StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Those of you getting hung up on manholes not being round may be confusing them with utility boxes, which are usually rounded squares or rectangles.

erik_t wrote:So if your superior tells you to move leg infantry a hundred miles across broken terrain by nightfall, it's better to say "yes boss" and then get them a tenth of the way there, rather than tell the boss that it's not doable? What planet are you from?

That's a straw man argument. Competent officers do not give ludicrous missions.

LTG Asanee is an experienced officer, who moreover, knows the local terrain. You tend to do that when your charge is to defend a small country that is subject to ground attack - a situation the US hasn't really faced since the Mexican War.

She ordered the First Regiment to be in Chong Sadao by dusk, a distance of 73km over all all-weather roads. The unit is mechanized, or at least motorized. This is a two hour drive. It is well before noon. The sun sets at what, 1800?

The Country was at war, under invasion. The unit, every unit, should have been ready to move. There would be no excuse for not having advance elements in Chong Sado in three hours. They could probably achieve it in two.

"Can't" was an admission of defeat. LTG Asanee needed officers who COULD. She also needed to make the point that there was no room in the Army for officers who could not.

I'm sure culturing a circle of yes-men does wonders for individual thinking, problem-solving and initiative.

Culturing a circle of losers does wonders for individual thinking, problem-solving and initiative.

Stuart wrote:
In which case, the correct response is "I'll have a movement orders and status report ready in XX minutes" not a knee-jerk "we can't do it."

Except, it wasn't "We can't do it", it was "We can't do it because..." "You're fired." Rather than acknowledging that the cream of the Thai military has been in Hell, and these are dudes hanging out in the wilderness(or close enough for our purposes) and probably relatively undermanned and under supplied with poor morale, we get her targeting her political enemies in a pissing match.

Except, it wasn't "We can't do it", it was "We can't do it because..." "You're fired." Rather than acknowledging that the cream of the Thai military has been in Hell, and these are dudes hanging out in the wilderness(or close enough for our purposes) and probably relatively undermanned and under supplied with poor morale, we get her targeting her political enemies in a pissing match.

What're you basing that assessment on?

That's a straw man argument. Competent officers do not give ludicrous missions.

LTG Asanee is an experienced officer, who moreover, knows the local terrain. You tend to do that when your charge is to defend a small country that is subject to ground attack - a situation the US hasn't really faced since the Mexican War.

She ordered the First Regiment to be in Chong Sadao by dusk, a distance of 73km over all all-weather roads. The unit is mechanized, or at least motorized. This is a two hour drive. It is well before noon. The sun sets at what, 1800?

The Country was at war, under invasion. The unit, every unit, should have been ready to move. There would be no excuse for not having advance elements in Chong Sado in three hours. They could probably achieve it in two.

"Can't" was an admission of defeat. LTG Asanee needed officers who COULD. She also needed to make the point that there was no room in the Army for officers who could not.

As I recall, there is definite rationing in Armageddonverse, and some backwater regiments might not have a substantial supply of fuel. The statement could quite literally have been:

"We can't do it, we've only just moved into $PLACENAME and our logistics train hasn't caught up.

We'll never know because he didn't even finish getting the sentence out of his mouth.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
What're you basing that assessment on?

Because she was gloating that the ex=Prime Minister was gone because he "pissed in the Army's cereal"?

This is not that huge of a leap to make.

erik_t wrote:So if your superior tells you to move leg infantry a hundred miles across broken terrain by nightfall, it's better to say "yes boss" and then get them a tenth of the way there, rather than tell the boss that it's not doable? What planet are you from?

It gets you a culture of people who are willing to attack with their teeth and toenails, if that's all they have left.

There's a reason that Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade" is required reading in many military academies. You're to tell your commander the truth, that you think it can't be done. Then try to do it any way. If you fail because hey, it really WAS impossible to do, it's not your fault, and your commander takes the chop to the neck.

Okay, you may have died in the process, but at least you were posthumously vindicated - that's what matters in the military.

"I tried and died, but I did try."

Ed.

EdBecerra wrote:

erik_t wrote:So if your superior tells you to move leg infantry a hundred miles across broken terrain by nightfall, it's better to say "yes boss" and then get them a tenth of the way there, rather than tell the boss that it's not doable? What planet are you from?

It gets you a culture of people who are willing to attack with their teeth and toenails, if that's all they have left.

No, it gets you the stupidity of the Iraq Occupation, where Rumsfeld fired people until he got someone who was willing to say "Yes, Mr. Rumsfeld, we can successfully occupy and rebuild Iraq with maybe a hundred thousand troops".

Darth Wong wrote:

EdBecerra wrote:

erik_t wrote:So if your superior tells you to move leg infantry a hundred miles across broken terrain by nightfall, it's better to say "yes boss" and then get them a tenth of the way there, rather than tell the boss that it's not doable? What planet are you from?

It gets you a culture of people who are willing to attack with their teeth and toenails, if that's all they have left.

No, it gets you the stupidity of the Iraq Occupation, where Rumsfeld fired people until he got someone who was willing to say "Yes, Mr. Rumsfeld, we can successfully occupy and rebuild Iraq with maybe a hundred thousand troops".

Speaking as a former soldier myself, and quoting a philosopher who spoke on the subject:

"A rational army would run away."

-- Montesquieu

By any rational (and selfish) standard, no sane man would fight in anything other than the defense of his home. It's the man who, when ordered to march off a bridge, salutes and does it that makes an army. The others are just skirmishers, backed into fighting because there might be a threat to their family or their property, and more than willing to stop fighting if you leave them be.

Jerry Pournell put it even better than I can.

To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you’re all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike, to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King, to be rear guard at Kunu-ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead drill; these are not rational acts.

They are often merely necessary.

Through history, through painful experience, military professionals have built up a specialized knowledge: how to induce men (including most especially themselves) to fight, aye, and to die. To charge the guns at Breed’s Hill and New Orleans, at Chippewa and at Cold Harbor; to climb the wall of the Embassy Compound at Peking; to go ashore at Betio and Saipan; to load and fire with precision and accuracy while the Bon Homme Richard is sinking; to fly in that thin air five miles above a hostile land and bring the ship straight and level for thirty seconds over Regensberg and Ploesti; to endure at Heartbreak Ridge and Porkchop Hill and the Iron Triangle and Dien Bien Phu and Hue and Firebase 34 and a thousand nameless hills and villages.

-- Jerry Pournell, Mercenaries and Military Virtue.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/j ... irtue.html

If that makes makes no sense to you, Darth, then I suppose there's no bridging the mental gap between us. You'll regard me as insane, and I'll feel the same about you. And we'll both probably be right.

And you're quite right, Rumsfeld did abuse things, because the controls were there FOR him to abuse.

But if those same controls hadn't been there, there wouldn't be a USA.

It's like a steering wheel on a car. You need one, but hey, at any moment, a deranged passenger might try to grab the wheel and take control of the car away from you.

Do you, for fear this might happen, give up driving anywhere?

The military's just another tool for civilization to use. And any tool can be misused. Do you throw your tools away because you fear your neighbor might misuse them when your back is turned?

*shrugs*

If you do, YOU can't use your tools yourself.

So, it's live with the risk or.... live with the risk.

A choice that really isn't a choice. Hobson's choice, if you will.

That really sucks, but history tends to show you can't do anything about it.

Don't let that stop you from trying though - you may be the next sage who finds a new way for the human race to exist. A new social breakthrough. A new way of life.

I hope you do. I really do, as I don't like the human race much, and want to see a better way come into being.

But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it...

Ed.

That's a load of bullshit. The idea that one must choose between mindless obedience and complete selfishness is a pure black/white fallacy: as blatant as they come.

Maybe that kind of nonsense flies in whatever venue you're used to arguing in, but this is not one of those venues.

Darth Wong wrote:That's a load of bullshit. The idea that one must choose between mindless obedience and complete selfishness is a pure black/white fallacy: as blatant as they come.

Maybe that kind of nonsense flies in whatever venue you're used to arguing in, but this is not one of those venues.

*shrugs*

As I said.

And it's not entirely mindless. At least in my case, it was a matter of honor. I gave my word of honor when I swore to uphold, protect and defend the constitution of the USA. That means I swore away my life. My life no longer belonged to me, it belonged to the holder of my contract.

Did this mean I was a mindless automaton? That depends on how you define your terms. Part of my oath involved my never being given orders that were illegal and/or immoral. I was expected to use my brain -- but at the same time, never violate my oath.

That CAN back a person into a corner.

But if the orders are legal, and within the bounds of ethics and morality, then I was bound by my oath to obey them, however stupid or impossible they seem.

If my commander ordered me to move a mountain, I'd report to him with a pick and shovel under one arm, ready to try. I'd express my doubts to him about my ability to succeed, but I'd do so in private and I'd still go out there and try to move that damned mountain.

The "good old college try", as some people put it.

(Feel free to play the theme song "Dream the Impossible Dream" at this point...)

I even did it once.

My sergeant at Ft. Carson ordered me to go fetch him a five gallon pail of prop wash. The old "snipe hunt" joke on the new guy in the unit, of course...

Six hours later, I reported to him with a five gallon plastic pail of a chemical solution used to clean insects from airplane propellers and helicopter blades, kindly donated to me by one of the ground crews at Peterson AFB, who thought it would be hilarious to turn the joke back onto the sergeant, whom they well knew of from previous pranks.

It was used to wash propellers, therefore it was "prop wash." US military issue prop wash at that.

Heh.

Ed.
Sgt, 2nd Armored Cav
USA, retired.

I love the way you use an example of a guy who will obediently walk off a bridge and fall to his death, and then when challenged, immediately say "I never said mindless obedience"! What could be more mindless than obediently marching off a bridge when ordered?

Sorry, but marching off a bridge is mindless obedience. And worse yet, you characterize anyone who objects to this idiocy as unbelievably selfish, such that they would never take up arms to defend anyone or anything. As I said, black/white fallacy.

Your habit of posting long rambling descriptions of your own mindset is not a valid defense of a blatant logic fallacy. You haven't been hired as an inspirational speaker here.

If my commander ordered me to move a mountain, I'd report to him with a pick and shovel under one arm, ready to try. I'd express my doubts to him about my ability to succeed, but I'd do so in private and I'd still go out there and try to move that damned mountain.

It would be a lot smarter to ask him what method he expects you to use in order to move that mountain. After all, no feasible method exists.

Darth Wong wrote:I love the way you use an example of a guy who will obediently walk off a bridge and fall to his death, and then when challenged, immediately say "I never said mindless obedience"! What could be more mindless than obediently marching off a bridge when ordered?

Sorry, but marching off a bridge is mindless obedience. And worse yet, you characterize anyone who objects to this idiocy as unbelievably selfish, such that they would never take up arms to defend anyone or anything. As I said, black/white fallacy.

I don't see that as being mindless. I see it as being loyal to an oath. If, for example, it were myself marching off that bridge, I might have strident objections to doing so. But I'd given my oath to obey. The time to object was before I'd given my oath and signed my contract.

I, personally, see changing one's mind about obeying an order after taking an oath to be rather like changing one's mind about making a parachute jump 30 seconds after leaping out the door. As my grandfather was fond of saying, "You signed the contract, boy. Too late, too bad. If y' didn't like the contract, y' shouldn't've signed it." If that's a black/white division... *shrugs*

But I suspect this is a matter of personal belief and philosophy. If I willingly sign a contract, I believe I'm morally obligated to see it through, no matter what. If someone abuses my contract to hurt or otherwise abuse others... then I'd have to decide what my own morality says, then take appropriate action. Using Iraq as an example, I'd inform my commander, report to be arrested, testify that yes, I'm willfully disobeying orders, and plead guilty at my court-martial, then wait quietly to be sentenced.

After all, that too is mentioned as part of my contract. Indirectly, but still mentioned. That I accept their authority over me for the duration of my contract. Up to and including my execution at their hands, if they so wish - provided it's according to the literal wording of the contract.

That is, after all, why I'm so damn picky about signing contracts these days.

I'd find it hard to trust someone who signed a contract, then told me they couldn't honor it because of moral or philosophical doubts about what they're doing. They either should have brought those doubts forward during the negotiation of the contract, before it was signed; or calmly and quietly accept any contract penalties for not carrying through with the contract.

Being willing to die - or even to commit suicide - to affirm one's word is inviolate is a hard thing to do. And it's been abused all too often. But it works. Ask the Japanese.

(And boy, did I use the word "contract" a lot there...)

I suppose it's a matter of trust. If I can't trust you to carry on, regardless of doubts, can I trust you at all? I don't know. I honestly don't know. You may be an honorable man by your own morality, but can I trust you to be honorable by my morality? And if I can't trust you to do that, can I trust you in any other areas?

I don't know. I'd have to slowly get to know you, day by day, trying to find what you will and won't do. What your philosophy of life is, and how you react in certain situations. And that takes time. Often it takes a lifetime. And if you don't have that much time to get to know someone, if you're in a hurry or circumstances have forced your hand, simply holding a man to to the literal wording of his contract is a useful substitute, and keeps things moving along.

It's certainly useful in times of war...

Ed.

Leaving aside the inevitable round and round on brainwashing, insanity, mindless obedience that could actually act in a manner contrary to an oath sworn to preserve protect and defend, and perceived pure selfishness and lack of trustworthiness, there's just one thing I have to address.

It didn't work for the Japanese. They fucking lost. You are undoubtedly going to get hammered for that line, so you would do better to leave it out.

EdBecerra wrote:I don't see that as being mindless. I see it as being loyal to an oath. If, for example, it were myself marching off that bridge, I might have strident objections to doing so. But I'd given my oath to obey. The time to object was before I'd given my oath and signed my contract.

Actually, that's precisely what I mean by "mindless": a preference for hard-and-fast rules which brook no personal interpretation or judgment.

I, personally, see changing one's mind about obeying an order after taking an oath to be rather like changing one's mind about making a parachute jump 30 seconds after leaping out the door. As my grandfather was fond of saying, "You signed the contract, boy. Too late, too bad. If y' didn't like the contract, y' shouldn't've signed it." If that's a black/white division... *shrugs*

OK, what part of "you are not being hired as an inspirational speaker" do you not understand? I don't really give a damn what your grandfather said, or how folksily you can express your opinions. Save it for the campaign trail and "town hall" meetings, where the yokels eat that shit up.

Using Iraq as an example, I'd inform my commander, report to be arrested, testify that yes, I'm willfully disobeying orders, and plead guilty at my court-martial, then wait quietly to be sentenced.

Interesting. So you say that you would never violate a contract, then you say that yes, you would violate it, but it's not really violating it because you would accept the consequences of violating it. You are merely playing games here. It gets even worse when you say that you could not trust me because I refuse to declare that I would obey an oath under any circumstances, even though you just admitted that you would potentially violate an oath yourself. The only difference between the two of us, therefore, is that I don't bullshit about how I would never violate an oath under any circumstances, while you clearly do.

<snip more long-winded rambling>

Brevity is not your strong suit, is it? BTW, I checked, and the words "I", "I'd", or "I'm" appeared no less than 27 times in your last post. You talk about yourself quite a bit; this is not a good way to discuss a general philosophical or moral issue.

Stuart wrote:The logistics officer gulped. "Well, Ma'am, its our best-guess estimate of….."

"How will the Myanmar Army supply 100,000 men over a stretch of country that has only a handful of roads when they have no air transport, no available railway and shift supplies using manpacks? If you can't see the blatant impossibility of that number, you've no right to wear this uniform. You're relieved of your post, report to Supreme Command Headquarters for reassignment. General Senawith?"

Am I the only one who's thinking maybe Michael is giving the Myanmarese a hand with the logistics? The "send the stuff to Hell, then send it back to Earth" trick could work just as well with Heaven, assuming the portal-physics is the same and Michael has access to a sufficient number of portal-makers (Angelic equivalent of Naga?).

erik_t wrote:So if your superior tells you to move leg infantry a hundred miles across broken terrain by nightfall, it's better to say "yes boss" and then get them a tenth of the way there, rather than tell the boss that it's not doable? What planet are you from?

I'm not saying that one should say "Can't." and then sit there with a smug look on one's face. That's not what happened. The Thai general cut the guy off when he was trying to explain why what she wanted was not feasible in his eyes.

I'm sure culturing a circle of yes-men does wonders for individual thinking, problem-solving and initiative.

I'm with this guy. If I was a military commander I'd want a subordinate who'd be unafraid to give me an accurate assessment of the feasibility of my orders, not one who, confronted with impossible orders, tap-dances around their impossibility like some weasel trying to please some pointy-haired dipshit who cares more about how you say things than what you say. "You're fired because saying 'it's impossible' is defeatist" sounds to me like textbook style-over-substance bullshit. I wouldn't care whether the phrasing is sufficiently hoo rah or not, I'd care about whether what the person has to say has value.

Of course, the scene works if you simply assume the General knew the guy was a complete incompetent already and knew enough about the situation on the ground to know he was exaggerating the difficulty of the task. Then it changes from "you're fired for what from all I know could just be telling me the truth, in a not sufficiently hoo-rah sounding way" ( ) to "you just gave me the excuse I needed to can your ass, which I already know is worthless".

Well that's the trick, isn't it? She knows that the entire division has been sitting on its ass this whole time, doing nothing while the Myanmar army is rampaging through the countryside. This makes its command staff guilty until proven innocent, and they will not be getting any benefit of the doubt. It's not like this asinine hypothetical situation mentioned earlier where you would dismiss an otherwise desirable job candidate because he doesn't play this stupid "how do you answer an idiotic and impossible request" game the way you want him to.

Darth Wong wrote:Well that's the trick, isn't it? She knows that the entire division has been sitting on its ass this whole time, doing nothing while the Myanmar army is rampaging through the countryside. This makes its command staff guilty until proven innocent, and they will not be getting any benefit of the doubt.

And the LTG Asanee had already assessed the situation in Kanchanaburi. With a couple of phone calls, she already knew the officers there and had a pretty good idea of what they were up to. Thailand is a small country. The officer corps, particularly at the General Officer level, all know one another. So she knew who was in command, their capabilities, and what they would probably be their disposition. The smaller the country, the closer the Generals are to being politicians, and the Thai know how to play politics. Thy draw it in with their mothers' milk. So they intimately know who is playing on their court.

She knew the terrain, and had refreshed herself with a map reconnaissance. She already had a Concept of the Operation sketched out, and her S-3 had movement and probably the start of fire plans sketched out. Her S-4 had the outline of a logistics plan completed. S-2 probably had little more than news reports and the Myanmarese OOB to go on, but that's a good start. That's why LTG Asanee was desperate for reconnaisance information, once her boots had hit the ground. She probably had air assets out, but needed boots on the ground intel.

The guts of a Five Paragraph Field Order were already in her notebook. She had replacements for the CG and all his primary staff officers selected, and enough competent fire-brigade officers in her pocket to sort things out. This is what a troubleshooter would do.

Part of the rest was theatrics. She would be sure the word got out, suitably illuminated, that she stormed in, kicked arse, took names, and saved the situation. If she failed, no one would remember - they'd be too busy dieing. If she succeeded, or even started to succeed, morale would shoot through the roof.

So she kicked in the door, already having half a plan what needed to be done. There was still time for the staff to save their arses; her replacements could always stay in her pocket. If she was wrong, the penalty was small. She had good officers to take the jobs. LeMay's statement about not having time to sort between the unfortunate and the incompetent comes into play. Napoleon liked his generals lucky - he had a point.

Life is not fair. War is less so. If you get beyond the rank of PV1, you have already learned that and lmade it part of your being. You groked it. Your life belongs to the gummint; your career path even more so.

Mass shakeups - right or wrong - are the rule when someone is unable to keep the shit out of the fan.

LTG Assanee did what a troubleshooter will do. Now we'll get to see her kick some Myanmarese arse and take their names. [Spitting on hands and drawing knife]

It goes without saying that such knowledge is about three levels beyond what the typical reader of this story could be expected to know.

Stuart had the choice of writing this story with this level of knowledge implicit for the reader, but he did not. We aren't expected to know that Petraeus likes his steaks medium-rare with a side of spicy mustard; likewise, this level of awareness of force structure within NW Thailand is not (or, at least, shouldn't be) relevant to the story.

Are you arguing that Stu should write for the lowest common denominator, or have I misinterpreted your post?

erik_t wrote:It goes without saying that such knowledge is about three levels beyond what the typical reader of this story could be expected to know.

Stuart had the choice of writing this story with this level of knowledge implicit for the reader, but he did not. We aren't expected to know that Petraeus likes his steaks medium-rare with a side of spicy mustard; likewise, this level of awareness of force structure within NW Thailand is not (or, at least, shouldn't be) relevant to the story.

Most of this can be gleaned from inference. Stuart was illustrating instead of narrating what happened, and I thought it worked rather nicely.

erik_t wrote:It goes without saying that such knowledge is about three levels beyond what the typical reader of this story could be expected to know.

Stuart had the choice of writing this story with this level of knowledge implicit for the reader, but he did not. We aren't expected to know that Petraeus likes his steaks medium-rare with a side of spicy mustard; likewise, this level of awareness of force structure within NW Thailand is not (or, at least, shouldn't be) relevant to the story.

This is where paying attention helps. In chapter fifteen, Asanee admits to Petraeus that the command staff at Kanchanaburi is not their best. One doesn't need detailed knowledge of the organizational structure of the Thai army to understand the implications of that.

JN1 wrote:Are you arguing that Stu should write for the lowest common denominator, or have I misinterpreted your post?

Now THAT is an interesting question. Should an author write "down" for the people he believes will be his audience? Or should he write as he pleases and the audience be damnned?

If you're writing fanfic, you're writing it for yourself and/or your fans. It's your choice, you're free as a bird. If you're writing commercially, you write what you're contracted to write (if it's something like churning out Harlequin romances *ugh*), or you write what your paying readers want to read (like Mr. Clancy). With "paying" being the important word.

Hmm.

Or you could be writing what your fans want to read, simply because your fans have made a request, and you feel like granting it.

And yeah, I do know someone who churns out Harlequin romance novels for a living. *twitch* A fate worse than debt, no pun intended...

Ed.

Personally I think it might be a good idea for Stuart to stick in a little bit of exposition explaining the logic behind firing that particular guy in the final draft. Maybe have one of the General's subordinates object to it and her point out that A) she already knew he was incompetent and B) she knew enough about the situation to know he was exagerrating the difficulty of it, giving her the excuse she needed to sack him. It could easily be inserted smoothly into the narrative and would prevent any possible misunderstandings by readers.

Morilore wrote:This is where paying attention helps. In chapter fifteen, Asanee admits to Petraeus that the command staff at Kanchanaburi is not their best. One doesn't need detailed knowledge of the organizational structure of the Thai army to understand the implications of that.

That simply tells us that the people at that post are known for general incompetence. It still leaves open the possibility that she just fired the guy simply for starting a sentence with "we can't do it", which as has already been pointed out is the sort of action more suited to a comic book supervillain than a competent commander.

Personally, a lot of exposure to bad fiction has led to me taking a sort of "guilty until proven innocent" standard when it comes to authorial incompetence. When I see something that looks stupid my first instinct is often to assume that really is stupid. Stuart doesn't strike me as the sort of author to do this particular kind of hack-work, but being a reader introduced to his work for the very first time I wouldn't know that.

Junghalli wrote:Personally I think it might be a good idea for Stuart to stick in a little bit of exposition explaining the logic behind firing that particular guy in the final draft. Maybe have one of the General's subordinates object to it and her point out that A) she already knew he was incompetent and B) she knew enough about the situation to know he was exagerrating the difficulty of it, giving her the excuse she needed to sack him. It could easily be inserted smoothly into the narrative and would prevent any possible misunderstandings by readers.

Oh come on, is a bunch of kludgy exposition really necessary? You have a division which is literally sitting around with their thumbs up their asses while their country is being invaded. Even if she did not know anything about the individual personalities of the command staff, it would hardly be out of line to shitcan the entire leadership for this fact alone, because she doesn't really have time to carefully sift through them for salvageable personnel while they make excuses and point fingers at each other.

If I were a business executive, I went to visit a factory which was supposed to be working on a rush job, and I found that they were all sitting around doing nothing while management held meetings, I'd be tempted to shitcan the entire management staff on the spot. If I stormed into the offices and demanded explanations and they all gave me that "I'm trying to make up something to say" look, I'd definitely shitcan them all on the spot, unless I had no one to replace them with.