Thursday, February 03, 2005
Our CEO President: "You can't manage what you don't measure."
At least that's what management guru Peter Drucker has famously said.
However, inIraqWhack, we can't measure anything&mdashl;except the casualties, of course—even though it's a war of choice, and we've been there well over a year.
Well, sure. Useful for what, exactly?
Now, this is important because Our CEO President has set us a Bold goal in Whack:
But what does "able to defend itself" mean? We do know that half the troop count has been met, and of those, two-thirds are useless. Of the balance, Myer says they can take on any threat, but what does that mean in practice? Again, we don't know, since there's no metric, no way to tell.
Of course, with the Texas Sharpshooter in charge (back), at some point Bush will just declare success. And that will be that! My guess it will be after the permanent bases are built and sufficiently fortified.
Oh, and speaking of not being able to manage things... Remember the $9 billion (back) that the CPA "lost"—probably into a slush fund to finance Bush's dirty war against 1.5 billion Muslims? Funny how that story just.... died, isn't it? I wonder why that happened?
UPDATE $6 billion, $9 billion.... Pretty soon you're talking real money!
However, in
Asked during a news briefing today to list the measurable benchmarks that commanders would use to judge Iraqi troops, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was unable to pinpoint a firm set of measures. Rumsfeld cited ways that Iraqis might improve as soldiers, yet admitted they were "qualitative things as opposed to quantity."
According to Pentagon statistics, there are 136,000 Iraqi soldiers, national guardsmen and policemen equipped and trained -- roughly half of the goal of 271,000. But there is disagreement among senior military officials over what portion of the total is capable of taking on an insurgency that remains a dangerous enemy.
During congressional testimony today, Myers estimated that fewer than one-third of the trained and equipped Iraqi forces were capable of battling insurgents anywhere in Iraq.
"About 40,000 can go anywhere in the country and take on any threat," Myers told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "That does not mean the rest of them aren't useful."
(via LA Times)
Well, sure. Useful for what, exactly?
Now, this is important because Our CEO President has set us a Bold goal in Whack:
"We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned." (back)
But what does "able to defend itself" mean? We do know that half the troop count has been met, and of those, two-thirds are useless. Of the balance, Myer says they can take on any threat, but what does that mean in practice? Again, we don't know, since there's no metric, no way to tell.
Of course, with the Texas Sharpshooter in charge (back), at some point Bush will just declare success. And that will be that! My guess it will be after the permanent bases are built and sufficiently fortified.
Oh, and speaking of not being able to manage things... Remember the $9 billion (back) that the CPA "lost"—probably into a slush fund to finance Bush's dirty war against 1.5 billion Muslims? Funny how that story just.... died, isn't it? I wonder why that happened?
UPDATE $6 billion, $9 billion.... Pretty soon you're talking real money!
