A lot of readers seem disappointed I don't claim more "victory" in the QDR, noting all the movement in the SysAdmin direction, instead of harping on the lack of change in the acquisition and platform force structure.
First, I believe the visionary never claims victory. He or she just moves on to the next subject/degree/step to push.
Second, my rule is on these things: when speaking of people (like "The Monks of War" piece in the current Esquire), see "half full." But when speaking of bureaucracies, see "half empty."
The rhetorical/operational/doctrinal/training/organization movement toward the SysAdmin's emergence has been stunning in its scope and speed, but unless that change migrates significantly into force structure over time (meaning, the budget), slippage is inevitable and five to ten years from now we're not better off than we were going into Iraq.
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
Half full and half empty usually depends on whether you are serving or being served.
Posted by Donald Honaker | February 12, 2006 10:29 AM
Thank you for your personal insight. Not a day goes by that I don't have to explain to people, that a free and democratic Iraq, will forever change the dynamics of the Middle East, and make the entire world a safer place. I am currently working on my MBA and sent your writings to some of the more liberal members of my class. Maybe they will understand, that we do need to gt involved, for our long-term safety. I have been lucky enough to have spent a career in Marine Corps Intelligence and have been able to see these things first-hand.
Posted by David Biggs | February 12, 2006 10:42 AM
A visionary does not claim final victory any more than a person falling in love claims they are finally in love. Being victorious and being in love are the antithesis of each. The visionary tries to find the next victory and the person falling in love tries to find the next way of falling in love.
Posted by Calvin Leman | February 12, 2006 11:44 AM
Tom: Have you considered applying your talent to the method of building the SysAdmin? It seems that John Warner could make the army do it.
From John Warner http://warner.senate.gov/about/committees/armedservices.htm:
The venerable soldier, statesman, and Virginian, General George C. Marshall once noted, "In a democracy such as ours, military policy is dependent on public opinion." The Senate Committee on Armed Services is one of our nation's important congressional forums for ensuring that national security objectives and policy are guided by the priorities, concerns, and interests of the American people.
The next victory could be convincing the American people. Then John Warner’s committee could make it happen.
Posted by Calvin Leman | February 12, 2006 12:05 PM