The Golden Mosque Bombing

[Mickey]

From what perspective?

 

I think this could have been a wildly successful activity if it certain things had been done differently upfront.

 

As I said, some people don't know how to plan. Just because you have the power to create and conduct policy doesn't mean you have the skills to implement and execute it.

609841[/snapback]

In the spirit of MW being released by the Bills today, who should we fire for Iraq?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

In the spirit of MW being released by the Bills today, who should we fire for Iraq?

609881[/snapback]

 

 

Did someone drop a safe on your head this morning or something?

[Mickey]

 

Did someone drop a safe on your head this morning or something?

609886[/snapback]

How so? Bib lamented in several posts how badly it was planned. Okay, why not fire the guy(s) who came up with the bad plan?

 

As for safes falling on heads, I'm not the one who called the sixth attack on a mosque an example of being blindsided by "unexpected events". There may have been even more but I got tired of googling.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

How so?  Bib lamented in several posts how badly it was planned.  Okay, why not fire the guy(s) who came up with the bad plan?

 

Looked more like you said since Mike Williams was cut, how about firing the guy that came up with the plan.

 

As for safes falling on heads, I'm not the one who called the sixth attack on a mosque an example of being blindsided by "unexpected events".  There may have been even more but I got tired of googling.

609903[/snapback]

 

I already answered that. Your lack of comprehension, or your failure to see how your following post proves my point, is your problem, not mine.

[Ghost of BiB]

First, these are my opinions of things. I have no direct knowledge that there wasn't an overall master campaign plan in place. But, with my limited knowledge of operational and strategic planning, events over the last three years don't seem to indicate there was. At least, obviously, not a very well thought out one. In my view, the "good" planning stopped when our troops entered Baghdad. And, at least in my particular lane there were problems with both planning and execution there, too.

 

As to who to fire? I don't know. I view it as a systemic thing that is in the process (with considerable resistance) of being changed. All of our national strategies call for a combined use of all our national power to achieve strategic goals and objectives. Lofty, and also wise thoughts.

 

The problem is, there isn't a decent mechanism to do that. With regard to national strategic objectives, the process resides within the NSC. There are standing, and also ad hoc principals committees for things, deputy committees, PCC's (Policy coordination committees) and sub-PCC's. This is where the interagency participation and coordination exists. What ends up happening, is that a lot of stuff may get resolved in terms of policy, but nothing is done to integrate resources operationally, at least not in a formal and defined process that everyone understands. The government doesn't even agree on terminology, for example. "Combating WMD" means different things to the Dept. of State, than it does to Defense.

 

This isn't the fault of the administration, it's the result of laws, codes and statutes. Basically, the intent was to keep everyone in their own lane, so no one could directly affect the responsibilities or authorities of another agency.

 

But in the 21st Century, that is antiquated thinking. Iraq is a stellar example. Katrina is another, from the domestic perspective. IMO, any effective campaign or plan can not be devised or executed without AO level people sitting around the table, and actively figuring out how to synergize their respective resources through all phases to achieve a goal.

 

Changing the laws, codes and statutes is sometimes relatively easy -but more often hard. To change something that makes it easier for someone in DOD to directly coordinate at the operational level with someone in the DOT will get into someone elses Rice Bowl. The cardinal rule in the beltway as it stands, is that thou shalt not eat from another's rice bowl.

 

Toss in an adversarial press, and the spin will make things less attractive for people to make changes. IMO, logically "Combating WMD" should be led by the DOD. No one else in government has the understanding of ALL the issues involved collectively to put together a coherent program to address it all. And, I can personally vouch that it is a tremendous problem to get one's arms around.

 

But how would that look to our own press, and more to the world at large if the DOD were the LFA for that? Pretty fuggin miltaristic. I don't think it would be a good idea.

 

But, although there are venues, there isn't a joint across the government interagency mechanism with any tasking authority to do this. So, how does one effectively implement a national strategy using all elements of national power?

 

OK, I went FFS (or is it pyrite gal?) and it's a lot more complicated than this, but maybe you get the idea. You often want to pick, Mickey. But, some things are just what they are. We operationally have a system of government geared for a world that existed 25 years ago. That system wasn't set up to address how quickly the world can change now.

 

If Congress really wanted to help, they could investigate in a non-partisan fashion the stumbling points to our policy execution, and promulgate the respective laws that would enable a better system. But, they eat from various rice bowls too, and I think it's a good bet that in general, they don't have a clue. They don't care enough to know. They don't follow up on anything important. They want their face on TV, for TV made issues. Policy would still be the realm of the executive branch, doesn't matter if it's democrat, republican or the IBP. But the tools could be put in place to effect that policy, and also to plan it's implementation much more effectively than it is now. If done right, no matter who is in charge in the WH, the people best qualified to "implement the execution" of a policy would have a chance to do so. We don't have that.

[Mickey]

First, these are my opinions of things. I have no direct knowledge that there wasn't an overall master campaign plan in place. But, with my limited knowledge of operational and strategic planning, events over the last three years don't seem to indicate there was. At least, obviously, not a very well thought out one. In my view, the "good" planning stopped when our troops entered Baghdad. And, at least in my particular lane there were problems with both planning and execution there, too.

 

As to who to fire? I don't know. I view it as a systemic thing that is in the process (with considerable resistance) of being changed. All of our national strategies call for a combined use of all our national power to achieve strategic goals and objectives. Lofty, and also wise thoughts.

 

The problem is, there isn't a decent mechanism to do that. With regard to national strategic objectives, the process resides within the NSC. There are standing, and also ad hoc principals committees for things, deputy committees, PCC's (Policy coordination committees) and sub-PCC's. This is where the interagency participation and coordination exists. What ends up happening, is that a lot of stuff may get resolved in terms of policy, but nothing is done to integrate resources operationally, at least not in a formal and defined process that everyone understands. The government doesn't even agree on terminology, for example. "Combating WMD" means different things to the Dept. of State, than it does to Defense.

 

This isn't the fault of the administration, it's the result of laws, codes and statutes. Basically, the intent was to keep everyone in their own lane, so no one could directly affect the responsibilities or authorities of another agency.

 

But in the 21st Century, that is antiquated thinking. Iraq is a stellar example. Katrina is another, from the domestic perspective. IMO, any effective campaign or plan can not be devised or executed without AO level people sitting around the table, and actively figuring out how to synergize their respective resources through all phases to achieve a goal.

 

Changing the laws, codes and statutes is sometimes relatively easy -but more often hard. To change something that makes it easier for someone in DOD to directly coordinate at the operational level with someone in the DOT will get into someone elses Rice Bowl. The cardinal rule in the beltway as it stands, is that thou shalt not eat from another's rice bowl.

 

Toss in an adversarial press, and the spin will make things less attractive for people to make changes. IMO, logically "Combating WMD" should be led by the DOD. No one else in government has the understanding of ALL the issues involved collectively to put together a coherent program to address it all. And, I can personally vouch that it is a tremendous problem to get one's arms around.

 

But how would that look to our own press, and more to the world at large if the DOD were the LFA for that? Pretty fuggin miltaristic. I don't think it would be a good idea.

 

But, although there are venues, there isn't a joint across the government interagency mechanism with any tasking authority to do this. So, how does one effectively implement a national strategy using all elements of national power?

 

OK, I went FFS (or is it pyrite gal?) and it's a lot more complicated than this, but maybe you get the idea. You often want to pick, Mickey. But, some things are just what they are. We operationally have a system of government geared for a world that existed 25 years ago. That system wasn't set up to address how quickly the world can change now.

 

If Congress really wanted to help, they could investigate in a non-partisan fashion the stumbling points to our policy execution, and promulgate the respective laws that would enable a better system. But, they eat from various rice bowls too, and I think it's a good bet that in general, they don't have a clue. They don't care enough to know. They don't follow up on anything important. They want their face on TV, for TV made issues. Policy would still be the realm of the executive branch, doesn't matter if it's democrat, republican or the IBP. But the tools could be put in place to effect that policy, and also to plan it's implementation much more effectively than it is now. If done right, no matter who is in charge in the WH, the people best qualified to "implement the execution" of a policy would have a chance to do so. We don't have that.

609981[/snapback]

Thanks for the time you put into that and I am trying to understand what you are saying better than I think I do right now which is why I didn't respond sooner. Maybe you could give me a concrete example of a plan that went wrong or was ill conceived from the start due to some rules or laws that fouled up that plan. It might be easier to understand this in the context of a real life example or even maybe a hypothetical.

 

Without wedding myself to them, I do have some concerns about some of what you are saying. For example:

 

"...there isn't a joint across the government interagency mechanism with any tasking authority to do this. So, how does one effectively implement a national strategy using all elements of national power?"

 

I would think that maybe the answer to that is leadership. Leadership of the kind that seeks to unify rather than divide and conquer. I think that after 9/11 we were prepared to be led and were unified like we never were before. An opportunity squandered. I just don't know how else you can get all the elements of a nation's power, the most important element being the unified resolve of its "...they eat from various rice bowls too, and I think it's a good bet that in general, they don't have a clue. They don't care enough to know. They don't follow up on anything important. They want their face on TV, for TV made issues."people, given our basic democratic structure with multiple branches, checks and balances. Sounds touchy feely I know but what makes a leader a leader is his ability to get disparate elements to work together. It has been done. It is the difference between Reagan's city on a hill and swift boating.

 

I agree with you when you say:

 

"...they eat from various rice bowls too, and I think it's a good bet that in general, they don't have a clue. They don't care enough to know. They don't follow up on anything important. They want their face on TV, for TV made issues."

 

I would just expand that to include the executive. The President has to face re-election in 4 yrs and so spends the first two years governing, if even that, and the next two running a re-election campaign. Senators at least only run every 6 years and some are so entrenched, with no serious Presidential ambitions, that they can acutally afford to do what they think is right now and again rather than what will poll well.

[Ghost of BiB]

First off, if I gave the impression that coordination does not exist, I didn't mean to. But as with anything else, things can always be done better. As for the hypothetical, to fully explain would put me discussing things in too much detail for a public message board, because I'd be straying from my opinion.

 

I'm not going to be foolish enough to cite examples of actual plans other than to say, pick one. Might want to start somewhere around 1788 or so.

 

Leadership is always an issue, but leadership also extends beyond the oval office. I know your take on things, I think you know mine - unless you really think me a neo-con Bush appologist. The truth is, I think traditionally, every administration finds a way to put constraints on the creation of policy - they should, as policy is their lane. It's the functional mechanics I'd like to see get organized differently.

 

You keep sneaking thinly veiled Bush shots in there, so be it. Whatever. 9/11 or not, the function of government at the national strategic and policy level is a pretty complicated beast. The simplest thing can become tremendously complicated just in deconflicting policy and strategy directives, even terminology within a single agency, let alone cross agency. It's hard to get those complications across to most people. It's not anyone's "fault", it's friggen US Government.