BENCHMARKS

The new word for the nation’s Iraq policy is “benchmarks.” We’re going to establish some benchmarks for the Iraqi government and armed forces to meet, although there won’t be any penalty if the benchmarks are not met. But perhaps we need some benchmarks of our own. Here are some suggestions for our nation and its leaders.

1. The President admits that the war in Iraq has been a colossal blunder.

2. The Vice President admits that we weren’t greeted with flowers and the thanks of multitudes of grateful Iraqis.

3. The Vice President acknowledges that the insurgency may not be in its last throes.

4. The Secretary of Defense admits that he is a bonehead of the first order.

5. The President and the Secretary of Defense acknowledge that the generals wanted much more than what they were given.

6. The generals acknowledge that they were pressured into asking for much less than what they wanted.

7. Neoconservatives admit that they have little understanding of how the real world actually functions.

8. The citizens of the United States admit that in 2000 and 2004 they put the nation in the hands of simpletons.

9. Fox News admits that “Fair and Balanced” is a misnomer.

10. The Republican Party admits that it no longer welcomes centrists.

DSH

TACTICS, STRATEGY, GOALS, MISSION--AND RESPONSIBILITY

Any thinking individual who has spent time in organizations, government, or the military has to be at least a little cynical about the current word games concerning the war in Iraq. This past weekend, the President sat down with his generals to consider new tactics, but new tactics only. Anything else—strategy, goals, mission, whatever—was off limits. Just a day or so later, it came to light that the Administration was no longer characterizing its approach to Iraq as “stay the course.” Indeed, the President even appeared to claim initially that he had never used the term, but this assertion quickly fell victim to the videotape. In any case, “stay the course” was being jettison because it failed, as a strategy, goal, tactic, or whatever, to capture the supposed dynamism of our strategy, goal, tactic, or whatever.

The many talking, blogging, and writing heads have entered the fray, arguing about which policies and actions of the United States are properly termed tactics, which constitute strategy, which are goals, which are the mission, which are objectives. To anyone who has had the pleasure of sitting through an organizational session to develop a mission statement, an organization vision, a plan of action, or the like, the blather is familiar. Just think of the last time you were imprisoned in an “offsite” location for two days and came close to strangling the bonehead across the table who insisted on endlessly debating the theoretical differences between tactics, strategies, goals, missions, objectives, time lines, et al.

Here’s the cranky old guy’s take on the matter. If you’re bogged down on where a particular action or policy fits in the nomenclature spectrum, you should not be making decisions about, or even debating, important matters of national interest. Maybe you need to get an MBA. Conversely, maybe your MBA has muddled your brain. Whatever the case, you’re part of the problem rather than a contributor to a solution. You should be selling toothpaste rather than dealing with life and death matters.

Noticeably absent from the Administration’s rhetoric has been any acceptance of responsibility. The President said his generals presented him options and he told them, “You choose.” The abandonment of the “stay the course” approach occurred because us citizens didn’t understand what it meant. In short, the groundwork is being laid to pin the blame for the likely failure in Iraq on anyone but the decision makers, the “deciders,” who got us into the mess.

DSH

SENATOR TWO-GUN: IT COULD BE WORSE

One of the criticisms Virginia’s Senator George Allen has had to endure the last couple of months is that he has yet to outgrow a pre-puberty infatuation with cowboys. In a state bordering the Atlantic Ocean, he romps around in cowboy hat and boots, apparently fantasying that he is riding the open range in search of lost doggies, or something. (That Virginians put up with this infantilism says something about how far they have fallen since the state’s glory days.)

But it could be worse. When the cranky old guy was a youngster, he too had an infatuation. It was with Indians, or Native Americans as one is suppose to say nowadays. He ran through the neighboring woods in nothing but a loincloth and moccasins, dodging snakes and catching poison ivy.

Now a loincloth is not a particularly restraining piece of clothing. It is just a rectangular bit of material that is centered in the crotch of the wearer. The front and back rise to a belt around the waist, and the ends hang over the belt. Vigorous, or even minor, activity tends to result in exposure of portions of the anatomy best kept unexposed.

As he grew older, the cranky old guy’s interest in the history and culture of Indians, or Native Americans, continued, but his need to play make-believe waned. Perhaps it was the loincloth. Or maybe the poison ivy.

Senator Allen’s childhood infatuation is still front and center. Many of his constituents might find it strange, even irritating, but it could be worse. Instead of periodically donning the regalia of the make-believe cowboy—the hat, the boots, the chaw, the big belt buckle, the string tie—the good Senator could inflict has enormous girth on us covered only by a loincloth. Even the Senator’s most loyal constituency—Southside Virginians—might draw the line at that spectacle.

DSH