#programming goals

The goal is to control the individual, create alters to complete specific tasks without memory so the individual has the ability to function in society without issue. As well as keep the secrets of their abuse and trauma.

The government would achieve complete and total loyalty to whatever cause they choose.  

The military personnel can be trained to complete missions without fear or self-doubt.  The individuals could be programmed to feel no pain, strength conditioning, and if captured switch to another alter so the mission would not be in jeopardy.

Government agencies, and places they contract out to complete the programming.

This quote can be found on page 14 of the book: "It appears that DDNOS is the intentional goal of these abusers, but DID sometimes results from a failure of programming."

This statement confused me a little and I would like to understand it better.

I previously thought that DID is the goal of programming and DDNOS (OSDD?) isn't as effective, since there are often no amnesias or clear separations between the parts of the system. Am I just misunderstanding the terms or is DDNOS/OSDD truly the intentional goal?

One could also interpret the quote in such a way that 'DDNOS' actually means the covert (hidden) form of DID (or shell programming?) and 'DID' then stands for the overt form (visible switches) which could indeed be considered the result of failed programming.

I hope the question is understandable.

Any insight is greatly appreciated!

I have read this book before and re-read the section of the book from where this quotation was taken. Allison Miller's statement is made from the point of view of what it appears to her might be the goals of the abuser groups. She is writing from a different perspective than this blog, which is writing from the perspective of one who is trained in the goals of the abusers.  Not every abuser group has the ability to create DID;  however they may be able to create traumatized states in their victims in order to control them.  Overall, the first part of her statement can be true for many kinds of abuser groups. I cannot think of a reason why she would define the creation of DID as "failed programming"; maybe by "failed" she just means unintended. Some groups have the resources and every intent to create DID.  Allison Miller has a lot of really helpful information, but some information found  in her books and lectures will not align with the information that you find in Oz’s writings or on this blog, and that is okay.