MACHINA

by Sebastian Marshall

  The question to constantly ask yourself is –

  Once I get this working, how to ensure it keeps working well forever?

  The greatest successes of all-time are the people who can operationalize… well, everything.

  Steve Jobs was obviously fanatic about Ops; as was Rockefeller, who obsessed with ensuring everything was done perfectly everywhere.

  Theodore Vail built AT&T into a powerhouse by not solving problems once, but instead putting in place operational solutions that lasted two generations after his death. Facebook, likewise, is obsessed with Ops from top to bottom.

  You don’t need to have that level of fanaticism about it to get started… even a little bit of thinking about Operations goes a long way to making life more consistent, more thriving, more predictably excellent, and produces more gainswhile decreasing stress and costs over time.

  In short, Ops is one of the most glorious things in the world – take it seriously, and constantly ask yourself,

  Once I get this working, how to ensure it keeps working well forever?

  Temporal Control #8: Institutions

  IN THE LAST OF THE REPUBLIC'S DAYS...

  “To raise new forces with which to set over to Africa, Marius now broke yet another tradition. Rather than to enlist from the landowning classes, Marius now offered the soldier's job to Rome's poor, promising them adventure, glory and booty. But most of all he offered them jobs, a means of making a living. Perhaps unwittingly Marius set in motion a revolution in Roman army affairs, and his action is a landmark in Roman history.” – The Roman Empire: Marius

  ***

  WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS A “ROMAN ARMY”?; I: FOUNDING

  Rome was founded as a monarchy by its first king, the semi-legendary Romulus; the date of Rome’s founding is traditionally given as 753 BC.

  In 510 BC, the Roman monarchic family – the Tarquins – had grown particularly corrupt and brutal. The first Brutus – his great-grandson would later assassinate Caesar – overthrew the monarchy and proclaimed a Republic.

  At the time of the Republic’s founding, it was a small and poor city-state, largely insignificant.

  In this period, Athens and Sparta to the southeast were far more significant; Rome during this era is merely a footnote; if not for the later gains and power of the Roman Republic, it would have been forgotten by history.

  Nevertheless, over the next 150 years, the country gradually grew in strength until becoming a significant regional power in 264 BC.

  At this point, Rome came into a death struggle with the naval trading empire Carthage, and 80 years of intense wars with Carthage.

  Rome had always had something of a strong military tradition – not as strong as the Spartan’s, say, but strong nonetheless.

  80 years of constant warfare with the Carthaginians – most famously, Hannibal – led to Rome’s citizens becoming battle-hardened and their soldiers being the best trained in the world.

  After Scipio Africanus defeats Hannibal at Zama in 202 BC, Rome “swept through” the rest of the areas near them, leading to the powerful hegemonic Republic that Rome is most famously known as. After finally destroying Carthage in the Third Punic war, Rome had no standing adversaries; they were masters of the world in their region.

  ***

  WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS A “ROMAN ARMY”?; II: BEFORE MARIUS

  Looking backwards, we often fail to note how big history is. It’s hard to conceive of Rome like a little baby bird, being born from an egg in 510 BC… before becoming a fierce and rampaging dinosaur in 202 BC.

  That is, for the math-inclined, longer than the United States has been around. (America: 1776-2016 = 240 years. Roman Republic from founding to Zama: 510- 202 = 308 years.)

  Caius Marius, one of the greatest generals in Roman history, was born in 157 BC.

  Rome was still a republic at that stage, but already had much of the power and reach of what would later be called the Roman Empire.

  At this point, Rome’s possessions in the Mediterannean and surrounds were fast; with it, the ability to keep external and internal security were getting stretched thin by their old institutions.

  “Until the last decade of the 2nd century BC, the eligibility requirements to become a Roman soldier in the service of the Republic were very strict:

  • He had to be a member of the fifth census class or higher (the adsidui, or "tax-payers").

  • He had to own property worth 3500 sesterces in value.

  • He had to supply his own armaments.” – Wikipedia: Marian Reforms

  The reasoning was straightforward enough: Rome was defended by the citizens were prosperous enough to defend the Republic. You bought your own equipment when you enlisted in military service.

  As such, the Roman soldier before Marius always wanted to go back home to his farm and land and family.

  ***

  WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS A “ROMAN ARMY”?; III: MARIAN REFORMS

  "The foremost of the Marian reforms was the inclusion of the Roman landless masses, the capite censi, men who had no property to be assessed in the census. Instead , they were "counted by the head". The men were now among the ranks of those who could be recruited even though they owned no significant property. Because the poor citizens could not afford to purchase their own weapons and armor, Marius arranged for the state to supply them with arms. He thus offered the disenfranchised masses permanent employment for pay as professional soldiers and the opportunity to gain spoils on campaign. With little hope of gaining status in other ways, the masses flocked to join Marius in his new army."

  It’s easy to understand why Rome did this. Threats would randomly crop up on Rome’s now many borders around 100 BC, and there was not always time to raise and equip volunteer armies.

  Marius created a permanent standing army – with 20 year enlistments and arms and equipment paid for by the state, and with the promise of land and money on retirement of surviving veterans.

  ***

  WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS A “ROMAN ARMY”?; IV: FROM SUCCESS TO CIVIL WAR

  Marius’s reforms worked.

  Marian-style troops defeated Numidian forces in Northern Africa, winning an important regional war needed to secure Rome’s “breadbasket” in Northern Africa.

  But what followed the Numidian wars was one of the greatest threats to Rome of all time: suddenly appearing on Rome’s northern frontiers were fierce invading German warbands, the Cimbri and Teutons.

  80,000 Romans were killed by the Germans – the worst losses since Hannibal – until Marius arrived on the scene and defeated the threat.

  Marius was hailed as the “third founder” of Rome for his successes – after Romulus and Brutus – and the Marian reforms were here to stay.

  In 88 BC, Marius and his troops started the first Roman Civil War. 115 years later, after three disastrous large-scale civil wars, Augustus was proclaimed Emperor and the Republic was no more.

  ***

  TEMPORAL CONTROL #8: INSTITUTIONS

  In this chapter, we’re very interested in what an “institution” is.

  For instance, what’s a “Roman Army”?

  When you look at any moment in time, this is a rather stupid and obvious question.

  There’s a Roman commander and troops. They use the Roman battlefield engineering and extremely coordinated military discipline. The infantry fights in tight ranks with the “gladius”, the Roman short sword, and a large shield. They’re supported by equestrian cavalry and missile troops.

  Fine.

  But when you dive deeper, you can see great changes in what a “Roman Army” is from time to time. The interesting question about a Roman army is not so much what it is when a particular army is when on the march, but what happens to the Roman Army over time.

  You see, I think it’s very clear that the Roman Army is an “institution” – same as the Roman Senate or the Roman office of consul.

  Likewise, the U.S. Army is an institution, every university is an institution, the America
n Presidency is an institution, the U.S. Supreme Court is an institution, and so on.

  Clearly, President Barack Obama is inhabiting more-or-less the same institution that George Washington was the first holder of.

  And yet, you can see this change in American history, too.

  From 1776 to 1942, pretty much all of the major American wars were declared by Congress.

  Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that only Congress may declare war.

  And yet, no formal declarations of war have been made since 1942.

  “The “war powers” are defined here and in Article 2, Section 2. Congress declares war, while the president wages war. However, presidents have committed U.S. forces leading to conflict without congressional declaration of war in Korea, Vietnam, and other places, provoking national argument over the meaning of these powers. Congress’ control of funding the military provides another check on the executive branch.” – http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

  As such, you can see the evolving of the institution of the American Presidency from Washington’s time through to FDR’s… but with a significant break during the time of President Truman.

  That would be followed through by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon… through to the most recent Presidents.

  We can clearly see the continuity from President Washington to President Franklin Roosevelt… changes around President Truman which carried through the Cold War, and the modern evolution after the fall of the Soviet Union, as exemplified by G.H.W Bush and Bill Clinton.

  You can see the office of the Presidency, in particular the role of Commander-in-Chief, evolve. It is largely continuous from President Washington, but there are noteworthy discontinuous breaks at Truman and the Cold War, and perhaps again at G.W. Bush and 9/11.

  Being able to understand what institutions are, how they evolve, and having a grasp of this over time – it is a preciously valuable way of seeing the world, with many practical implications.

  ***

  WHAT’S AN INSTITUTION?, I: INTERSUBJECTIVE

  We’re already got some of the tools needed to understand institutions.

  Our starting point must be Temporal Control #5: The Intersubjective.

  Similarly to money or language or a flag, institutions exist by common understanding and agreement.

  A rock is a rock is a rock; a piece of granite is a rather objective thing. You can argue about what to do with it, you can carry it around, you can use it to build a wall. But it’s a piece of granite, regardless of what people happen to think about it.

  On the other hand, there’s the purely subjective – “I like chocolate”, “I do not like chocolate” – this is subjective and personal, perhaps slightly different for every single person.

  In between the objective and subjective are “intersubjective” things. The U.S. President’s authority is constantly pseudo-negotiated between the President, Congress, Supreme Court, the American people, and various stakeholders.

  If the President overreaches his authority, he might be impeached or voted out of office. Eventually, the President’s role – in any given time period – will settle into an equilibrium that is more-or-less agreed, and he will act in that role.

  This is different than granite, which is what it is; nor is it subjective.

  ***

  WHAT’S AN INSTITUTION?, II: INTERSUBJECTIVE EVOLUTION

  Consider the 2011 intervention in Libya –

  “On June 24, the US House voted against Joint Resolution 68, which would have authorized continued US military involvement in the NATO campaign for up to one year. The majority of Republicans voted against the resolution, with some questioning US interests in Libya and others criticizing the White House for overstepping its authority by conducting a military expedition without Congressional backing. House Democrats were split on the issue, with 115 voting in favor of and 70 voting against. Despite the failure of the President to receive legal authorization from Congress, the Obama administration continued its military campaign, carrying out the bulk of NATO's operations until the overthrow of Gadaffi in October.” – Wikipedia: 2011 Military Intervention in Libya

  This is par for the course in recent years, at least since the end of the Cold War. The current President typically tries to get Congress to authorize military actions without a declaration of war, but even if Congress does not, the President broadly has the authority to engage in medium-sized operations without approval as a police action.

  There is a rough consensus among the American President, Congress, military commanders, diplomats, and so on – the President is more-or-less able to do “medium-sized” interventions and smaller without Congress’s approval these days. There’s likewise more-or-less a consensus that “large-sized” interventions – especially permanent ground troops – need to be authorized by Congress.

  If you feel curious to dig into history, you can actually trace through which conflicts and crises and demands of the moment, which personalities and compositions of Congress, and so on, led to the current rough consensus on the topic, and it’s interesting periodically to do so.

  The most significant in American history for the evolution of the President’s role to lead military interventions, of course, was the Korean War –

  “War broke out along the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950. On that day, North Korean troops coordinated an attack at several strategic points along the parallel and headed south toward Seoul. The United Nations Security Council responded to the attack by adopting (by a 9-0 vote) a resolution that condemned the invasion as a "breach of the peace." The Council did not have a Soviet delegate, since 6 months prior, the Soviet Union had left to protest the United Nation's refusal to seat a delegate from China. President Harry S. Truman quickly committed American forces to a combined United Nations military effort and named Gen. Douglas MacArthur Commander of the U.N. forces. Fifteen other nations also sent troops under the U.N. command. Truman did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress; officially, America's presence in Korea amounted to no more than a "police action."” – https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict/

  (Scholars debate the legality and appropriateness of the action; under American law, treaties are in theory are equal to the Constitution but in practice American domestic law comes first… America joined the United Nations under treaty, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 84 authorized the war. The point would be mooted when the USA/USSR deadlock in the security council meant that the U.N. would not authorize any major Cold War military engagements again.)

  You can see here, thus, how intersubjective evolution happens – it’s a mix of the current demands of the circumstance being acted upon, and how people react.

  Had Congress immediately censored and tried to impeach President Truman, the Presidential war powers might or might not have been curtailed – or perhaps the Supreme Court might have been called to arbitrate if some other authority had engaged in a challenge – but the Korean War was more-or-less supported by the parties, who let it pass by unchallenged, and the precedent was set for the American President to lead “police actions” broadly related to a treaty or some international concern that was not a “full scale declaration of war”…

  … the details are less important here; the specific point is this – institutions evolve as there is intersubjective evolution: negotiations, test cases, people trying to make things happen and seeing how other people react. If everyone with a significant stake goes along with a new way of doing things, very quickly it becomes the old way of doing things.

  ***

  WHAT’S AN INSTITUTION?, III: OBJECTIVE FACTS

  The “objective facts” of an institution surely matter; if there are 10,000 well-armed Roman men massing to assault an enemy city, there’s 10,000 men there.

  There’s nothing subjective or intersubjective about that. If they have 9,500 swordsmen and 500 cavalry, that’s also pretty darn objective.
>
  Intersubjectivity – agreement between people – certainly matters between roughly equal stakeholders, but it plays less than objective facts when one side has objectively more committed strength.

  Modern world governments largely all consider the 1940 Soviet occupation of Estonia as criminal and illegitimate, but no one would commit soldiers to the cause and Estonia is a tiny little country compared to the vastness of Russia.

  No agreement on the topic could be made, when Stalin’s soldiers outnumbered the people who would fight at least 1,000:1.

  On the other side of the ledger, the Korean War command under MacArthur barely turned back Kim il-Sung’s after holding one final last permimeter in the southeast of Korea. It was barely not overrun, and the Allied counterattack almost destroyed North Korean forces entirely – until China intervened, and pushed the Allied command back to the line of demarcation.