Vision 2016 H1

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 14:37:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> The name isn't that bad, but the authority question is... 
> lieutenants would need enough documentation to make decisions 
> on their own that they can be confident are correct and 
> accepted by the leadership. We don't have that, so appointing 
> someone to the title would be meaningless, regardless of what 
> it is called.
>
> General is a bit different because there's more autonomy there 
> and such an individual may be ok making up their own rules.

Well, as a former soldier serving at a national military HQ the 
terminology comes through as extremely childish and pushing all 
the wrong buttons.

The military is a rigid blind bureaucracy per excellence with 
absolutely no other purpose than being able to execute fast and 
predictable in a future crisis moving thousands of units. Outside 
that crisis it is slow, expensive, inefficient and the activities 
are pointless and non-negotiable. :-/