The large standing peacetime military institution does not view/experience problems in the same way its people do. Individuals look at problems as if, "what if my existence were permanent, how would this need to be better," whereas the institutional threshold is, can --

-- personnel manage this problem for the short term of the rotation. Because just keeping that machine moving is like constant contingent operation (which is why it's the first thing stopped in war -- and I think why you see more innovation institutionally during war, more --

-- free head space. And so, senior leadership selection considers institutional capabilities: can the candidate eschew a lot of detail and silos in order to keep whole of enterprise over time in mind.

This problem is tops among the reasons I prefer taking the axe to the --

-- armed forces outside of war. But if a standing force it is to be, then this is the cost. Frustration is the reformer and innovator's lot in this model.