A DISCOURAGING NOTE ABOUT THE DECISION TO LAUNCH A WAR IN IRAQ

Earlier, I explained the concept of marginal analysis. Although marginal analysis is an economic concept, it can be applied to many situations-war included.

The question I want to answer is this: are we getting our money’s and lives’ worth in the ongoing war in Iraq? In other words, after $350 billion (although estimates vary widely) and the lives of 4,500 troops, what has America really accomplished? Has America received the benefits it expected? What, in fact, are those benefits?

On March 9, 2008, MSNBC.com reported that a Nobel Prize-winning economist (J. Stiglitz) reported that the US government is burning through $12 billion a month to fight that war.

I recently concluded that this was a totally unnecessary war. And before I proceed, note that this entry discusses contemporary US politics. And politics, as my second favorite uncle said, is one of those topics where the discussion never ends. (The other is religion.)

VOICES OF DISSENT

Shortly after the US invaded Iraq, various politicians—most of whom come from the Democratic party—described the Iraq War as a “war of choice” or phrases to that effect. (President Bush belongs to the opposing party-the Republican party.) Various political commentators echoed the same observation.

USA Today reported on August 26, 2004 that:

“Iraq was a war of choice, and the United States is bearing virtually all of the cost,” according to John Podesta. Mr. Podesta was the chief of staff of former President Clinton. He now heads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. He is, unquestionably, a liberal Democrat.

Boston Globe reported on September 9, 2004 that:

CINCINNATI —— Senator John F. Kerry, campaigning at the same site where President Bush laid out his case against Saddam Hussein two years ago, yesterday called the Iraq war a “catastrophic choice” that has cost $200 billion while inspiring terrorist groups and yielding “the most incalculable loss of all”—more than 1,000 US military deaths.

“George W. Bush’s wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction in Iraq, and they have left America without the resources we need so desperately here at home,” Kerry said, in a bluntly worded attempt to contrast his views on Iraq with the incumbent’s war policy. “I call this course a catastrophic choice that has cost us $200 billion because we went it alone, and we’ve paid an even more unbearable price in young American lives and the risks our soldiers are taking. We need a new direction.”

TIME WILL TELL

For my part, I withheld judgment about the wisdom of waging war in Iraq until I read Scott McClellan’s book. Scott’s book explains his belief that the Bush administration fabricated evidence to justify the assault on Iraq.

Who is McClellan? He’s the former Press Secretary of President Bush. Mr. McClellan was a loyal worker for the president since 2000. He became the Press Secretary-the official mouthpiece of the White House-on July 2003 until he resigned on April 2006. In June 2008, his book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," was published.

I found the book credible. I don’t think Mr. McClellan had an axe to grind. Instead, I think his conscience was weighed down by his knowledge and he wrote it to both clear his conscience and to inform the American people of his belief that the president deceived the American people. It was this book that clinched the case and convinced me that America did not have to invade Iraq.

According to the Washington Post (October 10, 2004), the rationale behind the invasion was...

In announcing 19 months ago that the United States was poised to invade Iraq, President Bush told the nation:

• Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...
• The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

But the argument that the United States faced a moment of maximum peril in early 2003 from Iraq has been greatly weakened by the release last week of the comprehensive report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. Click on any of these links: Link-1, Link-2, or Link-3.

The report found that the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability, leaving it without any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Saddam Hussein hoped to someday resume his weapons efforts, the report said, but for the most part there had been no serious effort to rebuild the programs.

I looked for corroborating evidence and found it in the official press release by the White House on October 7, 2002:

1. Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
2. The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions-its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.
3. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups.
4. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
5. We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability—even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
6. Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is: how can we best achieve it?

We know now that the answer was war.

ONE OF THE UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

America is unique in the sense that its leaders must convince its people that its military action is justified. America’s military power is such that it can win practically any war. Its military’s weakness-if that’s what it should be called-is the American people’s attitude towards any military action. The American people must support it since public attitude will ultimately support or undermine the might of the military.

I thought the president did a fine job during his first term but he really screwed up his second. Most of that screw-up revolves around the war in Iraq.

I also think that he capitalized on the trust that he had built after he led the post-9/11 America. I believe that the evidence supports the deception. And I am discouraged to acknowledge that the president did what many others have done before him—betray the public trust.

Next, let’s see if marginal analysis can determine the benefit of waging the war in Iraq. It can. And the conclusion is terrible. I would like to submit a suggestion. It’s an illegal suggestion unless Congress can be convinced to change the law. It’s a pragmatic suggestion that makes a lot of economic sense. By that, I mean that the cost-to-benefit ratio will be low and that's a good thing. We want the most bang for the buck. It should cost considerably less than a hundred million dollars. Compared to the war effort, this is a simple operation. The beauty of it lies in the likelihood that it will deliver most or all of the benefits that were originally expected.

What are those benefits anyway? Answering that question will require answering two more. Who should own these expectations—the American people or the government? And what benefits does an aggressor typically derive from a victorious war?

To be continued in a few days...

A BEST PRACTICE FOR BOSSES

One of the more difficult aspects of working for a boss is learning the boss’s communication and decision styles. Considering that the single most significant factor in determining your job satisfaction is your relationship with your boss, it pays to pay attention to that. In turn, when you’re the boss, you should communicate your personal style clearly.

(Dilbert's Pointy-haired Boss, inspired by my PM professor)

Here’s one technique I learned early in my project management “bossing” career from a mentor.

Create a list of guidelines for your team. Its purpose is to communicate the ground rules for interaction. This was one of my early lists.

1. I strongly believe in trust and dependability. If somebody says that they’ll do something, they should. If some unforeseen circumstance interferes, that person has the responsibility of notifying all that will be affected. If s/he wasn’t able to do that before the event, s/he must do it with an apology and explanation as soon as possible. And, may I add, to not do this repeatedly.
2. I will treat you professionally and I expect the same.
3. Refrain from accepting or committing to changes to the project unless you have that authority. All changes must go through the change control process. All requests, regardless of the medium it was sent in (e.g., email) must be transcribed to the official change request form.
4. Email headings. Maximize the use of the subject line. Identify the nature of the message according to its content. An email for action should be labeled ACTION. An FYI should be labeled FYI. Incidentally, I can’t think of any other type of email besides a Call for Action or an FYI. If I missed a category, please advise me.
5. Email headings again. Break the chain! At some point, it becomes silly to continue receiving and sending emails with the same heading over and over again. Here's what I mean: ACTION ----> re: ACTION ----> re: re: ACTION ----> re: re: re: ACTION ----> re: re: re: re: ACTION. Please break the chain!
   
6. Email length. Keep it to several paragraphs if possible. Longer content should be created as a separate document (e.g., Word or Excel) and attached to the email.
7. Email legalese. Our employer can legally monitor all email sent through its facilities. This includes your personal emails.
8. Email ccs and bccs. Refrain from carbon copying (that’s what “cc” stands for) and blind carbon copying (“bcc”) persons who do not need to know. CC-ing me to protect your rear may work but it may also lead me to form an incorrect impression about you.
9. Presentations. We’ve all heard of “death by PowerPoint.” If the expression is unfamiliar, please Google it. Learn how to make effective presentations.
10. Start and end meetings on time. Unless circumstances dictate otherwise, distribute the agenda at least 18 hours before the meeting.
11. It is sometimes easier to seek forgiveness than to ask permission. If you have to make a decision and, for whatever reason, you aren’t able to contact me or another manager, decide in the best interests of the company. You can do it.
12. I enjoy receiving most surprise presents from my family. I do not enjoy most surprises that come from stakeholders, customers, and fellow employees. Please advise me if you see something that should be brought to my attention.
13. Grammar and spelling. There are checkers in MS Word. Please use them. Typos and bad grammar annoy me especially if customers will read them.

ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS WILL MAKE OR BREAK YOU

There’s IQ and also EQ. IQ (or Intelligence Quotient) is raw, left-brain type intelligence. EQ (or Emotional Intelligence) is social, right-brain type intelligence. In life, it is not uncommon to see the less brilliant to become the most successful. Researchers argue that these individuals possess the EQ that make them more successful at negotiating organizational politics.

EQ was popularized in the mid 1990s by Daniel Goleman. He argued that:

Emotional intelligence gives you a competitive edge. Even at Bell Labs, where everyone is smart, studies find that the most valued and productive engineers are those with the traits of emotional intelligence—not necessarily the highest IQ. Having great intellectual abilities may make you a superb fiscal analyst or legal scholar, but a highly developed emotional intelligence will make you a candidate for CEO or a brilliant trial lawyer.

Empathy and other qualities of the heart make it more likely that your marriage will thrive. Lack of those abilities explains why people of high IQ can be such disastrous pilots of their personal lives.

An analysis of the personality traits that accompany high IQ in men who also lack these emotional competencies portrays, well, the stereotypical nerd: critical and condescending, inhibited and uncomfortable with sensuality, emotionally bland. By contrast, men with the traits that mark emotional intelligence are poised and outgoing, committed to people and causes, sympathetic and caring, with a rich but appropriate emotional life—they're comfortable with themselves, others, and the social universe they live in.

I don't doubt the existence of EQ. Its importance is due to the fact that humans are social beings. And social beings always create a hierarchy. And a hierarchy necessarily means the existence of politics.

Taking it a step further, EQ is important because it can help us master the inevitable politics of organizations.

By far the best discourse on organizational politics I have read came from the book “Getting Things Done When You Are Not In Charge” by Geoffrey Bellman, 2001. The title is intriguing enough and it is a good read.

Here’s what he said about organizational politics (with some editing on my part):

Successful people recognize that politics are inescapable. Politics run through organizations of all sizes from families to villages to corporations to nations. They are not basically good or bad; they are neutral, to do with, as we will.

Political goodness or badness flows from the intent of undermining, giving and withholding, contacting and avoiding. Without the formal and informal political systems that exist in your organization, it would come to a halt. Or, maybe, because of the formal and informal political systems it has come to a halt. Either case demonstrates the power and importance of politics in your organization.

We are not going to be effective if we ignore the politics of the organization.

A DEFINITION OF POLITICS

Politics is the art of getting things done. Politics involves knowing who to work with and how to work with them. If you want to change the system, you had better understand how it works.

THE REALITY OF ORGANIZATIONS AND POLITICS

You can try to avoid the politics of your organization but you cannot stay outside of politics. It automatically includes you as a force whether you include yourself or not. Others make you a player even when you do not see yourself that way.

Some of our fears about politics come from the reality that it represents large and unknown powers outside our present understanding and control. There are no rulebooks about how to play the political games of your organization. It is unpleasant to be subject to rules you have yet to figure out. To the extent that you understand how the game is played, who makes the rules, and what your role is, you can make better decisions about your actions.

WHAT IF POLITICS DID NOT EXIST?

What if politics did not exist? How would things be different? Politics fills the white space around the positions in an organization chart. The real work gets done in the white space. This is where decisions are made, where influences work, where trust is built, where risks are taken, and where persons really reveal who they are.

THE BEST WAYS TO DEAL WITH POLITICS

A good working environment is not achieved by removing politics even if we could. Instead, we need to recognize that we are participants and players, regardless of our desire. The best results for you, as an individual player, come when your values and beliefs are synchronized with those of the organization.

Accept the reality of politics. Do not waste time cursing political realities. Accept the fact that politics are a legitimate factor. Seek to understand it. Test your understanding on others by listening to their political views.

You are a player. You cannot declare yourself otherwise because others will not let you. You may not be playing in the usual sense but you are a player. The role you play if that is your attitude is that of an outsider.

Consider how politics might help you. As you experience minor successes, build up the political support you need to succeed. Take action that is good for the organization while holding on to your personal values. This is important because you have to know what you want. You cannot be happy unless your actions are in harmony with your beliefs and values.

HOW TO BUILD A POSITIVE POLITICAL CLIMATE

Politics is based on established relations of loyalty and trust. Relationships are established best through one-on-one meetings.

Find shared objectives and desires. Shared objectives and desires give others a reason to meet with you so discover what it is that you want together and need to talk about. This straightforward approach, when it works, undermines unspoken, behind-the-scenes negotiations.

Take the larger, longer view. This is usually the more generous and flexible view. It balances the people whose concerns are more focused on immediate issues and thus have narrow views.

Use openness to counter secrets. Politics often has to do with who talks to whom about what. Negative politics constrains the sharing of information. Develop a bias for sharing information instead.

Learn to tolerate more ambiguity. Loaded political situations often push combatants to adopt immovable positions. Learn to hold your opinion in abeyance while you sincerely explore alternatives offered by others.

Be willing to understand others. This is essential to dialog and breaks down political barriers.

Remind yourself that understanding does not mean agreement. Negative politics often builds distances between disagreeing people. Set up opportunities where disagreeing parties can recognize their shared goals, clarify their disagreements, and explore alternative actions that all can support. Disagreement does not preclude collaborative action.

HOW TO WORK THROUGH NEGATIVE POLITICAL SITUATIONS

Remind yourself of the outcomes you want to achieve.

Survey all of your options. Withhold judgment until you’ve surveyed all of your options.

Of the options, which do you want to do? Which do you not want to do? What are you open or not open to doing? This step allows you to consider your politics in relation to other’s politics. This is where your values meaningfully limit the options you will consider.

Decide which path will most likely lead you to the desired results while being consistent with your values. And, finally, after you make your decision, explain the reasons for your actions to others.