A startup CEO isn't just a platoon leader: they are also a politician and a strategist. That's what makes it so difficult.
I don't think this post is about the US military though. Uniforms look Singaporean.
The blog post never says it is.
> Winning wars seems more interesting than having great teams.
It's ok to write blog posts about a variety of things, even if you think there's something potentially more interesting elsewhere.
I would like to point out that having a great military force is not enough for what's important -- many times, it's not even needed!
This is a guide for those who have decided on their own that they want to focus on building a great team, because their personal assessment is that a great team is what they need to succeed.
In the US, the head of the military is a politician (the US president). As a side effect of that the majority of high ranking officers are politicians as well, albeit playing a different game since it's the politicians they are trying to impress rather than the people.
So why does the US lose wars? Because we don’t let the military fight them to win. How else does a 21st century military lose to someone living in the sixth century?
The officer corp spends 10x more time restraining soldiers than gassing them up. It’s difficult to fathom what we’re capable of (even with the law of armed conflict).
Note that, conversely, force on force "wars" are won very quickly. We should have left Afghanistan in 2002.
But personally I wouldn't be quite so quick to write off 20 years of somewhat liberalism, and widespread internet access, in terms of that nation's development.
Part of the reason is this type of chronic underestimation of the enemy. The Taliban may hold some socially outdated ideas, but their use of digital communications and machine guns is absolutely not "from the sixth century". Rule 1 of warfare is to never underestimate your opponent.
The main problem the US had was that from basically day 2 (day 1 being spent winning the conventional war) they were looking for a way to leave the country again and everybody there knew it. If you are not looking to annex the conquered territory indefinitely (which is extremely unpopular in western countries for PR reasons) then eventually you will have to leave and so your opponents only need to find a way to survive until then.
Of course it's not. And the US should know that. They trained the Taliban in he 80's to fight the Russians.
And he lost the war.
Because of political forces outside his control
I mean, yes. If the US goal was to "win" by which you mean wipe out the Taliban (and with it the entire population of Afghanistan), that could have been accomplished in very short order with no loss of US lives on Sept. 12th 2001.
The US loses wars because most people in the US (and worldwide) don't want to live in a country that indiscriminately wipes out entire populations.
https://warriorlodge.com/blogs/news/16298760-a-french-soldie...