🚀 go-pugleaf

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
  Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info.

--------------1E5D2E893A99
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Content-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971103230630.5818K@cyberq.quality.org>



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 19:39:23 -0600
From: becky knight <wilson11@FLASH.NET>
To: Quality@pucc.Princeton.EDU
Subject: Armed with quality!

Harry said:
Your response could require volumes to clarify; and I would not be in
disagreement with much.  After 22 years in the military (as both a
soldier and a project manager for DoD acquisitions), the ultimate goal
of any military organization is to bring death and destruction upon an
enemy.  It is NOT to keep the peace, act as policemen, clean up after
natural disasters, etc.  The politicians decide when and how to use
us; not the other way around.

All combat is destructive.  Its nature is to kill and maim.  The
objective is to force the other side into submission through
overwhelming force.  This force is applied via soldiers, artillery,
air power, etc.  The strategy is to use as much force as is necessary
to achieve the goal so that you are not weakened in other areas to the
point of winning the battle but losing the war (a Principle of War
known as 'Economy of Force').  War is, therefore, wasteful.  Which is
the opposite of quality.  Quality principles would conclude that the
efficient military force is one which ends a war before it begins,
thus eliminating the waste and destruction.  As this is a political
issue, military forces cannot do this unless the politicians are the
generals.  A strong military, well trained and capable of severely
hurting an enemy is a strong deterrent to war; but not an absolute.  A
weakened military, down-sized and untrained is an invitation to an
enemy to flex their muscle; but only when they see a weak leadership
unwilling to spend the resources necessary to retain strength (i.e.
congress/president).

While elements of quality-style analysis is necessary during combat;
and especially before, it is the political leadership that determines
policy, resources, etc.  The military is the "Line," even though it
contains management.  It has some say over how resources are
distributed, but not how much it gets.

Your comments//////
_______________________
Regards,

Harry Nimon
281-518-6582
Harry.Nimon@Compaq.com

Harry and other list members:
I cannot help but wonder if we were able to do a 'back to
the future' trick and be among some more primative cultures
if we would find that the true warrior was a man of peace.
The process of maintaining an defence to protect the tribe...
was the original motive for war and necessary because the world
always has scavengers!In our daily lives, for those of us fortunate
enough to live in peace and not a war torn homeland...we have
the luxory of being able to debate whether our military is a
quality org!!! One thing is for sure...when the big chiefs sit
and pass the peace pipe around it is not to enjoy the tobacco
oops let's don't start on the tobacco industry!). The deals are
made at every turn and above and below the table. Some of us are
just grateful to be able to work toward making life better for
ourseleves and thereby for the others within the sphere of our
influence.

I am dedicated to teaching my grandsons to be strong warriors.
The kind who can prevent wars. I offer this as my final comment
on the military thread: (see attachemnt)


--
Becky Knight            wilson11@flash.net
My opinions, like yours, are valuable if offered with the right motives.
They do not reflect employer's or others who influence my opinions.

"I don't have to like the situation; I just have to like myself in it"
  Told to me by a fine fellow - Rick G.

--------------1E5D2E893A99--