Yooper
Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
I'm gonna take a chance. I didn't see a thread started on this subject/idea, so here goes....
What I'm hoping for is a civil discussion where ideas are batted back and forth in a respectful manner about courses of action. But I don't think I'm gonna get much feedback. In the hope that I am wrong, here's the set-up:
I was reading an article this a.m. on NRO by V.D. Hanson and it got me thinking about strategy formulation. Got me wondering a bit about the administration's response and peoples' takes on it. Then one forum member made the point "If we had a competent president who had a strong response...."
It's a given that the folks who are not in power (that is, these folks and their "party" doesn't control the presidency/governorships, aren't the CEOs, aren't the final decision makers, etc.) will always claim (at the time, in hindsight, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) that that leader(ship) in power has acted in an incompetent manner (be it specific actions, timeliness, etc.). This time around it's Trump and COVID-19, but we can pick just about any crisis (one of my favorites is criticism (Congressional and otherwise) of Washington's leadership of the Continental Army during the Revolution).
So, let's engage. What would have been the "strong response" that would have gained national consensus? Toss out your ideas and rationale. Invite (respectful) feedback.
My sense is that few will bite on this/my invitation. Because most (and I count myself as one of the "most" more often than I would like to admit) will find it far easier to criticize. To be a Statler or Waldorf (Muppets reference). To be the Monday Morning Quarterback. To be the backseat driver. To be the "I told you so" person.
I have some "national level" experience with this. When I was a student at the Army War College we conducted several table-top exercises over the academic year that dealt with national-level problems (one of which had to do with China causing mischief not just regionally, but globally). Not only were the students centrally involved the War College invited participants from State, other USG entities, diplomats from embassies in DC, corporation CEOs, bankers and brokers, etc. So what did we students learn? We learned (painfully) that it is truly difficult to coordinate a response that's a) really good (hence, why Patton was famous for saying that he would always take a good plan now rather than a perfect plan never implemented) and b) satisfies a broad swath of stakeholders.
The main reason is "equities" (I don't mean equities as far as finances go, but financial equities can be one of the things some stakeholders seek to protect). "Equities" are THE reason why coordinated, efficient responses to anything don't happen until things get really bad. Bean counters want to conserve money, military leaders want more troops and better equipment, diplomats (among others) don't want the boat rocked, private corporations complain they are being squeezed out or want more money or can't complete the contract they bid on on-time, foreign governments' interests don't align with ours, out-of-power political parties want to score points, the global financial situation won't cooperate, news media has stories to write and careers to improve, "enemies" have (and exercise) a vote, etc. and so forth.
So my take is that if the COVID-19 event stays more "perceptionally scary" than "death rate scary" we going to continue to see the squabbling we see here on the forum, on TV, in social media, etc. Because "equities." If this COVID-19 scare turns Captain Trips-like then watch the squabbling lessen as the death count rises. (Certainly hoping for the former (however annoying) than the latter.)
So have at it. What should Trump have done? What would have been the "strong response"? Make your case. Engage in civil dialog. Try to listen, try to learn.
But as I said, I don't think there will be many takers (if any). Because, as I said, it's easier (and more gratifying) to bitch than to constructively resolve.
Prove me wrong. I think if one is open to the dynamics in play with these sorts of things one will find out that while courses of action (COAs) may not be optimal through the lens of various stakeholder stovepipes, it's generally the case that the COA actually embarked upon is the COA that satisfies the majority of stakeholders. That's the nature of non-authoritarian organizations.....
I have some other thoughts, but I'll "check fire" for now (to see if anyone else joins the conversation).
Keep calm and carry on!
Cheers.
--- End of line (MCP)
What I'm hoping for is a civil discussion where ideas are batted back and forth in a respectful manner about courses of action. But I don't think I'm gonna get much feedback. In the hope that I am wrong, here's the set-up:
I was reading an article this a.m. on NRO by V.D. Hanson and it got me thinking about strategy formulation. Got me wondering a bit about the administration's response and peoples' takes on it. Then one forum member made the point "If we had a competent president who had a strong response...."
It's a given that the folks who are not in power (that is, these folks and their "party" doesn't control the presidency/governorships, aren't the CEOs, aren't the final decision makers, etc.) will always claim (at the time, in hindsight, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) that that leader(ship) in power has acted in an incompetent manner (be it specific actions, timeliness, etc.). This time around it's Trump and COVID-19, but we can pick just about any crisis (one of my favorites is criticism (Congressional and otherwise) of Washington's leadership of the Continental Army during the Revolution).
So, let's engage. What would have been the "strong response" that would have gained national consensus? Toss out your ideas and rationale. Invite (respectful) feedback.
My sense is that few will bite on this/my invitation. Because most (and I count myself as one of the "most" more often than I would like to admit) will find it far easier to criticize. To be a Statler or Waldorf (Muppets reference). To be the Monday Morning Quarterback. To be the backseat driver. To be the "I told you so" person.
I have some "national level" experience with this. When I was a student at the Army War College we conducted several table-top exercises over the academic year that dealt with national-level problems (one of which had to do with China causing mischief not just regionally, but globally). Not only were the students centrally involved the War College invited participants from State, other USG entities, diplomats from embassies in DC, corporation CEOs, bankers and brokers, etc. So what did we students learn? We learned (painfully) that it is truly difficult to coordinate a response that's a) really good (hence, why Patton was famous for saying that he would always take a good plan now rather than a perfect plan never implemented) and b) satisfies a broad swath of stakeholders.
The main reason is "equities" (I don't mean equities as far as finances go, but financial equities can be one of the things some stakeholders seek to protect). "Equities" are THE reason why coordinated, efficient responses to anything don't happen until things get really bad. Bean counters want to conserve money, military leaders want more troops and better equipment, diplomats (among others) don't want the boat rocked, private corporations complain they are being squeezed out or want more money or can't complete the contract they bid on on-time, foreign governments' interests don't align with ours, out-of-power political parties want to score points, the global financial situation won't cooperate, news media has stories to write and careers to improve, "enemies" have (and exercise) a vote, etc. and so forth.
So my take is that if the COVID-19 event stays more "perceptionally scary" than "death rate scary" we going to continue to see the squabbling we see here on the forum, on TV, in social media, etc. Because "equities." If this COVID-19 scare turns Captain Trips-like then watch the squabbling lessen as the death count rises. (Certainly hoping for the former (however annoying) than the latter.)
So have at it. What should Trump have done? What would have been the "strong response"? Make your case. Engage in civil dialog. Try to listen, try to learn.
But as I said, I don't think there will be many takers (if any). Because, as I said, it's easier (and more gratifying) to bitch than to constructively resolve.
Prove me wrong. I think if one is open to the dynamics in play with these sorts of things one will find out that while courses of action (COAs) may not be optimal through the lens of various stakeholder stovepipes, it's generally the case that the COA actually embarked upon is the COA that satisfies the majority of stakeholders. That's the nature of non-authoritarian organizations.....
I have some other thoughts, but I'll "check fire" for now (to see if anyone else joins the conversation).
Keep calm and carry on!
Cheers.
--- End of line (MCP)