Challenging Command and Control: A Rejoinder to Anonymous Commentary

Abstract

Modern military command and control (C2) incorporates flexibility, cooperation, and coordination – focal elements of Dynes’ revered Problem-Solving model – as part of its institutionalized orientation to disaster response. However, there remains a committed faction of scholars resistant to the notion that their seminal Problem-Solving model can – in fact – resemble the long decried military C2 approach. Such deep-rooted attachment to the Problem-Solving model must then be defended against any perceived threat to equate it to the tabooed military C2, for surely such a likened comparison must not be permitted to influence disaster research. This is precisely the aim, it seems, of a commentary piece submitted to IJMED in response to my August 2018 article: “Command and Control: Challenging Fallacies of the Military Model in Research and Practice.” In that piece, the commentary author misinterpreted at best – or manipulated at worst – my central argument, stating that I introduced modern military C2 “as a practical solution that satisfies the disaster researchers’ recommendations” (Anonymous 2019:125). The commentary response then proceeds to challenge the arguments presented in my article through a series of flawed assertions and subjective claims. This rejoinder addresses the anonymous author's response commentary in detail and counters the counter-arguments with discussions indicating the apparent biases and subjectivity presented in the argument. It concludes with my personal assessment of the issue and what truly compels the ongoing discussion within the disaster research community.