. Much better than my TLDR of it.
WWI[1] - the pandemic ended up being called "Spanish flu" because Spain was the only country publishing accurate statistics since it was neutral in the war. The belligerents were heavily affected, but were muzzling the press due to wartime censorship.
I promise you, there is very little improvisation or "jazz" in the U.S. Army and a lot of micromangement and bureaucracy.
The experience is more akin to being in a massive company with tons of middle managers who are always looking to self-promote and cover their a.
The army has many great men and women in it, despite the bs, but let's not pretend it's some "dynamic" entity.
Don't believe me? Read Bob Gates' memoir, where he recounts how as SecDef he had to fight the Pentagon brass just to get MRAPs that would save lives. And he was in charge of the department!
>In Static Armies, you don't give field commanders a lot of lee-way or control. You send orders, they execute.
If we had a Static Army, the Pentagon brass would have immediately yielded to SecDef and executed his orders. The fact that there had to be immense debate around the issue means that everyone is granted the right to do their thing and improvise in the meantime. You can bet troops were trying all sorts of wacky things to IED-proof their Humvees.
I think the point is that, there is a bureaucracy to fight. Sometimes units can simply do what needs done, other times they'll need resources and get them, and other times then need resources and not get them.
But you can bet no high ranking officer in Saddam Hussein's army was successfully "fighting the bureaucracy" to get things through.
acoup's post goes into much better detail and I'll point any readers to it.
One tid-bit I did find interesting was :
"Likewise, armies with weak organization, training and discipline will find chemical preparedness – which involves a lot of training on how to get those gas masks and NBC suits on fast – very difficult; actually getting all of the fidgety equipment to the right spots will also prove hard (but is second-nature to a modern system military which has nothing but fidgety equipment)."
I think that acoup's point extends to most aspects of the military and to parts of civilian life as well. The complex, murky, and seemingly insane rulesets of command systems in Modern militaries is a feature, not a bug, though most people in it understandably disagree and are screaming at their screens right now. There's that old apocryphal quote that goes something like: war is chaos, which is why the Americans do so well in it, as they practice it on a daily basis.
Econtalk had a great bit on chaos in potato chip sales. Brendan O'Donohoe of Frito-Lay mentions that he randomly makes people take vacations, pulls them on to other projects, jazzes things up, so that his team can better sell potato chips. I've no idea of their internal numbers back in 2011, but based on his current LI, he's done alright enough since then (maybe, I really can't judge here)
Static armies are what Saddam, Assad, and the Iranians have. Though their weapons are pretty up to date, they still get squished when fighting Modern armies like the US or France. That is because their 'doctrine' is Static, mostly to be coup-proof. In Static Armies, you don't give field commanders a lot of lee-way or control. You send orders, they execute. They don't get to play jazz. This is due to regime issues that don't translate into up to date warfare.
In Modern armies, you have terribly expensive weapons too. But the training is what makes it really work. You have to train field commanders to play jazz and improvise. It's a constant blitzkrieg of movement and mechanized/digitized warfare. There is no sitting around. That takes training people to think for themselves; a big no-no in regimes.
The US is the example of a modern force, complete with fancy gadgets and fancy training.
We should expect that NYNG could get eight field hospitals going in hours. That is the entire basis of our military, to move really fast and get things done. Imperfectly? Oh hell yes. But fast is the entire name of the game.
https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...