Military family here. My step-brother flies F/A-18’s in the Navy (not exactly the same spec as Marine Hornets but shares many parts), so that’s extra concerning. This is sad and understandable based on how the MIC works. Tens of trillions spent on crap; and chickenshit CO’s blame the victims (soldiers) and coverup incompetence and gross negligence rather than exhibiting leadership, taking responsibility and learning lessons. Don’t join up because your life isn’t worth a damn to pig generals, politicians and corporate schmucks.
PS: A roommate of mine in college was a Marine Herc Navigator MOS, for KC-130 and C-130. They would frequently get on the plane drunk from the night before but be expected to function. Squad meetings? At the bar, with mandatory alcohol. He bemoaned the V-22 Osprey as an overpriced death-trap, which it definitely was, in the beginning. I think many military cultures needs to strongly encourage less binge alcoholic consumption for operational effectiveness and because more personnel end up alcoholic, like my grandfather, for one (who was a paratrooper and later an AP (MP)).
Yeah my experience in the Marines resonates with this a lot. So many training meetings about how drinking and driving was bad, followed by a meetup at the bar. Even during the presentations the officers in charge would joke about it. None of it was ever taken seriously. The best example of double-talk I have in real life. Way they would talk about "partying in Okinawa" was always creepy when you consider the Marines' history there.
Not blaming anyone specifically of course. I feel for anyone who feels like they need to drink to get through their days. Just think it's also a good example of CO's talking big but meaning nothing, and that attitude trickles all the way down the chain.
Isn't the difference that most people are unlikely to be in any position where they can be bribed whereas in the military a lot more people use heavy equipment (for want of a better word)?
Drunkenness is mediated by alcohol dehydrogenase. Hangover is mediated by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase.
As both of those use NAD+ as cofactors, something that may sober someone up faster without causing hangover symptoms is a combination of tryptophan and niacin, but only to the extent that NAD+ availability is a limiting factor in the liver. A dietary sufficiency of zinc is necessary for production of alcohol dehydrogenase. Experiments suggest that 1 g fructose/kg body mass also helps process alcohol faster, but I'm not clear on how, and the research has inconsistent reproducibility.
If you have a healthy diet already, and have a healthy liver, there is very little you can actually do to sober up faster, beyond building up a tolerance, which increases the amount of alcohol dehydrogenase your body produces when exposed to ethanol.
The pure oxygen may counteract some of the symptoms of drunkenness and hangover, but the health effects of hyperoxia can be even worse than ethanol intoxication. It would be less dangerous to intravenously infuse tryptophan and niacin-associated nicotinamides, or use direct hepatic injection, and even that sounds reckless.
One thing known to speed alcohol metabolization is fructose. That's not to say consuming fructose will make you "sober", though, as the first metabolic byproduct of alcohol - acetaldehyde - also has CNS effects.
Short version of the paper (hopefully accurate enough):
The alcohol in the body is "burned" in a chain of multiple reactions. Using multiple steps because you can store the energy extracted in each step and store it in ATP or NADH to use it later in other reactions.
The first step is to extract two Hydrogen from the alcohol CH3-CH2-OH --> CH3-CH=O. This step needs an enzyme. There is not too much of this enzyme, so a small amount of alcohol saturates the maximum conversion capacity (that is ~7g/h). All the other steps have a better conversion rate, so this is the important step for alcohol metabolism.
Note that this step doesn't use oxygen. Oxygen is use in the step four and later. (I'm not sure if I'm counting all the steps correctly, but the use of oxygen is much later.)
It may wake you up a bit, you're still impaired relative to where you'd have been without the alcohol in your system (or lack of sleep or whatever other impairment is present).
Go-pills certainly increase tolerance to alcohol, won’t change your BAC but you’ll be less impaired after drinking, although it still isn’t safe and shouldn’t be an excuse for flying after drinking. This article is more about the opposite, though, sounds like the marines had some ambien left in their systems, and possibly motion sickness pills (Dramamine/Benadryl?), but they claim the levels were so low it shouldn’t have affected the pilots.
Overall I think the guy above boiled it down pretty well, some mistakes were made, but these marines were not prepared with enough training or properly functioning equipment to do the job safely, and senior commander’s are just pointing the blame at the squadron and middle management instead of taking ownership of the real problem (not responding to warnings about unpreparedness).
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.
Uh, incorrect. Resting o2 sat is 99% in most young healthy people - like aviators. In older people, or the unhealthy, you may see it start to drop due to diffusion or ventilation defects - but barring serious lung disease, neuromuscular defects, severe, severe obesity, etc. that still gives you a resting sat in the mid 90s.
There is also oxygen dissolved directly in blood rather than saturating hemoglobin, but that constitutes a tiny fraction of o2 in comparison.
-Oh, breathing hard when exercising is a thing, noone claimed otherwise. Your body requires more oxygen. You breathe harder. Heart rate increases to bring that oxygen to your muscles. That still does not oversaturate your blood with oxygen, though - only maintains saturation as consumption increases.
"The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism defines binge drinking as a pattern of drinking that brings a person’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.08 grams percent or above. This typically happens when men consume 5 or more drinks or women consume 4 or more drinks in about 2 hours."
This seems to be one of those cases where the special interest definition of a term and what the general population considers a reasonable definition diverge.
Killing anything less than a 6-pack is generally not considered binge drinking by the population at large. There's also an intent element. Binge drinking involves drinking to get drunk. Killing a 6-pack because you're sitting around with your buddies drinking and watching (edit: American) football is not binge drinking to anyone who isn't a card carrying member of MADD.
Devastating story, thank goodness for ProPublica bringing this to light.
I served on the ground side and never experienced this level of incompetence. (There was plenty of other fun stuff...) But maybe the shear fact that Marine Officers are on the front line with the enlisted, curbs dangerous behavior. The Air Wing in the Marine Corps is it's own branch. Marine Air Wing commanders are constantly being relieved, and usually make the cover of the Marine Corp times.
I was air-crew on a C-130 platform, I got to take part in a night aerail refueling once.
It's truly an awesome sight. The aircraft are so big, and so close together. The tanker has colored lights all over it, I expect to help guide the following plane.
Through the windshield, it looks larger than life and a little surreal.
I'm not really into military doctrine, but why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? When you look up US air units/forces, there is a bunch of stuff left to the national guards, marines etc. and flying is obviously something to be taken seriously. And it looks like they are more likely to screw it up or take it less seriously.
> why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy?
The priorities aka politics of each military branch are different.
Canonical example: At Guadalcanal in WW2, the Navy was supposed to land supplies and support the Marines, but when the Japanese Navy showed up, the US Navy weighed anchor and left - with most supplies still aboard. The Marines are still mad about that 75 years later.
In more recent times, the problem is that the Air Force doesn't want to fly low and risk AF pilots - ie. provide CAS. And the F35 is the worst at CAS - high, fast and expensive with no loiter time.
> 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 the answers and they have biases.
We are largely the stories we tell ourselves. One of the stories that Marines tell is that they hold fast where others retreat. Semper Fidelis. I can hold a nuanced view and still understand their viewpoint.
(I am not a Marine, but I did just read Lewis (Chesty) B Puller's biography)
The marine on the beach isn’t the one designing our armed forces. So I don’t particularly see why an un-nuanced perception on the part of ground troops is particularly relevant to the question of “why are our armed services designed in this manner?”
Those Marines on the beach didn't just all die there. Many survived and worked up the Marine Corps ranks to become generals, left to join defense contractors, and became politicians, all of whom had influence over how the armed forces are structured. Assuming past experiences effect a person's point of view and future actions, and that society's institutions aren't created, nor operate, in a vacuum: how is their experience irrelevant?
The Marine air unit existed decades before the establishment of the Air Force, as did the Army's. There's obviously overlap, but they all have different focuses and specialties too.
> 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.
This argument doesn’t make sense. You might as well say rifles need to be retired regardless because they cannot be upgraded to kill tanks. What you actually need is a full spectrum of capabilities so you can use the right tool for the job each time.
The A-10 cannot fulfill its primary role (CAS) in most modern environments nor can it be upgraded to do so, which raises the question of what it is actually useful for. This is primarily due to lack of space in the airframe to dramatically expand the onboard electrical and power generation systems, which are needed to power modern defensive capabilities. In the last half century since it was designed, most of its passive survivability has also been obsoleted by more modern air defense systems specifically engineered to reliably kill planes like the A-10. Lack of effective active and passive defensive capabilities greatly limit what you can do with it if you care about pilot safety.
It has become so limited in the CAS role due to poor survivability that we can't deploy it for most CAS missions. And for the environments where it can survive, the US has many other platforms that will work for CAS in the absence of effective air defense. The A-10 was designed for a very different battlefield that increasingly no longer exists.
This is also one of the main reasons why the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) program ended up as such an expensive mess. The Marines insisted on getting their own VSTOL variant to provide CAS from amphibious ships so that they wouldn't have to rely on the Navy. And that forced the use of a huge single engine instead of smaller twin engines, making it less aerodynamic (shorter range) and less survivable for other missions. Designing and testing the VSTOL capabilities drove up development costs tremendously and delayed the entire program for years.
I don't think this was about "not relying on the Navy". The Marines have built an entire doctrine around the MEUs (Marine Expeditionary Unit) and the amphibious assault carriers are central to it. Who do you think the ships belong to?
I think you are agreeing with GP: the Marines have their own carriers, which they call amphibious assault ships, so they don’t have to rely on the Navy’s carriers the next time the Marines get pinned down like they did at Guadalcanal.
As a reminder? Those Marine "amphibious assault ships" are larger than the carriers operated by most other navies. (Russia, China, and India each have one carrier that's larger than an America-class; the UK has two. The USMC, in contrast, has nine (Wasp class and America class), to the USN's 11 regular CATOBAR-equipped carriers.
Seriously, the world's second-largest carrier fleet, after the USN, is operated by the USMC, and it's bigger than everyone else's carrier fleet combined. (Speaking as a Brit, this is just crazy stuff.)
Not to be further pedantic, but in no way does the USMC operate these carriers. They are USN ships through and through. The Marine Corps is a part of the Navy, as much as they'd like to think of themselves as an independent branch.
Initially, sure, just like they rely on the ships to get them to the beach. Early priority is often to seize an airfield, though. F-35Bs can happily fly off a land field.
They can but why sacrifice fuel and weapons capacity for a VTOL engine you don’t need in that case? Once the airfield is captured you would want to immediately swap out those B’s for A’s. They are the wrong tool for operating from an airfield.
>And the F35 is the worst at CAS - high, fast and expensive with no loiter time.
True, but it's there quick (compared to the A10, C130 and any helicopter) which counts for a ton. Nobody ever called for air support and didn't need it now.
A high-altitude drone with extreme linger time and a battery of light missiles--backed by an Army artillery position or Navy missile destroyer for delivering the heavier firepower a few minutes later--seems like a better quality solution than humans piloting fighter jets that require carriers or ground runways.
But a human brain in the cockpit of a reusable munitions-delivery vehicle is probably cheaper and more resilient.
That question is too broad. It depends on the situation.
If you know in advance where you're going to need the extra firepower (i.e. "we're gonna take that village over there") then you set up artillery. It's accurate gets where you need it quick, is cheap and can't be shot down en-route.
If you are fighting a war of occupation and patrolling basically everywhere and don't know where you'll run into a fight then you need some way of getting your extra firepower to the ground units that need it. This is traditionally handled by fixed and rotary wind aircraft carrying bombs or air to ground missiles. I'm unaware of surface to surface missiles being used in this role.
Surface to surface missiles are basically just indirect fire. I believe that the Army's MLRSs would qualify for IDF.
The difference between IDF and direct fire is mostly to reduce collateral damage. Direct fire can be more accurate and limit damage to surrounding areas. It is also easier to hit moving targets with direct fire.
I don't know all that much about what weapons the US currently uses on the battlefield, but I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Also, wouldn't CAS be better handled by UAVs anyway? They're cheaper, they have much better payload-to-weight ratio, and don't put a trained pilot in harm's way.
I think UAVs are great but not everyone is Type 1 CAS qualified. Someone could correct me but I think most UAV strikes are Type 2 or 3. A Type 1 CAS has to visually confirm the location of the target, friendly, and the approach angle. Most pilots, SF, and a lot of ground troops are but not all. And they are often not in a position to be able to confirm everything. Calling in CAS is a great responsibility in that you are accountable for every bomb or missile dropped.
Experience gained in the last 20yr in the middle east (Afghanistan in particular) indicates that what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important.
Having dedicated CAS aircraft is nice and it's probably wise to keep something of that nature in service at all time but it's foolish to pretend that a modern multirole fighter can't be shoehorned into that role with reasonable effectiveness.
Edit: You people (you know who you are) seem hellbent on interpreting what I have to say as being a much stronger statement than I am making. I am saying that aircraft like the F35 can do the job and that there are some pros to having those kind of aircraft do the job (namely speed). I am not saying they are better than a purpose built aircraft.
what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important
That is true but what is also true is that using expensive aircraft designed for near-peer conflicts for that mission burns through airframe hours at an unsustainable rate.
The B-1B bomber has performed a larger percentage of CAS missions than any other aircraft. In many ways they are the best airframe for this since they have a long loiter time, incredible load out, high speed to get to the fight. The only downside is no brrrp cannon like the A-10.
This is the same type of argument that people make over programming languages or EMACS/VIM. You could provide CAS with just about anything that flys. However a good CAS vehicle should be able to fly relatively slow and be well protected from ground fire. The A-10 if perfect and I really wish there was a way to make new ones. I even heard at one point the USMC was thinking of bringing back the OV-10 Bronco.
The A-10 is a death trap in a modern air defense environment. The USAF hasn't gone against one of those since Kosovo, and even back then it was all high-altitude fast movers and stealth aircraft dropping ordinance because of the threat of Serbian AD.
What the A-10 is perfect for is counter-insurgency, which is pretty much all the shooting action the US has seen since Kosovo. There's an argument to be made that, considering US engagements, a dedicated COIN aircraft is a good thing to have in the US inventory. It's a niche, though, and the US military is currently resistant to fielding niche systems.
> it's foolish to pretend that a modern multirole fighter can't be shoehorned into that role with reasonable effectiveness.
I would say it is foolish to make such a broad generalization like that a plane being new and designated multirole is enough for it to fill all CAS roles (there's more than 1 type of CAS mission) "with reasonable effectiveness". In the case of F-35 replacing A-10, we know that it won't be able to fill some of those roles.
The US has air dominance in Afghanistan, so even a Stuka would look good.
And the F35 has such a small production run that the Air Force would run out in months. Which they won't do for another agency for CAS.
In Vietnam we learned that having airplanes in-theater are much, much cheaper to operate than carrier and remote-based aircraft that take multiple refuelings to arrive on target.
For those not familiar with high-performance figher/bomber jets, they have to be refueled immediately after carrier launch and typically at least one more time after that before a bombing run. It's ridiculous, and exposes the tankers to risk.
> The US has air dominance in Afghanistan, so even a Stuka would look good.
USAF had air dominance in all recent wars, and A10s suffered the highest losses. Going against an enemy with functioning air force and air defence with those would be unwise.
You're wrong on enough points that I'm unsettling to put in the time to refute all of them...
But the easy one is: there are 490 F-35s built, with the next 3 lots buying almost that amount more, for less than it'd cost to buy F-16s/-18s. It's not a small production run.
It makes for better unit cohesion - Marines can train with Marines, and at least in theory everyone will eg know everyone's radio freqs and call signs and so on. (In practice, lol no not even close)
Also specific to the Marines is the idea of delivering a fully-operational fighting force anywhere in the world in a short time: infantry, armor, artillery, CAS. Marines even have their own specops (Recon). So while the Marines rely on the Navy for transport (the Marines are a part of the Navy, after all) their land warfare doctrine calls for combined arms. Can't have CAS if the wingwipers are busy doing top-cover 100 miles out from your beach assault.
The various forces do different things in the air. I'm not super knowledgeable about this, so someone might have more details.
Air Force is general flight missions. They tend towards support and recon.
Navy is focused on carrier support and sea missions.
Marines are focused on CAS and both land and sea missions. Lot of helicopters as well.
So each branch takes different responsibilities. I don't think this is an issue of Marines not being good enough to fly, as there are very talented Marine pilots around the world. Instead, these Marines weren't being given the resources and training they needed, and were being ignored by the higher chain. The argument that Marines don't take things as seriously is a little ridiculous.
You should look up the MAGTF concept. Pilots are pilots and they are all very well trained. The Marines generally deploy in a fully functional unit that has a ground element, support element, and air element. There are different sizes of MAGTFs that can support various levels of operations anywhere in the world. One of the many advantages of the MAGTF is that everyone is speaking the same "language" and using the same playbook making communication a lot easier.
Specialization is inevitable in an organization as large and complicated as the US military, and it's worth considering whether the service level split is the better way to manage it, especially at the top where it would be better for the decision makers to have diversified experience than to be in-fighting.
Marine aviation is really pretty good. There are bad stories of mistakes made by all the branches. The Marines prefer to support their own operations and it makes sense. Specifically, Marine aviation is specifically oriented toward missions conducted by the Marines.
I saw a proposal a long time ago on TEDx or something on how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars. The premise was that the supply and support mission should be handled by the department of state in times of peace and the department of war in war. Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war.
Maybe I'm naive, but I always thought it was a nice way of approaching the rest of the world. In reality, the most effective militaries in history have been the ones where everyone can fight.
> how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars.
Logistics win or lose wars. The support is the most important part. Arguably the people "fighting" wars (or at least vulnerable to incoming fire) should be reduced to as close to zero as possible, replaced by drones of various sorts.
Strategic bombing has never recognised this distinction, anyway. Both sides in WW2 spent extensive effort bombing each other's supply lines and factories. The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the notorious Benghazi incident, etc: does that count as "fighting"? Most of the US wars since WW2 have been lost during the occupation phase due to the difficulties of COIN. There's no glamour of "fighting" there, it consists of spending years going to work in an office but never forgetting to check under your car.
> Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war.
Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why?
I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.
Because with a lack of explicitly hierarchy, an implicit hierarchy is created. I'm not sure of any social system that doesn't include some form of hierarchy, but am very inclined to read an opinion.
I am reminded of the video game company Valve. Famously without official hierarchies... but not according to former employees.
The difference is with formal hierarchies there is also formal authority and responsibilities. A lack of explicit expectations means that informal the leadership can shirk responsibility or invent authority.
And that's a software company; a military org that's ordering people into dangerous situations is going to have a much harder time without explicit authority; POUM in the Spanish Civil War comes to mind.
You can have democratic decision-making, which isn't hierarchical and yet is explicit about the distribution of power.
So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the state level.
> So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the state level.
Democracy on the state level mostly refers to bureaucratic heirarchy where the leaders are (sometimes indirectly) accountable to the electorate; heirarchy and democracy coexist rather than being mutually exclusive. Heirarchy dominates state-level organization with or without democracy, just like it does virtually all other human enterprises.
Democracy, on the state level, seems to be more reliant on formal reservation and delineation of powers and well-institutionalized means of enforcing those formalities than non-democratic heirarchy, which is perhaps why holacracy becomes informal non-democratic heirarchy rather than something democratic.
> 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 does it dominate, if we know from our (rather limited) experience with democracy that at least on the state level, it leads to better outcomes?
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.
> That is true, but that's my point also. Why does it dominate, if we know from our (rather limited) experience with democracy that at least on the state level, it leads to better outcomes?
We have almost no experience with non-heirarchical democratic state-level organization. We have experience with heirarchy with democratic accountability and heirarchy without it, and from that we can conclude that:
(1) the former may lead to better outcomes for those that aren't at the top of heirarchy, but
(2) the former definitely relies on formal delineation of authority and institutionalized structures enforcing those formal rules. (That is, democratic control at the state level requires formal heirarchy.)
Holacracy eschews formal structures of authority, and therefore the (informal) heirarchies it produces are not restrained by democratic accountability.
And even very small-scale democracy (which may not require formalization) still has heirarchy; people (social animals generally, people aren't special in this regard) form heirarchies.
I think your analysis lacks distinction that not all hierarchies structurally are hierarchies of power. For example, in Linux Kernel development, there is a hierarchy with Linus on top, but the hierarchy has very little actual power over other developers. Anybody can fork a Linux kernel. So even when there is a hierarchy, the power doesn't have to be concentrated in it.
In fact, I consider democracy to be explicitly against power hierarchies. (In this sense, it is very leftist concept.)
From my perspective, the whole problem with holacracy is the lack of rules that guarantee the distribution of power, unlike in democracy, where this is guaranteed by agreement of participants with the decision-making method (i.e. votes of all people are equal).
Finally, you still state that hierarchy is a natural phenomenon, but that still doesn't explain why people insist on it even culturally. Just like the fact that humans evolved on African savannah doesn't mean that they would like to continue do so. But humans are surprisingly insistent on hierarchies of power even in the face of f-ups mentioned in the article.
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.
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.
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.
The point is when the military picks all its own leaders, it winds up with the sort of leaders & develops the sort of culture that leads to the military conducting a coup against the normal government which it was supposed to be subject to.
I don't see why it should be the case at all, and I would like to see the evidence that it is more likely. It sure is a possibility, but realistically you have to compare it with the possibility of a military coup with traditional autocratic military.
The only plausible explanation for that phenomenon is that democratic group (military in this case) is more efficient/willing at asserting its own status as a group than an autocratic (hierarchical) one.
And that is, in fact, internally contradictory. If intent of the military as a democratically-controlled social group was to overthrow the democracy in the state as a social group, then it would be acting against the very existence of ts own democratic process.
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 they think they can relate to, see the hate for Obama or Hilary from the right but their love of anything Trump does.
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.
The preventable disaster—and one that’s cost taxpayers maybe a trillion dollars with the F-35–is that the Marines have fighter jets. The argument we should be having is whether the Navy should have its own fighter jet capabilities in addition to the Air Force... but the argument we’re having is that the Marines also have fight jets and impose silly requirements on their jets.
In that case, the question might as well be whether USA needs a navy at all, considering that the aircraft carrier and its planes have been the deadliest naval weapon system since WWII.
No doubt air craft carriers were very effective in WWII, when neither side had high precision radar let alone real-time satellite imagery. They won’t be effective in future wars. Air craft carriers are sitting ducks and will also prove to be a terrible waste of blood and treasure.
The Navy is hugely important, and I think there’s even a good argument to be made in favor of the USMC continuing to exist in a quasi-spec-ops/rapid deployment infantry role. I think there’s no good argument to be made in favor of the USMC having fighter jets.
The Air Force doesn't do close air support. (They barely want to do air superiority. No, really, check out the history of the AAF going into WWII and B-36 in Korea.)
The Navy can do close air support, but likes to keep its planes on its ships rather than forward deployed where the Marines need them.
The Army uses helicopters for close air support to get around the Air Force, but those have the problem of loiter time.
If you did manage to bludgeon the Air Force into handling air support, those units would have to be so tightly tied to the Marines and Army that their careers would be compromised in the Air Force.
Our services could use some bludgeoning to work better together. There’s no question that CAS is an important mission. Providing it with F-18s and F-35s through an underresourced mini-air force within the USMC seems kind of dumb. Give the USMC drones to handle some basic missions, make USAF provide CAS, and use a more diverse, cheaper, and specialized set of platforms.
PS: A roommate of mine in college was a Marine Herc Navigator MOS, for KC-130 and C-130. They would frequently get on the plane drunk from the night before but be expected to function. Squad meetings? At the bar, with mandatory alcohol. He bemoaned the V-22 Osprey as an overpriced death-trap, which it definitely was, in the beginning. I think many military cultures needs to strongly encourage less binge alcoholic consumption for operational effectiveness and because more personnel end up alcoholic, like my grandfather, for one (who was a paratrooper and later an AP (MP)).