I cannot help but wonder if the problem lies in an implicit assumption – said assumption being that the civilian and military leadership communicate effectively.
It is my observation that the civilian world functions differently than does the military world. For that matter, the civilian world operates differently than a large police department. Many of the basic attitudes and values are so divergent that I wonder if successful communication can exist.
Quote:
|
That’s my job. If they give me a toothpick, dental floss and a good hunting knife, I will accomplish the mission.”
|
Contrast the above can-do no-whining attitude with what we see from various areas that have faced a natural disaster. In many situations, vigorous sniveling generates good rewards. People and organizations seek more resources, more money, more help of every sort – and, they get what they ask for.
If the civilian leadership doesn’t understand the communications disconnect, they might give a command to do much with little. The military personnel will seek to accomplish the mission with dental floss. The civilian leadership will then be surprised (truly, deeply surprised) when things turn out badly. After all, the military leadership assured them the mission would be accomplished. Both sides functioned according to their underlying assumptions, both sides sought to communicate, and both sides are disappointed in the results. Would a general officer weep, whine, and whimper? Obviously, such a scenario is ludicrous. However, will the civilian leader recognize urgency without accompanying drama?
I offer no solutions. I confess to deep ignorance of military matters. Still, I cannot help wondering if the problems aren’t an unintended and unconscious failure to communicate. Perhaps General Petraeus’ idea about officers attending civilian graduate schools would help.