In The Managerial State, The House Wins Every Time
It’s disturbing how willingly people in general, not just those in uniform, will do as they’re told when the correct incentives are applied.
On the flight home from my trip, I managed to finish The Burning Blue: The Untold Story of Christa McAuliffe and NASA's Challenger Disaster. The book isn’t without it’s faults, but it’s arguably the most complete account of the incident and was a highly compelling read that became difficult to put down once I started. If you’re interested in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which occurred on January 28, 1986, The Burning Blue is the book to read on the topic.
One of the central figures in the aftermath of the disaster is Richard Feynman, a Nobel Physics Prize-winning theoretical physicist who served on the board that investigated the incident. Feynman’s role in the inquiry was critical because, despite the Reagan administration’s admonishment not to “embarrass” NASA, he was willing to ask tough questions calling into question the agency’s competency and prudence. What happened to Challenger and its seven crew members, which included New Hampshire schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe, was an act of physics, but it wasn’t some unforeseen event, hardly making it an “accident.” Rather, it was the result of bureaucrats who couldn’t see the forest for the trees. I won’t go into it much further because not only do I believe everyone should take it upon themselves to learn more about the Challenger disaster, but because my reason for bringing up Feynman is a broader point he made about bureaucracies and the managerial state in general.
There exist unsubstantiated allegations the Challenger disaster was, in part, due to pressure applied by President Ronald Reagan to launch the mission despite serious safety concerns. Again, scant evidence exists of such a directive from the White House, but Feynman explored the matter and The Burning Blue quotes him as having made the following assessment:
Feynman suspected that the order to launch, if there was one, was never spelled out. “People in a big system like NASA know what has to be done without being told,” he wrote.
In my last post, I argued that bureaucracies and the managerial state institutions, like the military, not only do as they’re told (as long as the “correct” person is giving the orders), but they also largely run themselves. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as such institutions would be utterly useless and purposeless if they couldn’t operate autonomously on some level. Society creates these entities in large part because they don’t require constant input and feedback all the way up and down the hierarchy.
The problem is, this autonomy also makes them unaccountable and unresponsive. Unaccountable in the sense responsibility is often so diffused that it’s not only impossible to hold any one party liable, it wouldn’t serve much reason to. If you relieve leadership of their duties, it doesn’t change manner in which the institution operates. After all, leadership is often appointed on the basis of how well they’re expected to keep the ship on course. If you fire the underlings, it also doesn’t change the manner the institution functions, because the leadership is left intact! The only way to reform the managerial state is to demolish it completely, which nobody is liable to do because of the obvious consequences that’d come with doing so, even if, in the long run, we’d all be better off for it.
This is why the “reform from the inside” fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Once you become part of a bureaucracy, your entire purpose becomes to perpetuate it. Deviation is impossible because, well, there’s literally nowhere to deviate to. You’re basically inside a tunnel with only one direction available for movement - forward. Bureaucracies are like biological organisms - if something impedes the flow of blood, the whole system begins shutting down. The only way to get it running again is to remove the blockage. In a bureaucratic context, that means they make you go away.
This is something which applies to all bureaucracies, but it applies doubly more to the military. Refusing orders isn’t an occupational violation, it’s a legal violation. Expecting military personnel to defy their superiors is like trying to tame a wild animal - it’s a dangerous, potentially unethical process and you may not survive the attempt. The U.S. military has strong measures in place to ensure obedience, as I explained in my last post. It’s disturbing how willingly people in general, not just those in uniform, will do as they’re told when the correct incentives are applied.
Get it through your thick skulls if you haven’t already - the military is in the business of following orders, not doing the “right thing.” They’ll do what they’re told because not only will the institution fail to function any other way, the institution itself will do whatever it takes to ensure compliance and, thereby, its own survival.
The only question is who’s giving the orders? Whose orders are being followed? I was perusing Twitter and came across this story concerning Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley:
First, civilian control of the military isn’t under any kind of threat. The U.S. military isn’t an autonomous institution comprised of only men and women in uniform. Rather, it is a massive bureaucracy led by both those in uniform and those who wear suits and ties, but the suits-and-ties possess the real authority. Moreover, the U.S. Army alone employs over 250,000 civilians. Whether all these civilians are truly necessary to the Army’s mission is besides the point, which is that those who wear uniforms and have the guns depend on these civilians to even exist. The bureaucracy is such that you’d probably induce institutional paralysis or even failure if you removed civilians from the equation. And the top civilian in the Department of Defense also happens to be second-in-command of the armed forces: the Secretary of Defense. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs plays largely an advisory role and possesses no operational authority.
Second, Milley’s decision to defy the president seems suicidal, but once you understand who really runs Washington, it becomes clear why Milley not only did what he did, but he’s yet to face any consequences for undermining his commander-in-chief. Milley made a decision based on whom he understood to be really in charge - the president, or the managerial state (the Regime) and the ideologues who strongly influence, if not run, it? He decided it was the latter. I can’t say he was wrong. After all, Milley needs to ensure he can secure a lucrative post-military career in the private or public sector and maintain his proverbial seat at the table. But he shouldn’t expect to be praised for it, either.
I keep going back to June 2020, when Milley and other military leaders claimed to stand with the American people against the president. But what the forces of national preservation actually did was stand with the forces of national disintegration and self-hatred. Why should we give them any credit? If they’re willing to stand idly by and let the savages burn, kill, and loot, then they have no business defending this nation against any kind of threat, foreign or domestic.
When President Joe Biden gave the order to withdraw from Afghanistan last year, neither Milley nor Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin rendered any kind of public protest, like former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis when former President Donald Trump ordered the withdrawal of troops from Syria. Whatever objections they harbored, they aired behind closed doors. This all in spite of the fact Milley opposed Trump’s desire to withdraw completely from Afghanistan. But Biden, unlike Trump, is the managerial state’s president. You don’t defy someone who’s spent 50 years in Washington, served previously as vice president, and possesses his clout. Biden was the “right” guy, which is why his order was followed without hesitation by the military. And nobody within the bureaucracy shirked, because they understood that when someone like Biden is in charge, orders get followed. When the “wrong” guy is in the White House, as Richard Feynman said, the bureaucracy knows what to do there, also. And they don’t have to be told. Business as usual is enough to keep things on course.
Criticizing the military is a practice seemingly at odds with American values in today’s day and age. Remember, however, there existed a time the military wasn’t off-limits for criticism and for good reason. It exists to serve the state’s interests, even when they conflict with society’s interests. Just as NASA will, without explicitly being told, throw caution to the wind and launch a space shuttle against the recommendations of professional engineers, the military will, without explicitly being told, defy their commander-in-chief or endanger the American people, because they know what side of their bread is buttered. It’s nice to think of the armed forces as warriors who’ll do anything for the greater good on behalf of the American people.
Unfortunately, a nice thought is all it is. They follow orders and not from you. Don’t forget that.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!