Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Crisis? What Crisis?
My friends Laura Rozen and Michael Cohen are way off base if they think the report written by Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn on the failure of military intelligence in Afghanistan constitutes a crisis in civil-military relations. Some folks in the public affairs shop at the Pentagon were predictably upset that they were not in the loop regarding the report's release, but this is Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell speaking today on behalf of his civilian boss, the Secretary of Defense:
[The report] is exactly the type of candid, critical self-assessment that the secretary believes is a sign of a strong and healthy organization. This kind of honest appraisal enriches what has been a very real and hearty and vigorous debate that, frankly, has been taking place within this building, within this department and within this government for years now.
So, uh... where, exactly, is this civ-mil crisis that Michael and Laura are worried about? I am writing as a guy who both served as a volunteer advising the Obama Campaign on defense policy issues and as a guy who served a volunteer advising Gen. McChrystal on operations in Afghanistan.* I fail to see, yet again, how the latter is supposedly undermining the former. The report that Maj. Gen. Flynn published through CNAS was above all an indictment of his own branch of the U.S. Army. (General officers have no branch, I know, but Maj. Gen. Flynn rose up through the ranks as a military intelligence officer and currently serves as Gen. McChrystal's intelligence chief.) This report should cause some shockwaves, but those waves should be felt primarily within the defense intelligence community. After all, this report was in part prompted by the inability of military intelligence officers to get their civilian bosses the kind of answers they requested this fall. How an attempt to better serve civilian decision-makers gets spun into a revolt on the part of uniformed officers is, as my dad says, more twisted than color TV.
*I had to settle down Evan Hill, one of the editors of the awesome website The Majlis, regarding my "work" for the Obama Campaign. I never advised the Obama Campaign on Afghanistan issues, and I ceased all work for the campaign in November 2008 before starting my work at CNAS in March 2009. My "work" for the campaign was decidedly unsexy, too. I was just one of what I suspect were hundreds of graduate students who volunteered for a few hours a week. Longtime readers of this blog will remember that I did not allow any discussion of the 2008 presidential campaign on the blog in order to keep our discussion of COIN operations and strategy as nonpartisan as possible. The only reason I mentioned the fact that I had volunteered on the campaign was to note that I quite admire the president and Gen. McChrystal and can't understand those who think the latter is out to get the former.
I don't know if I'm the
I don't know if I'm the right guy to ask this, but is a think tank the proper venue for a 2-star general to indict the military intelligence community like that? Especially when it features a DIA SES saying only the DIA can take on the new tasks he wants? (That part was ++rich, btw.)
I think that's the concern—instead of working for change from within, Flynn called out an entire practice, apparently oblivious to the attempts of those very intel analysts he condemns to change the system.
I can sort of speak personally on that front. The system is broken. Flynn was right to say it needs fixing, but he seems to be blaming the analysts, which is the wrong approach - lots of analysts want to be relevant, but the *system* prevents them from being so. Adding more bureaucracy to the system - Flynn's solution, at least in part - misses the point.
AM, I agree with
AM, I agree with you...debate, disagreement, and pushback are healthy. I'm extremely impressed with MG Flynn's willingness to so bluntly criticize and challenge his OWN operations. I completely agree that this candor is necessary and important. Do I agree with every single recommendation? No. But on the whole, I think he's spot on in trying to re-focus the MI community to include analysis of all of the complex factors needed to gain true situational understanding. Most importantly, he lays out a plan that recognizes the paradigm, "Tactical = Strategic," making it critical for analysts at all levels to enable battle-space owners and maneuver commanders while effectively capturing their "ground truth" understanding and assessments for our national decision-makers.
I am extremely pleased to see that the report highlights the critical role of tactical intelligence at the Battalion and below level. In my recent post on al Sahwa (http://al-sahwa.blogspot.com), I hit on this point - arguing that we must go a step further and institutionalize Company Intelligence Support Teams (CoISTs) across the force. For more, please see my full post at http://al-sahwa.blogspot.com/2010/01/fixing-intel-empowering-companies-a...
-PR
So, AM, do you think it's
So, AM, do you think it's appropriate for GO's to issue orders through CNAS? Because this isn't just a simple report or analysis....
Secondly, The introduction and conclusion are all about how the intelligence community has failed and is not focused in the proper areas - but then the body of the article talks about how tactical units are not sending info up the chain to analysts. How is the IC's fault if the ops side of the house isn't sharing or archiving any of their information? And you know, we've been in Afghanistan for a while now and one might consider that the reason the IC isn't able to answer some COIN-related intelligence questions is because that is information that Commanders were not asking for until very recently, not to mention there was no ability to collect that kind of info with only 15k troops in the entire country. Just sayin....
"...I am writing as a guy
"...I am writing as a guy who both served as a volunteer advising the Obama Campaign on defense policy issues and as a guy who served a volunteer advising Gen. McChrystal on operations in Afghanistan.."
It's your crisis their talking about, it's your own inner conflict with your shaved head Melvin Purvis persona conflicting with your scholar geek pacifist persona. You need professional help. I don't recommend the VA or Dr Phil.
I agree with Andy. If the
I agree with Andy. If the commanders don't establish the right PIR and EEI, how is it the Intel Community's fault for focusing its resources on colllection of the information the commanders do say they want?
And on all the blogs and commentary I have seen on this, I have seen NO ONE fault the embassy, whose political, pol-mil, econ, and USAID folks are the ones who normally collect such information overtly, including meeting on a regular basis with the NGOs, media, civil society and others who would be sources.
Let it be known, MG Flynn
Let it be known, MG Flynn issued this as a directive a day before it was published by CNAS.Flynn is trying to change
Flynn is trying to change something. He did it in a public way, something the military does not usually do. Military has its rules/laws/codes of conduct and change of command.
Bryan Whitman said what I would expect to come out of the military. The Secretary of Defense is a different beast all together, he is a politician. Have to remember that we have a president, from an anti-war/military party, that has a social transformation agenda. McChrystal had his conflict with Obama when he spoke about his plan for a surge in London. Sounds like Flynn is walking the same tight-rope. Don't think this discussion is new between generals and Presidents at time of war, at their level, they are all politicians. If a lower ranked officer had released the MI issue publicly, it would have been a different story all together.
Is it a crisis? It is for Flynn and McCrystal. You stick your neck out in any organization and if you're plan does not work out, you're career is over. Flynn took the bullet for McCrystal, if MI fails now, then Flynn fails. I really do not think MI is broke, I agree with the thread, "you get what you ask for". This an authoritarian system, where does the buck stop? Flynn could have locally asked for new information rather than a revamp of the whole system, taking it public.
Still think that Flynn is creating a problem considering the scope of the changes his is asking for relative to the 18 month first-result-schedule given the surge. I understand the problem with the training within MI being ememy centric. Just hope that Flynn is not empire building and MI is not being set-up as the scapegoat if the mission fails.
PS....there is one reoccuring theme. It is in AM's post and in the CNS article. "attempt to better serve civilian decision-makers" . Sure hope that the administration does not have their Ouija Baords out trying to get inputs from LBJ! They were running around reading books about Vietnam before the surge was announced. They are starting to worry me.
"my friends".........
"my friends".........
As someone outside the
As someone outside the military, outside the beltway and way down under on the other side of the globe I read the report thinking to myself, this is a bit much, but maybe that's what's needed.
We are nearly a decade down the track from 9/11 and still we're talking about reform for the US IC. So for me if a GO has to step outside the ranks to make his voice heard, if a report has to be published in open source for fellow think tankers educators and interested parties, just to spread the debate, that's fine with me.
I don't know enough about how the US military IC operates to cast a vote on what can work, but anything that gets better info to the right people is worth a few bent noses.
AM...you are not entirely
AM...you are not entirely accurate when you say the report is above all an indictment of his own branch of the U.S. Army, because pg 4 describes the how the problem "spans the 44 nations involved with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)." Yeah, it may not be a civ-mil crisis, but broadsiding the pentagon and all your allies isn't appreciated.
Apparently anything other
Apparently anything other than slavish devotion and keeping a completely smiley face is a civilian/military crisis. We must keep on beaming like some Betty Crocker commercial from the 1950's or it's Seven Days in May. Oddly when it was all Blue Skies under the evil Bush and Dr Lemony Snicket Rumsfeld the same people (or at least the same faction) were basically calling for the military to mutiny and not obey orders. And I don't think we heard civ/mil crisis when McKiernan was fired.
It must be due to the fact that now they're in power, something they may be handling with even less grace than being in opposition.
If anyone notices, this fortuitously happens to coincide with the glaring Intel and IC failure over the Christmas bombing, and the public and indeed POTUS outrage about it. It is pure coincidence but hit while the hammer is hot.
Oh BTW the IC may not think it's broken, but everyone else has been pissed as long as I can remember.
And wouldn't this be a military/military crisis, or as Gates office put it "debate"?
O/T other than "crisis" but
O/T other than "crisis" but a visitor here turned me onto the concept of open source warfare, which I had thought would also be an intriguing concept for intel. Check out below...
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/
Blogger community author CV is software eng and USAF SOF vet.
And unless he has figured out (possible) how to fake typepad timestamps they kinda were doing "open source warfare bazzar" or stigmergic learning - signalling thru attacks and media - in the Iraqi insurgency in 04. Interesting....
With apologies to Jeff
With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, found on the 'net:
"YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF..."
1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.
2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
3. You have more wives than teeth.
4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."
5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.
7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing..
8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.
10. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.
My guess is our readers can come up with a few more indicators. I'm sure the MI types will appreciate you passing this along to them.
Happy New Year everyone
We found the EEI, see
We found the EEI, see visitor 704 above.
AM, If it was issued as a
AM,
If it was issued as a directive the day before, then why include the order in the paper?
Regardless, how, exactly, does the General have the authority to order non military agencies to provide manpower for the new intel centers he envisions?
There's a lot wrong with the
There's a lot wrong with the civil-military relations in the U.S. but I wouldn't find the blame with a two star, but with Congress. The military traditionally could use the powers of both Congress and the President to pinball interests between them. Gen Flynn simply applies new means of communication to get his word, ideas and concept out for discussion just like any scholar does, when in doubt. granted, a two star, or any other military officer would not be able to publish such documents in any other democracy (which are ALL parlamentarian btw.) without risking his career, yet I doubt that such a paper indicates a deep flaw in CMR. Instead of jumping at the officers using such methods to learn or teach methods and procedures or show flaws in the current system, it would be better to look at last years discussion of the F-22 or the FCS to see flaws, even craters in civil-military relations.
Ex, What of Rozen's new
Ex,
What of Rozen's new information that a lot of senior types at the Pentagon were caught blindsided? What of this section?
That kind of reinforces Rozen's and Cohen's concerns, that the McChrystal team is operating outside normal channels and outside appropriate chains of command. Your post here doesn't address that.
"I am writing as a guy who
"I am writing as a guy who both served as a volunteer advising the Obama Campaign on defense policy issues and as a guy who served a volunteer advising Gen. McChrystal on operations in Afghanistan. "
Wait a minute. The latter admission about assisting McChrystal was fully disclosed by you when you were blogging -- both at this forum and your previous haunt. The former issue about serving the Obama campaign, however, wasn't to my memory ever stated.
Didn't your readers have a right to know that you were advising the Obama campaign on defense policy issues when you were blogging?
If we were to return to read some of the words scribbled by you then, would not some of the analysis we assumed was objectively rendered appear different with this newfound knowledge?
On what matters did you advise a partisan campaign? Lebanon? Iraq? Afghanistan? Force structure? A replacement for several MREs you didn't like?
Visitor 7.04: #11: You know
Visitor 7.04:
#11: You know how to lay a three-unit combined ambush, with staggering effect preplanned and w. use of emplaced explosives, but you cant read.
Fnord: As always, appreciate
Fnord:
As always, appreciate the snark, but think that (1) the civil-military relations issue is arguably (probably) being glossed over, and (2) I'm hoping for a response from AM in re: Carl Prine's comments.
ADTS
12. You have made love to
12. You have made love to fnord's pooper, liked it, still crave it, but still feel that NATO should still leave your land.
Um, yeah, I'm kind of
Um, yeah, I'm kind of curious, too ADTS. Not in a civ-mil crisis way (is that the crisis du jour on the blogs today or something?), but just curious as a long time reader and commenter. I liked the old blog, the commenters (even the crazies; well, not all of them obviously), and the freedom of it all. It's like, not such a big deal, I think. But then I never thing the blog crisis du jour is a big deal (another day, another hissy fit), so I might be biased.
Was reading, "The Fourth
Was reading, "The Fourth Star" by Cloud and Jaffe. In the hard cover, pg 260
From "The Forth Star"
The way Petraeus operated was nothing like the conventional portrait of a wartime general. It wasn't Patton,riding crop clutched tightly in his left hand, exhorting his soldiers from the top of a tank. Rather, it was the sligth and scholarly Petraeus swirling his emerald-green laser pointer over pie charts and columns full of data. "I am going to manage you by slides," he told his troops.
Orchestrating the briefing was an art, Petraeus believed, one he had perfected over years of command. When he was running it, his voice deepened and his back, normally pitched slightly forward, straightened a bit. On a typical day Patraeus covered forty-five to sixty slides,each of which would first be briefed to him by a colonel or major. Intelligence, enemy attacks, Iraq's sclerotic electricity output, and press coverage merited daily attention. Other areas of interest to Petraeus, included bridge and road re-construction,chlorine supplies at water-treatment plants, oil exports, Iraqi politics, and even chicken embryo imports, were covered weekly.
Pie Charts and columns of data does not sound like WORD documents...guess you can add them to the text. Forty-five to sixty slides? Sure sounds like POWER POINT. Chicken embryo imports? Chlorine supplies? Road re-construction? Oil exports? AND IRAQI POLITICS.....
GEE, How did all that information get by those enemy-centric MI guys? That was Al Faw Palace February 19, 2007! At the beginning of the surge.....pop-centric COIN in Iraq.
Looks like the data that Flynn is looking for was being collected in Iraq. So why was the CNS release such a new revelation? Why is Flynn going so far out of his way, outside the chain of command, to raise the issue that MI is broke? Why the need to get rid of Power Point charts?
Something does not add up. To commend Flynn for going outside his chain of command, first I would need to know if he exhausted his options on the inside BEFORE going outside. That piece of information is missing, we do not know why Flynn choose the method he did. The CNS report indicated to increase the distribution of the document. Why? To send a signal out that he is making waves inside the military? Sounds like his is beating his own drum. Looking for a promotion? Letting Washington know that there is a new player in town?
Yup, I would like to know if Flynn did all he could to execute his MI plan, BEFORE, taking it on a road show. If he didn't and looking at the information that was being collected in Iraq, Flynn might be grand-standing.
I think many people miss the
I think many people miss the point.
As the report indicates, many of the folks on the ground are looking to the news, not the intel network, for an accurate and timely picture of events.
First, the news industry's resources cannot continue to carry that load, nor do it effectively. Wired suggested that laid off reporters should sign up with the military since MG Flynn says they are the source anyway. CIA and the others chase threats, not Big Picture.
Second, what has emerged recently is the reality that the US Intelligence community is just not structured and resourced, at present, to create and provide the depth and quality of information needed to drive the civilian-intensive COIN effort.
Third, if DoD is the only effective government reporting agency (the new and current reality) capable of producing a clear and effective operating picture, and they don't have one, what is the White House, DoS, USAID, etc... relying on for current strategies and effective civilian oversight and management?
Certainly, it is not just MG Flynn that needs the information. It goes way beyond DoD.
Steve
Madhu: I'm a little less
Madhu:
I'm a little less complacent about the civil-military relations issue - I'll have to go to FP.com and see if Peter Feaver's commented on it - but your thoughts are about the same as mine.
Best
ADTS
Why not take Flynn et al's
Why not take Flynn et al's explanation for why they did it this way, stated in the preface to the paper, at face value?
"Some of what is presented here reinforces existing top-level orders that are being acted on too slowly. Other initiatives in this paper are new, requiring a shift in emphasis and a departure from the comfort zone of many in the intelligence community."
Seems pretty clear to me.
Elf - John Robb's Book
Elf - John Robb's Book "Brave New War" is worth checking out. don't agree with his whole slant but his ideas about open source warfare are interesting. His examination about Return on Investment for terrorist ops is great - so cheap in terms of cash outlay and manpower but you hit the right nexus point and the damage you do is listed in the millions.
Those at risk of twisted
Those at risk of twisted panties because AM advised the Obama campaign can relax. When it comes to some critical thingies...political party is immaterial. I suggest looking more closely at the details of how this administration is actually behaving re the ME....it's a contimuum, not "change" the wogs can believe in and they no longer do.
Bruce R. Ok, we will take
Bruce R. Ok, we will take it for what it is......
"Some of what is presented here reinforces existing top-level orders that are being acted on too slowly. Other initiatives in this paper are new, requiring a shift in emphasis and a departure from the comfort zone of many in the intelligence community."
Why release it to the outside? It is an internal matter. It comes across as grand standing or a turf war. I have requested significant changes within a large mult-national company that impacted many functional areas and never had to make a press release out of it. People identified the changes as their job. If I had a problem with people protecting their turf, I pushed higher in the organization. Never outside the organization.
There is an unwritten story here of what prompted Flynn to go around channels. Was he stonewalled? Did he attempt to change the system from within? Is it just tooting his own horn? It just does not make sense that the person responsible for MI in Afghanistan to wake up one day and make a press release like this one and justify it as trying to reach a wider audience.
I don't really believe
I don't really believe there's a crisis in Civil Military Relations, period. If the evidence for this is human frailty - this group or that person doesn't trust the other - we you can either relax as that's the species, OR despair for we are all doomed.
I think the media likes and makes some copy of the despair option.
Let's remember if they don't have a crisis they make one out of a problem or they'll manufacture one. Watch coverage on the weather for evidence. You'd think a meteor was hurtling unstoppably towards the earth. SNOW!!! . The solution is for people in particular leadership to overcome human frailty.
As far as going outside the Chain or organization to a think tank, hence to the media, etc....well in government and I will emphasize the military suggesting changes outside of your span of control is a exercise in masturbatorus frustrateous.
Also remember Flynn et al are suggesting revamping the entire Intel effort for Astan which includes not only non military but non US agencies. If MG-F, M4 and the rest of the "M" conspiracy had just filed a paper they would not be doing their duty, but be seen by future historians and conspiracy theorists as having engaged in all the things the Vietnam generation was accused of doing. No doubt providing grist for a future Daniel Ellsberg.
Finally as far as being open with the public: what people have said they wanted for years. And Wallah the military is doing it warts and all, and the military, our relations with the public we serve, our efforts and their quality have been strengthened for it. Not perfect, just better. It can't be entirely open source but how many organizations in government are so open about their debates? In fact how many organizations in government or Corporate America - any organization-are so internally critical and publicly candid thereof?
Instead of criticizing the candor and the sharing of the flaws and debates our society should maybe consider demanding the self critical practices of the military and the public airing of it to be adopted by other organizations - gee Lehman Brothers and the rest of them could have used a good dose of it 5 years ago. The Fed could certainly use it, Congress is facing a real crisis because of the perception of dirty backroom dealing on health care...we can go on and on?
Instead of the Press manufacturing buga-boo crises this should be held up of an example of how organizations on the wrong path really self correct or at least air the problem to daylight and offer a solution.
I search and recently came
I search and recently came across your blog and have been reading along. It was wonderful blog.
Kelsi
http://bestonlinetimes.com
Flynn has narrowly avoided
Flynn has narrowly avoided receiving the MG John K. Singlaub Memorial Flatpeter Award (for stepping on it above and beyond the call), but I assume he knows that he will be retiring at his present rank and will be doing so sooner than he might otherwise have planned.
It is rarely in an officer's best interests to be right when those above him are wrong -- and never in the interest of his career for him to say so publicly.
It is in the interest of the
It is in the interest of the nation. I assume you know that, of course.
Mind you that may not be true. Yingling couldn't have been more damning and damn well open about it. McMaster's criticisms about Vietnam were rather thinly veiled...the entire "surge" crew took various degrees of risk. Petreaus got pilloried before Congress and probably would have had to gone into witness protection from the Left had it failed.
Carl: I'm not at all sure
Carl: I'm not at all sure why AM's limited volunteer activities on behalf of the Obama administration would be of the slightest interest to anyone who was reading his blog back then, and certainly don't fall into the realm of things-that-must-be-disclosed. Nor, for that matter, would I have cared if you were volunteering/advising a political campaign when you were commenting on his blog during the election campaign (etc). Presumably, the merit of ideas is independent of the political affiliations of those who express them. (By the way, I'll pay your respects at the grave of the martyred Nahoul while I'm here.)
AM: I must admit, I too thought that CNAS release of the Flynn et all assessment was a bit odd. It may have raised both the public and internal profile of the report, and that might be a good thing--but it seems to me that this is something that DoD ought to be able to do without think-tank help.
As to the substance of the report, I think much of it ws dead-on, but (as several suggested above) it really didn't fully address the issue of suboptimal PIRs and where responsibility lies in a demand-driven intel system.
**** Sourcing from "The
****
Sourcing from "The Fourth Star" pg 295.
Yingling, who wrote "A Failure in Generalship"(private publisher , Gannet's Armed Forces Journal) ....not well received by the Generals. As a commander of a battalion that was deployed to Iraq, Yingling was held back. It was felt that ripping the command from Yingling was punishment for his criticism of the generals.
Peter Chiarelli worked on Yinglings behalf and Yingling was later deployed with his battalion.
"Chiarelli understood why some of the new one-star generals groaned when they saw Yinglings's incendiary words. But he was also determined to change their mind-set. "Isn't this the kind of officer we want in our Army?" he asked. "He 's passionate, intelligent, and engaged."
****
Perhaps we are seeing a "new speak" in the military. Not sure that I agree with the method. War by committee is not a good thing. Disagreements like this, made public, effect morale. Morale is the stuff that enables a soldier to put up with the day-to-day grind. Take morale away and you have a failed army.
Gates has championed Flynn's cause. What will Flynn do when Gates leaves office? You have an officer trying to change MI for a pop-centric COIN war. Interesting thing is, Flynn used head-to-head convention tactics to put his ideas through channels.
How many Generals and MI types will Flynn radicalize?
Sometimes low level sniping works best. Gets attention with out pissing everyone off. Sometimes you have to live what you preach. If we can pay off a Son of Iraq for $400/mo, maybe we can raise the pay scale of MI types for a job well done.......carrots rather than sticks.
PS...That is how we did it in the corporate world....then I was never in MI so what the heck do know.......
@Zak, "...Perhaps we are
@Zak,
"...Perhaps we are seeing a "new speak" in the military. Not sure that I agree with the method. War by committee is not a good thing..."
Zak, it's not new, it's the Asian way of war that made it's way over to us in the 20th century by way of Mao and the Vietnam war. At the latest. You can also refer to Imperial Grunts.
And as far as our Generals putting up a united Smiley improving our morale ...our being the grunt types...Zak you are misinformed. 1) you can't bullshit the troops, we can see the truth and 2) we'd much rather hear it straight then be told blue skies nonsense we know not to be true.
Nothing sunk my morale as much in 06 as hearing all the Blue sky scat coming out of MACV-Iraq in the Green Zone.
As far as Corporate America - they could have used a Yingling over at Lehman a few years ago, and they still need a Flynn (or an Eliot Ness) over at Gangster Sachs.
Elf, you're right, workers
Elf, you're right, workers can see the truth in an organization.
It sounded like the MI folks were doing what they thought they should be doing. One day the managment decided that MI were a bunch of screw-ups. Then the managment broadcasted to the world that the MI guys were a bunch of screw-ups. That is demoralizing.
The case that you are talking about. The staff knows the managment are the screw-ups, but the managment has not figured it out yet. Lip service only makes it worse. If the management is bad to the top, then the only way out is to quit or take it public. Once public, it is hard to change that opinion. The public does not have the visability in the company that the workers do. If the management comes around, the organization has to work ten times harder to make the public believe that they are fixed. It causes the public to loss faith until they see a proven record over time.
Either way hard feelings are generated. Getting good direction and being paid for doing a job well feels a lot better than getting lip service or beat on the head with a stick.
Goldman Sach is paying out about $17B in bonuses for 2009. Management fixed their problem, the workers are happy......the taxpayer thinks they are screwed up....their stock holders are very happy. Elf, if you had purchased 1000sh of GS stock in Mar09, you would be happy too.
Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification in re: Obama, AM (sincerely).
ADTS
@visitor 950 pm, Yes true
@visitor 950 pm,
Yes true and the mil worked for decades after Vietnam to prove ourselves back to the public.** In this case I think MG-F et al did the right thing. The military is a very self critical institution, we're better for it, and at a certain level - 8 years into a very important struggle meets the threshold - you share the problems publicly. The military of course answers to the United States Constitution and the Govt of the people at the end. I don't think there really is a CMR crisis here, I think it's healthy to let in the sunlight.
**now some of that was dispelling certain lurid myths, but that's another can of worms. And not to start a fight (me?) but so is G/S.
Think you figured it out,
Think you figured it out, 950 is Zak. Darn, I forgot to sign.
For me, to know if MG-F did the correct thing depends on the events that led up to the announcement. We have not been given that piece of information yet. Devil is in the detail.
PS. Wall Street banks are a love-hate relationship with me. I do not think the behavior is healthy for America. We have started to eat our young to keep GDP rolling. Friend with over twenty year in the Air Force was pouring over stock trade information. He had a pretty clear view on life. We started talking NAFTA. He was planning to invest in companies that were doing business in Mexico. I thought he was selling out. End of the discussion was puncuated with, "if you can not beat'em join'em". That left me with strange mix of feelings for the rest of my days. He retired with a Mil pension and a healthy stock portfolio.
If you had invested in 1000shs of G/S in Mar09.... Your portfolio would be worth about $90,000 more today, doubled your hard cash. Hold for a year to get long term capitial gains and you pay 15% federal tax (Obama is going to take the 15% away), just like Warren Buffet does. One way for the taxpayer to get their money back is to join'em. Beats crying in our beers. Here comes that strange mix of feelings again. I do not agree with it, but "if you can not beat'em join'em" keeps ringing in my ears.
If you really want to get upset....look at "Carry Trades"...Wall Street is taking 0% Fed money, leveraging it and buying investments(you can turn a 4.5% return on your hard money into 45% with 0% Fed money and a 1:10 leverage)....at taxpayer expense...like the interest rate on your savings? The Fed is holding rates at an unreasonable low level. It screws the guy living on a fixed income. The Senior citizens are going to have a hay day in 2010! Look at "Credit Default Swaps" and "Derivatives", they are the reason that the taxpayer owns AIG and sunk $180B in to them. Congress has yet to regulate derivatives or do any other bank reform a year after the shoe dropped. We have a Democrat controled Congress, what is more important, Health Care or the health of the country's banking system........I can go on.....another hoot is alternative minimum tax (created by the Democrats to "fix" the capital gains problem) ...little guy pays the big fish swim away.
Buying the 1000 shs of GS is easier and the results more clear. Don't agree with any of it, at least I can retire.
PS...I beat up the Democrats...Republicans are just as bad, they are both filling their pockets. Chicago Private Equity Bankers were one of the largest contributors to the Obama campaign. PE is as bad as Wall Street, maybe worse, they are the same creature. In Germany, PE is compared to locust (insect pests, the 2008 "Super Return Conference" was protested. PE lost revenue in '08/early'09, but with cheap money now, they are back in a big way. PE returns about 20-30% /yr to their investers....more than enough to stick money into politician's pockets for more). Why would anyone what to pay so much (look at the campaign costs today) for an office that pays so little?
So much for that rant. No argument here, just trying to live with it.
I agree with ADTS (again):
I agree with ADTS (again): thanks for the clarification AM. You don't owe anyone any sort of explanation, but thanks anyway.
Zak, Well to try and cheer
Zak,
Well to try and cheer you up, people are awake on carry trade, Gangster Sachs, and the rest. I don't know if you get WABC where you are, but Dylan Rattigan (CV in part the chart manic guy on Bloomberg TV then CNBC) went and got his own radio show, he and John Bachelor are on a crusade to expose the machinations of what happened with the meltdown, in particular as to what happened between AIG, G/S, Treasury and the Fed.
And so is Hank Greenberg (AIG chairman forced out), Eliot Spitzer, parts of FOX News, parts of CNBC (!), half the media darling economists..etc..etc. Oh and some Congressmen.
The villains of the play seem to be in person: Geithner, Bernanke, Paulson, to some Greenberg, as well as the institutions above...and above all whoever these smart psychopaths at G/S are who masterminded the MBS/CDO/CDS scam who are reputed to have known what they were doing and shorted it in advance.
The hook is this: we the taxpayers own 80% of AIG. If those emails say what they seem to point towards...and we should be able to go and subpoena those emails.
We'll see. So many of these things come to nothing and get swept under the rug. But at least people are awake and have their heads out of the I-Asses for the first time in my life. At the last moment this seems to becoming a participatory Republic again (Democracy if you prefer).
All the trouble may almost be a good thing.
Washington insiders and
Washington insiders and bankers are in each other pockets. Bankers are not going to change, they got the money. Politics will not change the banks, they get the donations. We can validate that with the campaign donations in mid-term elections. Mom and Pop American had an awakening, but I do not know how long that will last. People seem to tune out pretty quick, with 140 sattelite TV channels that is pretty easy. As long as people have money in their pockets, they will not rock the boat. Welfare is not going away. An indicator of people's awakening will be the turn outs for the 2010 mid-terms. The tea party folks seem fired up, they are a small group. Most of the people that I have spoke to consider the tea party folks to be fringe. You're right, people see a problem. We are pretty divided on the solution....
I am ready for the Republic. We will find out how far we have come in Nov10.
What were we talking about? Ahhh Crisis...What Crisis.
PS....Americans have the ultimate power and they do not organize it.....consumer purchasing. Use to with boycotts. Some recent attempts get traction, but they do not last long. Take money out of a banker's/company's pocket and you have their complete attention. Faster than the vote. Government votes every two years, business votes every quarter.
"Longtime readers of this
"Longtime readers of this blog will remember that I did not allow any discussion of the 2008 presidential campaign on the blog in order to keep our discussion of COIN operations and strategy as nonpartisan as possible. "
A wasted few hours of my time spent going through AM archives puts this notion into grave dispute, and I think you know it.
But you're a decent, honorable man so I'll let it go.
Crisis what crisis.. Dandy :)
Crisis what crisis.. Dandy :)
As a internet site owner I
As a internet site owner I think the material here is reallymagnificent. I appreciate it for your time. You ought to maintain it up forever! Beneficial Luck.
I think this is one of the
I think this is one of the most crucial details for me. And i'm glad reading your write-up. But wanna remark on some general issues, The internet site style is terrific, the articles is seriously excellent :D. Beneficial job, cheers.
Add your comment