Larry has assigned me the task of reporting on this morning's meeting, matters discussed and conclusions (?) reached, if any.
1. Sagest comment made was by General Bradford, when RADM Miller wondered why no one had responded to his latest blog. Said Gen Bradford, ""Isn't it terrible when you say something outrageous and are ignored?"
2. General Duquemin reported on his just concluded week in DC at a session sponsored by the Army for newly selected BG's, and others. Duke was invited, along with several other retired general officers, as observers. Discussed were the new army organizational structure, progress in Iraq (good progress being made) and the BRAC closure progress. Most prominent feature to me was the cost of about $30 billion(?) and 30 years to recoup. Does bring into question the wisdom of the move.
3. Major point of discussion was President George W. Bush's legacy. L. White felt Bush may not recover from choosing the wrong team- - Rumsfeld, in particular- - everyone agreed that Rumsfeld was a poor choice and was responsible for the regidity of the Iraq policy before Gen. Patraeous. Col Faulkender observed that Rumsfeld was responsible for adopting, and stubbornly adhering to, to an erroneous "Model." (Bob is ALWAYS the "model" man) Others felt that success in Iraq with concomitant success against militant Islam would leave Bush with a good legacy, perhaps even a historic one, if in fact such happens.
4. Major discussion of the new web site. Larry White will help us further learn how to use it in a presentation next week.
5. Final matter was Col. Sam Holliday's article on Irregular Warfare. There was general agreement that the US needs to be better organized to meet the threat of Irregular warfare- - defined by Sam, and accepted by all, as somewhere in the continuum between war and peace. No agreement, and just a modicum of discussion, on what organizational structure would work best. Sam advocates a new "Department of Stability," as something between Defense (war) and State(peace). RADM Miller suggested an enlarged National Security Council would be more appropriate.
Would welccome any comments on how the above is in error.
Dusty Miller
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
To Amplify #3. The Discussion started with the positive Iraq reporting by the media and that Gen Petraeus will end up saving the Bush Presidency. The Rumsfield legacy generated discussion on Presidentia inadequacies to the issues or the staff recommendations/performance. General Bradford’s preference is for a President that is more “all knowing less dependent on staffs” More Autocratic. L. White favored industries more staff/board centric leadership style based on the premise the government is the largest corporation in the land. How can anyone be all knowing-all seeing? R. Nixon point out the results of the autocratic style of President Carter. The key issue was which current candidates fit which management style? Staffs that are so vital to a Presidential success and historically based on political favors, are never an issue regarding a candidates campaign – except maybe in 2008 with the first Bill.
2. Faulkender said...
Two leadership principles (at least) are involved in any discussion of staff vs.command management.
a)delegate both authority AND responsibility to the lowest level of competence possible.
b)surround the command with the most qualified people and be prepared to replace them.
Dec 27, 2007 1315
Post a Comment