Institutional Incompetence, "Conspiracy Theories" and Pol Pot<http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2011/07/institutional-incompetence-conspiracy.html>
I wrote this July 2011 as a way to explain how institutional incompetence can lead to genocidal reactions such as Pol Pot's. There is a point where the damage done by incompetent institutions is so great, and the etiology of their incompetence so obscured by institutional homeostasis that the popular reaction is to simply eliminate institutions. On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > You want to talk about stupidity, and institutional failure? We are > approaching the 100th anniversary of the worst example in history: World > War I. All wars include shocking examples of stupidity and out-of-control > egos. During the U.S. Civil War, a Union general delayed an attack in order > to make one of his colleagues look bad, thereby sacrificing hundreds of > lives and nearly losing the battle in the cause of self-promotion and army > politics. The Second World War was larger and more brutal than WWI, but I > think no war in history -- no event in history -- has ever been more stupid > in its origin, the way it was fought, or the way it was settled at > Versailles. > > Here is something I wrote about it, years ago -- > > Professionals who are entrusted with the most important jobs imaginable > sometimes turn out to be fools and bunglers. This is true even in > enlightened, modern society when survival is at stake. The most horrifying > example is the British general staff during the First World War. The Battle > of the Somme and other wasteful attacks were considered folly at the time > they were underway; not only in hindsight. The men and officers in the > field knew they were being sacrificed for no reason. Political leaders > including Lloyd-George and Winston Churchill knew it too. People understood > there were alternatives. The innovative younger officers fought a battle in > late 1917 at Cambrai with newer tactics and tanks. This was a victory, even > though the conservative general who was supposed to cooperate delayed his > follow-up attack by one hour, nearly sabotaging the plan. It was the only > battle which was celebrated during the war with church bells in London. > Unfortunately, the general staff soon stepped in, reasserted its power, and > lost all the ground that had been won. Churchill later wrote: > > "Accusing as I do without exception all the great allied offensives of > 1915, 1916 and 1917 as needless and wrongly conceived operations of > infinite cost, I am bound to reply to the question, What else could be > done? And I answer it, pointing to the Battle of Cambrai. 'This could have > been done.' This in many variants, this in larger and better forms ought to > have been done, and would have been done if only the Generals had not been > content to fight machine-gun bullets with the breasts of gallant men, and > think that that was waging war." > > - The World Crisis 1911 - 1918, quoted in J. Laffin, "British Butchers and > Bunglers of World War One" (Bramley Books, 1988), p. 133 > > There is proof of what Churchill said. The number of British soldiers > killed in WWI was 956,703. WWII was longer, more savage and widespread, but > only 449,700 British soldiers and civilians were killed. This was partly > due to improvements in medical care, and partly because the British were > not directly engaged on front lines for much of 1940 and '41. But I think > mainly it was the product of better military leadership, by Churchill > himself and by his generals. > > - Jed > >
