Balancing the Search for Truth with Obedience – Where the Profession of Arms (Often) Fails
Friday’s Last Word – Pull Pin, Throw Grenade, Run Away: A provocative thought to kick off the weekend…
By Major Matt Cavanaugh
In war, as in the Profession of Arms, two major concepts often collide – the search for truth – and obedience. George Orwell wrote about this indirectly in 1946,
“The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”
On one hand, the battlefield can be conceived of as one gigantic “problem” that takes curiosity, patience, and persistent study. Clausewitz wrote in On War, “Bonaparte rightly said that …many of the decisions faced by the commander-in-chief resemble mathematical problems worthy of the gifts of Newton or Euler.” On the other hand, a military (armies in particular) can be thought of as a single organic body. If it does not function as one, or with “unity of effort,” then it’s effectiveness is significantly degraded. In short, from my perspective, the U.S. military tends to lean towards the second at the expense of the first.
Read More