Good morning.
- Denmark and economics.
- Speaking of economics.
- St. Nilus of Calabria.
- So who would you listen to for advice on what strategy will work, McCrystal or Biden/Emmanuel? There’s really only one choice there … but we shall see what the President decides.
- The unaccountable and academia.
- Some academic questions tackled. Ought/is and complexity.
- Two types of last stands (there may be a third, the one nobody but the relatives of the slain remembers).
- How to get people to do things.
- Uhm, no. Our willingness to accept failure is proportional to the cost of failure.
- Well, MacIntyre and his Dependent Rational Animals has come up in discussion. Here’s the man himself.
- Intrusion.
- Politics in a bottle.
Uhm, no. Our willingness to accept failure is proportional to the cost of failure.
Ah, but the cost to whom? You know you’re not going to be unfairly profiled by the police and pulled over and searched without reason. You’re not going to be hassled every time you walk by a cop. So what’s the cost of failure to you? Nothing. What’s the cost of failure to the people cops profile? A lot more. Which set has more voters? Exactly.
So who would you listen to for advice on what strategy will work, McCrystal or Biden/Emmanuel? There’s really only one choice there … but we shall see what the President decides.
There’s always a general arguing for more troops, Mark. Is it ALWAYS wrong to cut your losses and change strategies instead?
JA,
It is always wrong for the politicians to set strategy. The politicians set parameters, objectives and acceptable costs. The generals (the experts) should do the rest. Do you want to let Biden/Emmanuel do or direct you’re next surgery? Same thing. As I said, there is on choice here. Set the price and the objective. One big mistake of Vietnam was micro-management from Washington. It remains to be seen whether Mr Obama has learned this particular one of the “unlearned lessons from the 20th century” to borrow a phrase.
A 99.5% rate is “acceptable” when the government is deciding a medical screening test is required. Yet a 10% hit rate on major crime is not? And nobody but nobody is hassled every they walk by a cop unless are well known by the cop and are very often found guilty. It’s just numbers. Cops can’t hassle “everyone” in every profile. There aren’t enough cops nor enough time.
It is always wrong for the politicians to set strategy. The politicians set parameters, objectives and acceptable costs.
That’s exactly what they’re doing. If Biden is talking strategy at all, he’s referencing some other general or strategist, not offering something he worked out over a game of Risk.
Yet a 10% hit rate on major crime is not?
The right to be free from “unreasonable search and seizure” is right there in the Constitution. Now maybe 10% is reasonable and maybe it’s not, but either way, the “cost” to the 90% should be weighed very carefully, and not just the cost of missing the 10%. You can’t just look at one side of the equation.
JA,
Why do you think that?
On 90%, I was just disputing the claim that 10% was obviously unreasonable.
I believe the ‘micromanagement’ in Vietnam was resisting expanding the war to Cambodia. Civilian control of the military does seem to imply that the decision to expand a war to additional countries should be done by civilian command.
Let’s get some facts out here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html
So we’ve already had Obama adding troops per the direction of the General(s) on the ground. Why is the right attempting to overturn the concept of civilian rule of the military by turning Afghanistan into a blank check for what one particular general says? I think there’s a good argument for staying in Afghanistan but there’s also a good argument for not and the decision should be made by the people we elected (Obama-Biden not ‘Biden/Emmanuel ‘) and not the military.
Boonton,
It is my understanding that micromanagement from Congress and the WH in Vietnam extended far far beyond decisions of whether or not to expand to Cambodia. If that was all it was, it wouldn’t have been termed micromanagement.
Why is the left (which is to say you) mis-interpreting what I’ve said. It is for the President (civilian direction) to set goals, costs and political mission parameters. What I am suggesting is that the President (or Washington) direct strategy or implementation. You write:
What? Huh? Where do you get that from what I’ve written. I’ve said it’s for the civilian authority (the President) to set overall mission parameters, i.e., cost and objective as well as political boundaries. The military should indicate what they think is needed for various expected mission alternatives, which the President should use to design parameters and costs. The civilian authority should in my view, not instruct the military how to achieve those goals, i.e., set strategy and tactics. Are you deliberately misreading me?
I’m not saying the President should decide to pull out or not … or even to set budgetary limits on the mission. I don’t think it is necessarily in his (or the prior or any Presidents) best interest to manage any further … except, as Lincoln did, to sack generals who aren’t effective as needed. And I never said that. The post indicated Mr Emmanuel and Mr Biden were giving strategic advice, which I think should rightfully be ignored as useless noise (which admittedly describes a lot of Mr Biden’s output anyhow).
Boonton,
It is my recollection that Congressional committees and the WH were “in the loop” for individual bombing runs and setting target lists and so forth on a daily basis. That was micromanagement. Decisions of whether or not to cross other national borders is certainly in the purview of the civilian authority (unless in the original mission parameters, which they weren’t).
Oh, I should mention, I think my office email was down last week, which is where the last message is forwarded. Either try it again or send it to the other address (polymath at my domain, i.e., pseudopolmath.com).