AOTW:
I understand that you want to put across the point that ex-military people don't understand the real world, and that only non-military and therefore 'real' people can understand, but that is such patent bull that only those wanting to jump on the RAAF-bashing wagon will swallow it, no matter how many times you and Dick repeat it.
You've had a few run-ins with ex military types? Well, me too, but just as many with similarly pig-headed people who never wore a uniform. One trait of most ex-military pilots and air traffickers I know is that they're generally (and there are exceptions of course) reliable, honest and have integrity. Perhaps if you don't get on with them, you might want to have a look in the mirror!
We can get into another to-and-fro match if you like, but your modus operandi is to make a bunch of sweeping pronouncements and then disappear when you get cornered in a logical argument, so perhaps not.
But for your last sweeping statement about disappearing, I would have let your uninformed comments through to the keeper and gone back to topic, however you accuse me of not following through on my argument and in any case it is better to get what we mean by "Military attitude problem" , whether RAAF, Navy or Army) precisely clear.
We do NOT mean that the Officers concerned are not fine, honest, decent upstanding fellows you would buy a beer for.
What we are talking about is the necessary military requirement that requires unquestioning obedience to an order, even unto possible death. I served as a lowly Lieutenant and I can assure you every officer knows what is taught and it hasn't and can't change. Going into battle is not "optional" if you run away from the enemy you can even get courtmartialed. There is no civilian equivalent. Your boss might sack you yes, but he can't put you up against the wall and shoot you for cowardice.
So what we are talking about is a habitual obedience to people higher in the hierarchy than you are. Everyone in the services knows this and accepts it. Try walking with half your platoon behind you carrying enough explosives and ammo to level a city block, you better believe they obey you. There are no doubt exactly similar requirements for trust an obedience in the RAN and RAAF.
The problem, again well documented, comes when a senior officer makes a mistaken order or one that is just plain wrong or based on faulty information. You are still required to obey that order. I say again, disobedience is not optional (leave Nuremberg out of it) in the military if you query the order, attempt to argue for something else or dispute the utility of what you are told to do, then that is insubordination or worse even up to the possibility of being charged with mutiny. This is again documented. It takes great tact and very quick wits to perhaps save a senior officer from their mistake this is again well documented.
Thousands of troops and Naval ratings have died because officers decided to "follow orders" when it was blindingly obvious that the orders were wrong or counterproductive, but hey, the military is not a democracy!
What Dick Smith is alluding to is this habit among a percentage of senior military officers thrust into a non military environment of expecting obedience to their wishes from their imagined subordinates as if they are still in the military and equating any query, disagreement or challenge as a direct personal affront. I agree 100% with Dick on this because I've had the unfortunate honour of working for Two of them at different times and it is both unpleasant and inefficient with no good outcomes for anyone, least of all the organisation.
I am not saying that all ex military are this way inclined, far from it, but there are a certain percentage that will pine for the service they left and try and replicate it in the organisation they inhabit. This is the source of reference for remarks about "group captains clubs" and suchlike cliques and exclusive sets and its a rotten way of running an organisation if it occurs.