Iraq and the Rules
Hey, did you hear the good news? We've made so much progress in Iraq that they are moving into a brand-spankin' new Headquarters for their military so they can start taking control of their destiny!
This stupendous progress the Iraqi Defense Forces have made by "standing up" their new headquarters is testimony to Jenkins' Law: This law comes from the social and political commentator Simon Jenkins, and states that "any outfit moving into a splendid new headquarters is heading for the rocks" (The Times, 6th February 2004). The law is richly supported by caselore, not least the fact that London's crime rate "soared" the moment Scotland Yard relocated to a glass tower full of computer screens. Look, the only "Mission" we "Accomplished" in Iraq is to forever change the dynamics of the Middle East. That's a done deal. What that dynamic looks like is now the struggle.
New goals? 1.) Leave the region no worse than we found it at the very least -- but leave we must, eventually. 3.) Avoid Armaggedon.
Item #2 I leave up to the Underpants Gnomes, who have a much better track record than the current crop of magicians in charge of DOD.
More and more folks are coming to the stated position of John Edwards, Kerry and Murtha, (phased redeployment and withdrawal) some very reluctantly, some of whom will never do so precisely because it came from Edwards, Kerry and Murtha.
We're dealing with bureaucrats over there. Most of those bureaucrats are well armed, and many use those weapons at the slightest provocation, but the entire political structure remains, in essence, bureaucracy. Sadr, Sistani, Maliki, are at the top of their own heirarchy, each with dififering degrees of rigidity or loosness in structure. Yet each of them, as well as every militia and party or political faction over there responds as all such organized groups.
Understanding this premise, the Laws of Life apply, especially Parkinson's Law:
Work expands to fill the time available.
We still have a window of opportunity. The Iraqi system is too young for Peter Principle* bureaucrats rising to the level of their incompetence to become an issue, and the government has yet to gain enough power for the Gall's Large System Analysis to become dominant except the 12th and 15th Axioms which are universal and not time dependant:
*(Peter Principle: in a hierarchically structured organisation people tend to be promoted to the level at which they are first able to demonstrate their incompetence)
Currently we're witnessing Le Chatelier's Principle in action:
The ONLY way at this juncture to bring form out of chaos is to implement a structure addressing the aforementioned Parkinson's Law: (Work expands to fill the time available.) ie., a timetable.
Mind you, a timetable without consequences is worthless. The Iraqi's had, and blew, the timetable for amending their constitution. However, the consequences of that failure -- disolving Parliament and calling for new elections -- flies in the face of the primary goal of all heirarchial bureaucracies. Their allegience first and formost is perpetuation of their power, perks and position. Self-imposed termination of their power as a voluntary punishment for their failure to address the core political problem of the country is inconceivable, goes against everyone's self-interest, and could result in the same kind of chaos feared from an abandonment of the country by our troops.
An example of this bureaucratic survival mechanism is the phenomenon of an agency always spending each and every dime appropriated to it (regardless of the efficiency of the expenditure) in order to secure equal or greater funding the next year. This has nothing to do with providing adequate services and everything to do with perpetuation of the agency and advancement of those within it.
The mutually exclusive incentives facing the Iraqi government leaders is A.) the hoped-for dream that someday they will be at the top of the food-chain represented by a unitary government in Baghdad, or B.) the current reality that the militias, and not the government are the arbiters of power there. A few men like Chalabi and Sadr are trying to play both sides, hedging their bets while they consolodate their power (to quite different degrees of success).
A timetable will result in galvanizing the bureaucratic survival instinct, forcing them to face the concept that if they don't get their act together, those without an army of thugs to lead will be left with nothing unless they can assert government control over the fighting factions.
If you can explain to me some other carrot or stick that will trigger the self-interest of those in the Iraqi bureaucracies to act to our mutual benefit -- standing up so we can get out -- I'm all ears. It's that or McCain's plan to increase (double? triple?) our presence there instead of the whack-a-mole game we've been playing the last two years.
Contrary to Republican mythology, no Democrat is really calling for a wholesale abandonment of the region. Even that radical Dennis Kucinich has called for a PLAN for withdrawal (over a year ago). Rhetorical devises aside (advocating the extreme "out now" position in hopes that the resulting compromise with "stay-the-course" advocates moves them towards that goal), it's long past time to either raise or fold because we've been called while holding a lousy hand.
UPDATE:
And now this from the department of I Told You It Was A Bureaucratic Clusterfuck:
Can these Bozo's get anything right?
#12 a complex system cannot be made to work - it either does or it doesn't.
#15 a complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.
*(Peter Principle: in a hierarchically structured organisation people tend to be promoted to the level at which they are first able to demonstrate their incompetence)
Currently we're witnessing Le Chatelier's Principle in action:
systems tend to oppose their own proper function. Disturb one state of equilibrium, in other words, and the system will settle down in another.The ineffectivness of a military solution to the political problems of the occupation is part of the hubris and stubborn fear of classifying the Administration's actions since "Mission Accomplished" as a failure is not the fault of our men and women in uniform, but rather the inevitable bureaucratic pressures of Phillips' Law (high profile systems embarrassments are invited by any society which allows its vision to exceed its "craftsmanship") and of course the ubiquitous Murphy and Finagle working their gremlin-like magic.
The ONLY way at this juncture to bring form out of chaos is to implement a structure addressing the aforementioned Parkinson's Law: (Work expands to fill the time available.) ie., a timetable.
Mind you, a timetable without consequences is worthless. The Iraqi's had, and blew, the timetable for amending their constitution. However, the consequences of that failure -- disolving Parliament and calling for new elections -- flies in the face of the primary goal of all heirarchial bureaucracies. Their allegience first and formost is perpetuation of their power, perks and position. Self-imposed termination of their power as a voluntary punishment for their failure to address the core political problem of the country is inconceivable, goes against everyone's self-interest, and could result in the same kind of chaos feared from an abandonment of the country by our troops.
An example of this bureaucratic survival mechanism is the phenomenon of an agency always spending each and every dime appropriated to it (regardless of the efficiency of the expenditure) in order to secure equal or greater funding the next year. This has nothing to do with providing adequate services and everything to do with perpetuation of the agency and advancement of those within it.
The mutually exclusive incentives facing the Iraqi government leaders is A.) the hoped-for dream that someday they will be at the top of the food-chain represented by a unitary government in Baghdad, or B.) the current reality that the militias, and not the government are the arbiters of power there. A few men like Chalabi and Sadr are trying to play both sides, hedging their bets while they consolodate their power (to quite different degrees of success).
A timetable will result in galvanizing the bureaucratic survival instinct, forcing them to face the concept that if they don't get their act together, those without an army of thugs to lead will be left with nothing unless they can assert government control over the fighting factions.
If you can explain to me some other carrot or stick that will trigger the self-interest of those in the Iraqi bureaucracies to act to our mutual benefit -- standing up so we can get out -- I'm all ears. It's that or McCain's plan to increase (double? triple?) our presence there instead of the whack-a-mole game we've been playing the last two years.
Contrary to Republican mythology, no Democrat is really calling for a wholesale abandonment of the region. Even that radical Dennis Kucinich has called for a PLAN for withdrawal (over a year ago). Rhetorical devises aside (advocating the extreme "out now" position in hopes that the resulting compromise with "stay-the-course" advocates moves them towards that goal), it's long past time to either raise or fold because we've been called while holding a lousy hand.
UPDATE:
And now this from the department of I Told You It Was A Bureaucratic Clusterfuck:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A much-anticipated ceremony to transfer operational command from U.S-led forces to
Iraq's new army was postponed on Saturday at the last minute amid confusion, a U.S. military spokesman said, citing poor planning.
ADVERTISEMENT
The event had been hailed by the U.S. military as a big step toward Iraq taking responsibility for security, key to any eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces. U.S. commanders, with 140,000 troops on the ground, would still have a big say.
"There was an error in planning between us and the Iraqi defense minister over the ceremony. This all boils down to a bureaucratic thing," said Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson. He said the ceremony had been rescheduled for Sunday.
Can these Bozo's get anything right?
Posted by Mark | Link
| Comments
(0)
| digg this
| del.icio.us 
Categories: War in Iraq
