arealdeadone | 08 Sep 2021 4:01 p.m. PST |
Interesting article on lack of accountability for all the forever wars fought by USA. link The article argues that there is no more accountability for failure either for politicians, public servant, intelligence officials or generals. It talks about disconnect what the people want and what the elites do – essentially a decline in democratic function. Arguably this is the case in much of the west – here in Australia even stuffing up something as important as the vaccine role up has seen no accountability, let alone many small indiscretions or even large ones such as one party accepting shopping bags full of cash from Chinese government affiliated business. |
Legion 4 | 08 Sep 2021 4:32 p.m. PST |
no more accountability for failure either for politicians, public servant, intelligence officials or generals. Watch the news to see that … The surprise would be if some were fired, impeached, force to resign, charged with lying to Congress, etc. But don't get me started naming names. However two names that come to mind – Benghazi and Kabul … Oh … How could I forget Mogadishu ?!? |
arealdeadone | 08 Sep 2021 6:09 p.m. PST |
Legion, smacking down some low level bureaucrats is meaningless when the big fish don't take responsibility. The problem is systematic and indeed since 1980s western political/government systems were deliberately designed to reduce accountability and responsibility as well as transparency. In fact the whole Anglo-American legal system is an exercise in avoiding accountability/responsibility and transparency. And in terms of American military failures, Benghazi was a great example of how the system works to protect those at the top. |
Stryderg | 08 Sep 2021 7:46 p.m. PST |
It's a function of the size of government. The bigger it gets, the more people are invested in keeping it afloat. See Simon Sinek's talk on the infinite game (the important bits are on youtube). Also, with a smaller government, more people are on the outside looking in and there is more competition for government jobs. So the bureaucrats keep their noses clean because others are gunning for their jobs. With large bureaucracies, the goal is to keep your head down, protect the people above you and keep the status quo. At least until retirement. |
arealdeadone | 08 Sep 2021 9:45 p.m. PST |
Also, with a smaller government, more people are on the outside looking in and there is more competition for government jobs. So the bureaucrats keep their noses clean because others are gunning for their jobs.With large bureaucracies, the goal is to keep your head down, protect the people above you and keep the status quo. At least until retirement. All that occurs in both small and large organisations too – I've worked in both. And not just government, private enterprise is the same. In fact small organisations are basically lickspittle central because the only people that survive are those who are affiliated with the power player. Anyone else is crushed and hounded out regardless of ability (seen this happen in a small stockbroking agency I once worked for). At least in a large agency those who keep their head's down can focus on the work they need to do. I also found the power games increased once agencies started shrinking and people were competing for their jobs.
Humans are animals and like all animals they operate on certain Darwinian concepts – the top positions are basically the ambitious and ruthless who play the power games and aren't scared to crush those under them.
Then there's the rest of us who are happy to go under the radar and just do what is required of us. Finally governments no longer attract top candidates for anything. The most ambitious go into the private sector where the true money is – why work as an executive in public sector for $200,000 USD-$500,000 when you can be earning literal millions in the private sector?
protect the people above you No idea where you get that idea. I work in a large organisation and we never do this. Mainly we try to operate by policies and procedures to protect ourselves (because we live in a world where covering your butt is mandatory). The higher ups play games and stab each other in the back but it generally doesn't affect us. Basically it's like members of the court indulging in intrigue whilst the peasantry just do the same work regardless of who is in charge. In fact our main boss was just deposed last week in yet another mindless reshuffle of the top. Now small companies/agencies involve a lot of protectionism – as stated I worked in small companies and it all involved around enriching the senior partners. Everyone else was beyond expendable, the exception being personal pets who could get away with near fraud (and in some cases actual fraud). |
Dragon Gunner | 09 Sep 2021 5:09 a.m. PST |
"The higher ups play games and stab each other in the back but it generally doesn't affect us" The exception is when they need a sacrificial goat for something that went horribly wrong! 1. He was operating on his own without direction… 2. I was not aware of his actions… 3. He misunderstood his orders… 4. I never said that… (Always get questionable orders in writing!) 5. This is the first time I heard of the problem why didn't you make me aware sooner I could have done something… ( Never mind you made them aware in emails and voicemails and verbal conversations! Then they spin it like you were at fault for not reporting…) 6. Punish the person that reports bad news… 7. Back date fictional reports showing they were proactive in dealing with a problem while creating a negative history for their subordinate at the same time… |
Dragon Gunner | 09 Sep 2021 5:20 a.m. PST |
"personal pets who could get away with near fraud" The horror stories I could tell and it usually involves a subordinate supplying sexual favors to a supervisor… |
Stryderg | 09 Sep 2021 6:29 a.m. PST |
No idea where you get that idea. From personal experience at the large organizations I've worked for. |
Legion 4 | 09 Sep 2021 7:08 a.m. PST |
Legion, smacking down some low level bureaucrats is meaningless when the big fish don't take responsibility. Again you tell me what I already know … If I say who/politicians are responsible … I'd be DH'd … 'nuff said … Dragon Gunner +2 ! |
Cerdic | 09 Sep 2021 12:46 p.m. PST |
Stryderg, that's an interesting observation. I have to say that I would agree with arealdeadone. In my experience nobody is interested in "protecting the people above you". Most people are too busy protecting their own arse, and the arses of their workmates… |
Stryderg | 09 Sep 2021 2:33 p.m. PST |
My assumption, from my experience, is that they hope the higher up will protect them when the need arises. Sort of a survival by clinging to coat-tails scenario. |
Dragon Gunner | 09 Sep 2021 3:02 p.m. PST |
My experience is if I don't make the boss look good then I am going down right before he / she does. |
emckinney | 09 Sep 2021 9:52 p.m. PST |
1. Duration 2. Duration 3. Duration How on earth do you apportion blame for everything that went wrong in Iraq? I suppose you could just say, "Invading was stupid from the start, the buck stops in the Oval Office, so it's all George W. Bush's fault and nothing that anyone else did changed anything but the details. Or are we going to try to apportion blame in the same way that prize money was paid out to the crews of warships? Every battalion, brigade, division, corps, and theater commander is assessed for performance and what sliver of the fiasco they were responsible for? |
shadoe01 | 10 Sep 2021 6:37 a.m. PST |
Blame – schmame, one should examine campaigns and operations to identify what went wrong and what to do about it. I've read the SIGAR reports – no surprises except that the lessons were lessons known from before, but there's a difference between a lesson identified and a lesson learned. The lessons were identified before and again with the SIGAR reports. Obviously they weren't learned and I expect they won't be learned now – which is too bad because sooner or later the US will find one or more of the 'small nation building' operations they're involved with at the moment (or a future one) will become a 'big nation building' operation. That you can count on….unfortunately. So, my take – which goes to the beginning of US involvement in Afghanistan in 2001. One could go back earlier to the Soviet withdrawal since that had a lot to do with 2001, but I was at least working in NATO in 2001 so had some insight then. Here goes the finger pointing – note this isn't political since the errors could have been made by parties from the left or right (10 year rule invoked): 1) Cheney and Rumsfeld – for their 'leadership' in ignoring post-war transition (not to mention too much enthusiasm for Iraq and not enough for Afghanistan). This meant we were woefully unprepared for what happened after the first six months – despite have plenty of institutional knowledge of how to prepare for military-civil transition. I figure we had about a year to year and a half to set the right conditions and if not it would be a quagmire. (Note – I prefer military-civil transition as 'nation building' has connotations with which I have issues.) 2) NATO countries – for their willingness to sign up to aglorious NATO level of ambition but to not want to 'pay the bill' for it. Free riders???? 3) The media – for the attention span of a gnat and the their unwillingness to put the effort into truly understanding important, complex situations. 4) Follow-on administrations (US and NATO in general) for continuing to have 'good money follow bad'. There's nothing like reinforcing a failing cause. 5) Policies on rotation – especially for commanders which meant all the things mentioned in the SIGAR report. Perhaps something like WWII were 'the path home was through Berlin' is warranted. At least you'd know who to blame. 6) A complete and total lack of understanding of much of the world. But, heavens, it took us a decade to see that the Soviet Union and China weren't on the same page back in the 60s/70s – and we were paying close attention to those two countries. 7) Everyone – for having no idea what we wanted to achieve – so, no surprise when we didn't get there. I suppose kill/capture Bin Laden was one thing but….well, if that was THE objective perhaps this wasn't the solution. Having written all of that, there comes a time where an intervening agent is part of the problem and not a help and should exit – and try to do so gracefully. Tomorrow I might have different ideas, but those are my thoughts of the moment. |
Legion 4 | 10 Sep 2021 7:57 a.m. PST |
Hindsight is 20/20 … but can still be biased in some cases … |
SBminisguy | 10 Sep 2021 8:24 a.m. PST |
1) Cheney and Rumsfeld – for their 'leadership' in ignoring post-war transition (not to mention too much enthusiasm for Iraq and not enough for Afghanistan). This meant we were woefully unprepared for what happened after the first six months – despite have plenty of institutional knowledge of how to prepare for military-civil transition. That should read Cheney & Powell. Rumsfeld's plan to basically stand up an "Iraqi" government comprised of exiles and willing locals and then pay the army and bureaucracy to stay in place was tossed in favor of Powell's plan to appoint a McArthur-style Iraq "Tsar" and disband the military and civil service. 2) NATO countries Check 3) The media – for the attention span of a gnat and the their unwillingness to put the effort into truly understanding important, complex situations. Oh no, too kind by far. They know what's going on but present the picture that best suits their political goals. For example, now that thousands of Americans have been airlifted from Afghanistan -- where are the harrowing first person interviews on GMA or the View? The happy "we made it home safe!" media bits on local TV? Nothing. It's as if it didn't happen. If a major event happens and the media don't cover it, did it happen? 4) Follow-on administrations Check. 5) Policies on rotation – Check. 6) A complete and total lack of understanding of much of the world. Check. 7) Everyone – for having no idea what we wanted to achieve Partially. I think we can see how many interests turned Afghanistan into a money making business or grift, where the goal was to keep the party going as long as possible before getting out while the getting is good. Perpetual War Inc (or Perpetual Nation Building Inc) can be very lucrative to many interests. |
shadoe01 | 10 Sep 2021 9:02 a.m. PST |
Hindsight is 20/20 … but can still be biased in some cases … That maybe, Legion 4, that may be. I could tell you that those points were some of my thoughts way back in 2002, but it would be up to you to decide if that was selective memory or not. I could also tell you that up until 2003 I was the NATO lead analyst for land and amphibious requirements (co-chair with the lead SHAPE officer responsible for land and amphibious defence requirements). Note that's 'defence requirements' (i.e., 5-10 years). You could believe me or not. I saw stuff. It made me angry but it's not healthy to stay in that emotion for a long time. At some point you think….maybe I'm wrong.. or at least hope I'm wrong. Forgot to include a point on the SIGAR bit about measurement – it was wrong and people knew it was wrong. I recall an experienced analyst blowing up at a meeting where the ISAF measurement framework was presented. Former 3-star, ISAF commander was there and vigorously defended the approach – so there was a lot of resistance to examining what we were doing. So, one hopes and hopes and hopes a miracle will happen…but it didn't, which is probably why I've started posting on a TMP board I thought I would never, ever post. FYI – In 2003 I returned to my home country to focus more on homeland security believing my contributions would be better served at home. I didn't completely ignore the problem. I successfully proposed a project to consider issues related to multi-agency collaboration and decision-making. The problem was I was re-direct to support security for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics and could only devote a small bit of time to managing the project (and none for my own work on it). However, enough was done for it to be my 'proof of God' – as in, by all rights, humanity should be waay more ….(fill in the blank) up than it is….ergo, divine intervention. Can't see any other reason why we aren't all like Somalia or where ever. ETA: I forget when, but sometime around 2006 when I shifted to working on public safety/security/emergency management stuff, I had concluded that the original objectives in Afghanistan were kill Bin Laden and 'containment' (i.e., keep things at a low level of violence and keep Al Qaeda in the area down if not out). |
shadoe01 | 10 Sep 2021 9:08 a.m. PST |
That should read Cheney & Powell. Rumsfeld's plan to basically stand up an "Iraqi" government comprised of exiles and willing locals and then pay the army and bureaucracy to stay in place was tossed in favor of Powell's plan to appoint a McArthur-style Iraq "Tsar" and disband the military and civil service. Fair enough, I forgot to include Powell, but I wouldn't leave Rumsfeld off the hook. His direction to the military prior to Afghanistan wasn't helpful. His plan for Iraq was probably better (probably as we'll never know for sure). |
Legion 4 | 10 Sep 2021 5:54 p.m. PST |
That maybe, Legion 4, that may be. Yes … once you know the outcome then you can figure out not to let it happen again or see what you did right and know what to do again the next time. E.g. But based on who voted for who, will try to say why/justify what happened at Kabul … Or not … |