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