Armed Force definition and military coups

[gregfowlerphd]

According to the definition, to be an armed force, an organization must ‘hav[e] the Objective to further the foreign and domestic policies of a Government and to defend that body and the nation it represents from external and internal aggressors’. However, sometimes a nation’s military overthrows its government precisely because it disagrees with that government’s policies (and hence, it seems, doesn’t have the objective to further those policies). Thus the definition implies that a military engaged in such a coup is no longer an armed force, but I’m inclined to think that’s false (though that’s not entirely clear).

Side question: What is it to have an objective, understood in the quasi-technical sense specified in the definition of ‘Objective’? Is it to be the agent mentioned in that definition, or something else?

[alanruttenberg]

Definition of objective specification in IAO (OBO)
A directive information entity that describes an intended process endpoint. When part of a plan specification the concretization is realized in a planned process in which the bearer tries to effect the world so that the process endpoint is achieved.

An implication is that information entities can be concretized by realizable entities.

[neilotte]

@gregfowlerphd As this question is a little more open ended and seems to warrant discussion, I'm moving it to the discussion forum.

FWIW: I think most militaries that engage in coups still believe they are defending the nation from internal aggressors (the internal aggressor being their own government).

[gregfowlerphd]

@neilotte: Your FWIW sounds right. That said, the militaries don't seem to satisfy the first conjunct in the case of coups, so they don't seem to satisfy the definition as a whole.

[PhiBabs935]

I think it is worth considering different senses of having an objective. I think that it is clear that organizations have some sort of procedure for setting objectives for that organization (whether it be a nation, a company, etc.) In the case of a dictatorship, one could argue that the ruling regime sets the relevant national objectives by means of authoritarian power (on the grounds that it is up to them basically).

So, they are objectives that

a) prescribe a projected future states involving that nation that at least some of the agents constituting that regime intend to achieve (satisfying the CCO definition of Objective). So, the relevant subset of the regime 'have' these objectives in the sense of intending to achieve them (along with any members of the populace that also intend to achieve them).

b) that has been set for the nation by the ruling regime through the relevant procedure (the party says so, or something like that). This is the sense in which the nation (the gov't plus the populace of the delimiting domain? not sure here) 'has' the objective.

The senior leadership of a company might get together in a meeting to debate over and then establish certain profit objectives for the company, which they at least intend to achieve. But does that mean everyone in the company intends to achieve it? Such as the janitors? Surely not. So, I think we need to distinguish between having an objective in the sense of being one of the Agents that intends to bring about the relevant state (this is the sense of having an objective that is implied by the definition of the term in CCO) and a group of agents or organization having an objective because it is an objective that has been set for that group of agents by some decision process.

I believe that is what is the case for Armed Forces. There was some sort of procedure by which those goals are set as the goal for an Armed Force. That doesn't mean every member 'has' the objective in the intending to achieve it sense.

[PhiBabs935]

Just because the U.S. has certain national objectives in the sense that they are objectives that are set for it in policy documents written by the President (with input from the security council) that doesn't mean everyone in the country intends to achieve them.

[BrendaBraitling]

Returning to @alanruttenberg's comment. It seemed sufficient to me.

Definition of objective specification in IAO (OBO)
A directive information entity that describes an intended process endpoint. When part of a plan specification the concretization is realized in a planned process in which the bearer tries to effect the world so that the process endpoint is achieved.

An implication is that information entities can be concretized by realizable entities.

@gregfowlerphd I would suggest that an MLO is not required to handle the details of a specific kind of organization's activities, nor the motivating factors of its human leaders. When we wish to deal with specific kinds of organizations and how their members operate, I would say that we have reached a Domain of Social Organizations.