micro managing the military, good or bad?

Answer 1

micro managing is ALWAYS bad.

Answer 2

Presidents sure screw up when they personally start managing the military on a daily basis. Johnson and Bush, both from Texas, although Bush is not an originally from Texas, tried micro managing the Military and unfortunately no one was able to stop either of them except defeat on the battlefield. That's right, DEFEAT.
I witnessed the beginning of the heavy involvement in Vietnam from an Air Force ammo guys position. We American Troops along with the President and most of the Military believed the little skinny guys from Southeast Asia could not possibly stand up to are Armada of Aircraft and Bombs.
Bush's attack of Baghdad was supposed to accomplish a big Mission Accomplished also, but it is easy to delude yourself when you practicing delusions of grandeur and you believe American is invincible by way of a modern Manifest Destiny.
We have tasted defeat now twice in large regional wars, not counting Lebanon and other small disasters.
The question is, will we ever learn?

Answer 3

As a retired military professional and as a current manager in the IT field, I can vouch that micromanagement is just another word for mistrust.

(maybe with a dash of arrogance thrown in).

Pick good people, give them the training and the resources they need to do the job, make sure they understand what you are trying to accomplish, and then LEAVE THEM ALONE.

Answer 4

Micro management is never a good idea when you are dealing with professionals.

Answer 5

Bad. Very, very bad.

That's what the Democrats did in Viet Nam. That war lasted
thirteen years.

Answer 6

bad idea politicians fighting the war from behind a desk, taking advice from think tanks whose info only comes from focus groups to pacify the masses while they stuff their pockets