Hewitt is Roman Catholic (Stochastic) vs. Trump the Protestant (Deterministic)...
HEWITT: I think you meant Obama created the vacuum that led to ISIS.
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) August 11, 2016
TRUMP: "No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS." pic.twitter.com/EMMlDXogl6
12 comments:
Neither are correct. ISIS was founded during the Bush administration, when the former Saddam Hussein Baathist military and intel, were put in the same jail. ISIS grew out of that. The originators were secularists that harnessed jihadism to their purposes to gather and motivate a fighting force, which was then armed and funded by their former enemies KSA and the US. Without their organization and military-inel experience, ISIS would not have gotten off the ground.
This has been reported widely in the US media.
It is true that Obama was persuaded to sue jihadis, including both AQ and ISIS, as proxies. While the US is now fighting ISIS in Syria and Libya, it is arming and funding AQ proxies in Syria.The US is also working with jihadis of any stripe in Central Asia to create problems for Russia and China.
Why? Because Zbig original use of jihadis in Afghanistan agains the USSR worked so well. Why be concerned about a little blowback?
Well Hewitt is suggesting you can wash your hands of it (like the Roman Pilate...) and then you arent responsible while Trump is taking the position that if one is in a position of authority then one is responsible period you cant wash your hands of it...
Maybe so, but they are both confused on the facts.
Trump is a business person. Business is organized on the military hierarchical chain of command model, as is government. The buck stops at the top in this model.
People who don't work at a level of responsibility in this organizational model, don't get how it actually works.
Hierarchical organizational models are authoritarian by design. It works in military-like conditions, such as business, that are zero sum. Therefore organizational discipline has to be tight and responsibility harsh.
This presents a dilemma in that in such an organization one can either play it safe, but then probably forego quick advancement, or take risk in the face of a even small mistake ruining one's career.
Trump is also factually wrong about Obama being the one that got out of Iraq. The deal was negotiated and agreed to by W. Obama just carried out what was already agreed to.
Well Trump is in a sort of Hobson's choice there as he didn't really agree with putting the wood to Iraq in the first place....
I just think it's otherwise interesting to see the religious based biases in conflict here....
The buck stops at the top in this model.
In reality the buck stops at whoever you can blame it on. Alternatively, when a regulator mysteriously fails to do their job, the buck - along with the fraud - just disappears. From Abu Ghraib to the GFC to Clinotn's emails, we have example after example.
What Obama inherited, and made worse, is what he should own up to. There's enough 'legacy' to go around. So come on up to the leadership table and receive your plate of crow and humble pie.
In reality the buck stops at whoever you can blame it on
When a hierarchical organization becomes corrupted, then it cases to perform up to its potential, and eventually it is either reformed or replaced by a competitor.
We're talking about organizations staffed by self-interested individuals. It will never perform up to its potential. There may be a correlation between the size of an organization and its performance. Some aspects, such as economies of scale may give a competitive advantage. Other aspects of large hierarchies may not.
The hierarchical organizational model is the most efficient and effective when run properly. Management is not only a science but also an art requiring skill. The model itself doesn't guarantee successful outcomes but it is difficult to compete in a zero sum environment without using this model.
Btw, this is not me but Peter F. Drucker. He doesn't see this changing in the future either.
Moreover, larger organizations are superior not only in size but also efficiency and effectiveness if managed at a high level of knowledge and skill. The difficulty is that the larger and more complex the organization, the fewer the people that have the ability to manage them well. That a reason that the few people who demonstrate the ability get rewarded with extremely high compensation in comparison with others.
There is clearly a problem when people who do not consistently demonstrate their ability are not replaced and receive the same compensation as is they had performed well. That generally indicates capture rather than competition.
The hierarchal model is compatible with private ownership. It's a means of delegating control when the owner is unable or unwilling to exercise their ownership rights directly.
As soon as you have a situation where all members of an organization are owners, as in a worker's co-op, then the preferred model becomes democratic. The decision may be taken to hire or appoint 'management' but there isn't any illusion as to who is in charge.
The experience from large co-ops like Mondragon is that it is not necessary to compensate their managers at hundreds of times the rate of the average worker-owner. And they have reduced supervisory costs.
What it boils down to is whether consensus decision making is superior to the top-down or centralized method. There are undoubtedly examples that support one or the other. That means both models are needed depending on circumstance.
It is rare for a property owner to abrogate their rights in favor of democratic control. I don't see that changing in the future either.
For really large and complex organizations, the possibility of computerized systems making decisions has not been ruled out.
An 'ancient proverb': -
“To err is human
But to pin blame on someone else shows management potential”
A good manager will cost you money; a bad manager will cost you your business" - Pointy-haired boss
Post a Comment