[ars]

I always thought this was deliberate. The problem is that in peacetime there is not enough for soldiers to do, so militaries run things deliberately very inefficiently in order to make sure people have things to do.

If you ran everything at full efficiency you would need far fewer people - but then in a war there would not be enough people. So you do everything inefficiently so the people (and resources) are there when you need them, and in a war you press the magic efficiency button.

Take your examples:

The loading/unloading was a form of exercise.

Sending the full truck back was a way to keep the truck drivers busy, and also of making sure the trucks are used.

Sending the entire shipment back was a way of keeping the supplier occupied, so that they need to keep people on payroll, who would be needed in a war.

The thing about the in-country units, was actually a form of training - you want each unit to know how to accomplish the entire task. Sure you could use the previous work, but then the incoming unit would not know how to do it. Plus it keeps the incoming unit busy, and everyone, and everything else associated with it, both busy, and in practice.

A unit commander has a big problem: how do I keep my soldiers both busy and trained. The simplest way to do that is to make them redo things someone else already did.

Try looking at all the inefficiency in this light, and it will all make sense.

PS. Were you ever a commander/officer (not sure of the right term)? Or did you ever keep children occupied in the summer?

[tdavis]

The loading/unloading was a form of exercise.

Uh, no, this was a war-time example. So were my notes about "incoming Units". When we were relieved in Afghanistan, our work was pretty much thrown out, despite the fact that we'd had the most successful deployment (in terms of native opinion improvements, processes improved, etc.) of that theater in years (for our AOR anyway).

While I appreciate the logic of your argument in theory, I assure you, there is no such thing as a "magic efficiency button", which any actual soldier will tell you (or rant to you about) for hours ;)

[derefr]

But why not make them do productive things? If The People are investing in "a bunch of buff guys with guns that can take orders well and haul ass", then they should just be able to rent them out in peacetime to, well, take orders and haul ass (but not with guns, hopefully.) The military should be making money for the government during peace time to offset the resource usage during wars.

[tdavis]

Soldiers are not machines which can be programmed once and then retain their skill set indefinitely. All that peace time is spent gaining additional training and maintaining readiness for a time of war. Not off helping unload water trucks or something.

It's interesting to read the thoughts from people on HN, RE the military, because they are almost universally preposterous.

[derefr]

I never said they shouldn't be "gaining additional training and maintaining readiness for a time of war." I just think there are more productive ways to do that. Have the engineers do civil projects; have the infantry work as policemen, or firefighters; have the officers work in management of various companies. Basically, keep them integrated into society.

I wouldn't trust my life to a general who hadn't also successfully run a company full of people who didn't care what he thought and quit when he did something stupid. You may be an experienced military X, but you'd probably be a better X if you also knew how to do X as a civilian. In fact, you'd better be ready to do X as a civilian when your service is terminated, however that may happen.

[jpcx01]

I would imagine the skillsets for making money and targeted distruction are very different.