[aethros]

There's an argument to be made that the military employs socialization tactics often found in cults, such as group mentality--I'll be the first to concede that. But the notion that the military's 'objective' is the "continuous exploitation of lower level persons" is utter nonsense.

The objective of the U.S. Military is to fight and win wars. There's been a lot of social science put into the military on how best to accomplish that. Much of that science is on leadership and how to organize groups into effective teams.

A brief skimming of many of these texts clearly highlight how tactics like overworking subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in the long term. The most effective leaders care for and inspire their subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams and higher productivity. The military teaches this constantly.

[scrum-treats]

> But the notion that the military's 'objective' is the "continuous exploitation of lower level persons" is utter nonsense.

Is it?

> The objective of the U.S. Military is to fight and win wars.

Is it?

> The most effective leaders care for and inspire their subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams and higher productivity. The military teaches this constantly.

The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli.

There are higher levels of leadership that use more sophisticated mechanisms, and there are great leaders in the military no doubt. For sure I can say this. Some of the most intelligent, mindful persons in leadership hold advanced military positions.

However, the majority of military is not in the upper echelons of the power hierarchy. And the majority of leaders in the military do not fall in this category of exceptionalism. This is to say, the majority of people are located at or near the bottom. And guess what happens at or near the bottom? "Continuous exploitation of lower level persons."

And when those persons leave the military and are given leadership positions in corporate institutions, guess how they lead? You already described it: "... overworking subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in the long term."

[aethros]

> the majority of military is not in the upper echelons of the power hierarchy. And the majority of leaders in the military do not fall in this category of exceptionalism.

You're making a correlation that the best leaders are at the top, but that's not the case. Furthermore, you don't need to be an exceptional leader to know that you need to care for your subordinates.

Yes, there are terrible leaders in the military. There are leaders who go through courses specifically geared for command positions, learn tools on good leadership, and then actively use techniques counter to the learned approach. However, there are terrible leaders everywhere, at all levels of command.

Very rarely are civilian leaders given dedicated time and instruction within their profession on how to manage their subordinates effectively, outside of say academia (e.g.: business school). The military has professional military education (PME) built into all levels of leadership from first line supervisors up to executive leadership (general officers)---The differences between military and civilian leadership is very apparent. Military veterans are often the most preferred candidates, all things being equal, in recruiting pools because of their leadership and performance.

[pdonis]

> Is it?

The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all.

> The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli.

Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then.