How the military mindset kills strategy
The real "Red Queen problem" and the culture of extreme obedience and hierarchy
In the wake of the Second World War, a US Navy rear admiral named J.C. Wylie wrote a book titled "Military Strategy." It is a short read, but a powerful one. His observations are sharp, and the book's a usefulness-per-word quotient is high.
One of Wylie's aims for the book was to unpack the "military mind." He wrote, "There do exist some very real military minds, both individually and collectively, and the products of those minds will sooner or later, as they have in the past, have a profound effect on our nation and on our society and its civilization."
You can imagine he meant it. In the years after 1945, it must've seemed like no minds could matter more.
How far we've fallen. As a member of the US military myself, I see the same stakes as Wylie. Unfortunately, the characteristics I'd ascribe to today's "military mindset" are extreme obedience and hierarchy-beyond-rationality. Both are strategy-killers.
Of course the military requires obedience and hierarchy. The organization is purpose-built to withstand extreme environments. One can think of the military's members and sub-organizations like individual fingers. (One's the Army, one's the Navy, and so on.) To fight well, these individual parts must band together as fingers form into a fist.
The system works because there is an established hierarchy. Everyone on that ladder agrees to subordinate themselves to those above them.
But that military mindset, that default setting, can be harmful when carried too far. Particularly if the organization is not at war, such a lean can cloud out critical thinking.
There's too many examples to raise here, but a couple will suffice. Several years ago, while teaching at West Point, a cadet walked into my classroom wearing a physical fitness uniform under a bright florescent reflective belt. I asked him why he was wearing the belt indoors. He replied that the regulation stated it was always to be worn with physical fitness attire. The regulation permitted no deviation due to location of wear. At the time, I criticized this as the "willful suspension of judgment for the sake of nonsensical bureaucratic rules." (For the record, I often run with a reflective belt when appropriate, so I see value in the right context.)
Another is more recent.
A military organization I work with has a Covid policy. If one tests positive, they work from home for several days, followed by a period of mask-wearing. A friend tested positive, then worked from home, and then tested negative for Covid twice. He shared these two negative tests with work colleagues to assuage concerns. He came back to work.
On arrival, this newly-Covid-negative friend chose not to wear a mask. Yet his work colleagues insisted he wear a mask despite knowing he'd tested negative on that very day. Their sole reason for doing so was adherence to policy. This in spite of their knowledge that he was no threat to spread the virus.
None of this suggests that all rules are bad. Some make sense. Some are important.
The problem emanates from a culture that shuts off critical thinking. The culture that suspends judgment as a matter of course. In my experience this problem worsens as one ascends higher up the organizational chain.
That's where strategists ply their trade. That's where they seek success in some endeavor, a new effort to shape the world according to an organization's wishes. In short, the world exists one way, and the strategist seeks to change it, to bend it in some better way.
The military mindset crushes this thinking. The military mindset's first priority is too often to fulfill the next-up leader's wishes. That leader, in turn, seeks to fulfill their own next-up leader's wishes. This culture permits no true criticism, direct or indirect. No genuine public disagreement, no matter how loyal. Strategy-making, then, goes without friendly critical remark. This subjects the resulting "strategy" to be tested at some future date by the next adversary.
And so critical thinking is nearly always sidelined in favor of the proximate leader's preference. While some have characterized it differently, this is the real "Red Queen problem"—if you don't fall in line, it's "off with their heads!" This is how new ideas, new strategic ideas, die. With a few bloody cuts that silence everyone.
The notable exception is wartime. The stakes are so high that exceptions get made because lives are lost. That's why the greatest military strategists are permitted to grow, develop, and get on with it in wartime.
Outside of war, though, is another story. Which is problematic because there's a solid connection between strategic performance before-war and at-war.
One hopes the military strategists out there find some way to punch through this engrained blind obedience. But likely they'll find themselves bound to fail until the next shooting war, suffocated by the stifling military mindset that simply doesn't permit true strategy-making.