THE ENTERPRISE--Leadership is what matters.
A QUOTE THAT SEEMS RELEVANT WITH THE COMING POLITICAL SEASON
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful." —Samuel Johnson. If this brings anyone to mind, I can only say, "if the shoe fits..." I'll add my own quote: "Integrity is like virginity; you either have it or you don't."
RISK OF FIGHTING THE COMPETITION INSTEAD OF SERVING THE CUSTOMER
An old friend once told me a story that has stuck with me for years. It was about sailboat racing. One of his colleagues almost always came in 2nd or 3rd, but never won the regattas. One time my friend went along to crew on his boat and discovered why. The friend always looked to see what the strongest competitors did, and then reacted to that. Thus he always was in the top group of 3-5 boats, but never won.
NO WAY TO FINISH FIRST...
The parallel to this in business--and in politics--is following and responding to the competition and the opponent BUT not concentrating on serving the customer and deliver what the customer/constituency wants. The result is then same--losing--whether it is 2nd place or 4th place is not relevant--it is not winning. Winners observe conditions, assess their strengths and weaknesses and then make plans to serve the customer/constituent--and win the race--by taking the right actions; doing the right things. In boxing, one of the scoring points is "effective aggressiveness" and a '"counter-puncher," who waits to react to the other man's punches, only wins if the aggressor gets careless. He virtually never controls the flow of the fight.
THE ATTACKER'S ADVANTAGE
Leaders must lead. Winners must follow their plan and control the field of play, whatever the sport. Most often, if you observe who is attacking and who is defending (or reacting), the attacker has the advantage and usually wins--unless they get careless or lose sight of the real objectives. (Watch Tiger Woods) Winners don't just wait to respond to the competitor's moves. Winners initiate the moves, and let the losers attempt to respond. If the GOP chooses to "react" to moves by Democratic liberal party leaders, and fighting (the symbolic leader) Nancy Pelosi, and the party's "stalking horse" Hillary Clinton, it will be relegated to SECOND PLACE again in 2008 elections. That is an undesirable outcome (in my book) for America.—more on that point later.
HELP FOR SMALL BUSINESSES--A NEW FOCUS
I recently joined a small group of "experts" who share their knowledge and experience on a web site specifically aimed at the needs of small businesses. Small businesses are the source of many of the new jobs and much of the innovation in America these days. Helping small businesses succeed is one of my goals, the goal of Small Business Trends, a web site created by Anita Campbell, who also does an Internet radio show with a similar purpose. Check it out using the link below, and refer your contacts to it for help in their small (and not so small) businesses.
<>http://www.smallbiztrends.com/2007/01/small-business-employment-trends-for-2007.html
THIS SHOULD MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT U.S. LEADERSHIP IN IRAQ
As I have said before, one of my favorite publications is The Week magazine. It covers a wide range of topics, provides differing perspectives and is a great way to stay broadly informed without carrying around tons of magazines. The article below is reproduced with permission from their most recent issue. It outlines our new military leader in Iraq--a uniquely qualified General. It made me feel better that we have someone there who understands the dynamics of the situation. Whether he can turn around an abundance of mistakes, with a scarcity of resources and time, is not clear, but at least he has the right background and outlook to do it--and that is a definite improvement
Our New Man in Baghdad
©The Week magazine Feb. 2, 2007 (Reproduced with Permission)
The new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq is Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, an intellectual who has specialized in tactics for fighting insurgencies. How will he change U.S strategy in Iraq?
Why was Petraeus chosen?
A career soldier with more experience in Iraq than any other active general, Petraeus, 54, is widely regarded as the most cerebral active-duty general in the U.S. military. Petraeus graduated near the top of his class from West Point, just a little too late to see action in Vietnam, and went on to earn a Ph.D. at Princeton in international relations. In his dissertation, “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam,” he argued that the U.S. public would not support prolonged wars—especially those against local insurgents. Petraeus served in Bosnia and Haiti, but first saw combat as leader of the 101st Airborne Division, which took northern Iraq during the 2003 invasion. If confirmed by the Senate, Petraeus will replace the retiring Gen. George Casey as commander of all U.S. troops in Iraq.
How did he earn his reputation?
He’s the Army’s leading authority on counterinsurgency warfare and co-author of a recently published field manual on the subject. And in Iraq, he’s proven that his “hearts and minds” philosophy can work in practice. After the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Petraeus and his Screaming Eagles were dispatched to the city of Mosul, in northern Iraq’s volatile Nineveh province. Petraeus’ success in stabilizing Mosul is considered one of the very few highlights of the U.S. occupation.
What was his strategy?
He began by having enough troops. Petraeus’ counterinsurgency field manual calls for at least 20 combat troops for every 1,000 civilians, and in Mosul, with 20,000 Screaming Eagles, Petraeus had the manpower to establish an overwhelming presence on the streets. Just as important in Petraeus’ doctrine, though, is how those troops conduct themselves. Unlike regular warfare, counterinsurgency requires “nuanced” and “empathetic” soldiering, Petraeus writes in his field manual. “The more force used,” he writes, “the less effective it is.” Or as Petraeus put it in an interview, “You’re not going to kill your way out of an insurgency.” His soldiers in Mosul were instructed to think of themselves more as a community police force than a conquering army. Soldiers patrolled on foot when possible, rather than in armored vehicles. Back at the barracks, Petraeus had posters put up asking soldiers, “WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO WIN IRAQI HEARTS AND MINDS TODAY?”
How do you win hearts and minds?
It’s the “little stuff,” says Petraeus. His troops were told to knock on doors instead of kicking them down, and to tell the owner of every home they raided, “Thank you for allowing us to search your home.” Petraeus himself went so far as to host his own regular radio call-in show, and even launched a TV show called Nineveh Talent Search, shamelessly modeled on American Idol, that was so popular it was renewed for a second season. The tactics worked. Weeks after his arrival, Mosul was stable enough that Petraeus actually held elections for city council—many months before the waving purple fingers of the national elections—and there were even signs of an economic upswing. The citizens of Mosul were so impressed they erected a street sign in honor of the 101st Airborne. “You know it’s authentic,” said Petraeus in 2004, “because there are two misspellings in it.”
How was Petraeus rewarded?
By being given the hardest job in Iraq: recruiting and training the new Iraqi security force. Rather than measuring progress by the sheer number of Iraqi soldiers “on duty,” Petraeus instituted the more meaningful standard of “unit readiness”: how many Iraqi units were actually capable of fighting. He also revamped training methods, embedding U.S. advisors into active Iraqi units. No one disputes that both the quantity and quality of Iraqi troops improved under Petraeus, who was recalled to the Pentagon at the end of 2005, but some critics say he should have done more to stop the infiltration of Iraqi units by insurgents and members of Shiite militias.
Is that why he was recalled?
No. The Pentagon has a general policy of “rotating” senior officers out of Iraq to keep them from “burning out,” a concept Sen. John McCain has called “deeply unwise.” Petraeus’ return to the U.S. may have been accelerated by the fact that his success and fame had begun to irritate both his superiors and other generals, who began calling him “King David.” Petraeus’ touchy-feely, troop-intensive soldiering was directly at odds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s vision of a small, “nimble” military that relied on sophisticated weaponry. Pentagon officials were reportedly also displeased by Petraeus’ appearance on the cover of Newsweek in 2004, above the headline “Can this man save Iraq?”
So why the sudden rehabilitation?
Since Rumsfeld’s departure, President Bush has been publicly rethinking his approach to the war, and Petraeus represents a dramatic change of philosophies. But in Baghdad, Petraeus will be facing a far greater challenge than he found in Mosul. Even with the extra troops provided by the “surge,” Petraeus will have only about 35,000 troops to secure Baghdad, not the 120,000 required by the formula in his counterinsurgency manual. Even Petraeus’ biggest admirers admit that it may be too late to save an Iraq where most hearts and minds have already been lost, but they say he may be the only general with the skills to do it. “He’s a first-class leader,” says Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), a persistent critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. “If anyone can help motivate the Iraqis into taking on more security responsibility and lead American forces in Iraq, it is he.”
DO DEMOCRATS DAMAGE AMERICA, ENCOURAGE ITS ENEMIES?
While the newly elected Democrats in Congress try to destroy the Bush administration are they also destroying the morale of our troops, and feeding fuel to the fires of our enemies" I think so. Perhaps now is the time to break an old taboo--the one of avoiding discussions of religion or politics in group settings. If we are to get our country back on track, intelligent people must discuss the issues that will shape its future for decades to come. That means whether it is your kids, your parents, your siblings, friends, business associates or casual acquaintances...it is time to speak up about what you believe is right and what is simply (wrong-headed) partisan politics.
HILLARY MUST BE EXPOSED
Hillary Clinton has already started her campaign by pretending to be exactly what she isn't and by unabashedly lying about where she once stood on important matters. I once thought it was Bill Clinton who would tell people whatever he thought they wanted to hear, and that Hillary had strong values and convictions (although I disagreed with many of them then too). At that time I thought her traits were more admirable than his.
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR?
Now Hillary seems willing to stoop to any level and say anything she thinks will get her the coveted prize--the nomination first, and then the White House. Could that be the only reason she stayed with Bill for all these years? I can readily imagine her party nominating her, since she will say whatever she thinks best mirrors its philosophy (excluding the New "Blue Dog" Democrats, who will prove to be a real thorn in the side of the aging liberal Democratic leadership). But if Americans elect someone who will do this, our country then learn what a terrible mistake it has made in choosing its leader.
Just consider the outcry about whether President Bush "lied" about Iraq, his motives, etc. Think about the wisdom of electing someone who is proven willing to lie (or hide the evidence of wrong doing--remember the Whitewater files that mysteriously appeared on her desk after being "lost' for so long?).
Study issues and candidates carefully and choose informed positions, then speak out, to influence the many people who follow your example and leadership. Our future is at stake--starting this soon after the mid-term elections. And let's hope General Petraeus does have the "right stuff" and it isn't too late to apply it.
Best, John
PS: RED FRIDAYS--A NEW WAY TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS
(Passed on from a friend:)
Very soon, you will see many people wearing Red every Friday. The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be called the "silent majority." We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers. We are not boisterous or overbearing.
Many Americans simply want to recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops. Each and every Friday until the troops come home, send a silent, yet deafening message that every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar, will wear something RED on Fridays.
If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances, coworkers, friends, and family, it will not be long before the USA is covered in RED and it will let our troops (and our Congressional leaders kno where the once "silent" majority stands--with our troops--on their side more than ever, and certainly more than the mass media lets on.
The first thing a soldier says when asked "What can we do to make things better for you?" is ..."We need your support and your prayers." Let's get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example, and wear something RED every Friday. Put a reminder on your appointment calendar.
Comments