Iraq: In or Out? CHOOSE NOW!
I’m getting tired about hearing about the supposed quagmire in Iraq.
I’m not tired about Iraq, I’m tired about the politics from boths sides about what is going right/wrong in Iraq.
After this whole Murtha thing, the Democrats will not shut up about “we need to get out of Iraq today” (even though they all voted against leaving Iraq when that very subject was brought up in the House.)
Then the White House comes out with the President’s Plan.
The Democrats come out with thier supposed plan (as of yet, I’ve not seen it published.)
After cutting through the politics, I’ve discovered something astounding.
Both sides want the same thing, but are using completely different milestones.
As I suggested in The Modernist #5, Conservatives and Liberals are not mortal enemies. They both want the same thing, they just argue about how to get there.
Both groups want the conflict in Iraq to stop.
Liberals are measuring the withdraw from Iraq by time:
- We need to remove x number of troops by this date
We need to be completely out of the situation by such-and-such time.
The Conservatives are measuring the withdraw by events:
- We can remove x troops when there are y Iraqi troops
We can remove x troops when terrorist attacks are reduced by such-and-such rate.
Personally, I’m not a fan of a complete pull-out. I want to leave a permanent U.S. Presence there (as long as Iraq remains friendly) I want the U.S. to create Air Bases, and Naval Bases, and Marine Barracks, and Army Barracks. Shewt, put a permanent SuperCarrier group there! I want the U.S. to use Iraq as a friendly base of operations in the volitle Middle East.
Wizbang makes a similar observation:
I’m no physicist by any stretch of the imagination, but one concept has always fascinated me: I believe it was Einstein who postulated that time and space are interrelated, that in some ways time IS space, and space IS time. And that came to mind when I thought about President Bush’s speech the other day, and the calls for the “exit strategy” from Iraq.
There are two ways of measuring the completion of a task: by time, and by action. A lot of Democrats wish to define the end of the Iraq war by a calendar — so many troops out by such a time, more by a later date, complete withdrawal by a third, and the like.
But I don’t think this is one of those tasks that can be measured that way. I think that President Bush intends it to be one of the latter — to be determined by events, not time — and I think he’s right.
I agree. There is a place where milestones are best laid out by time, there is another place where milestores are best laid out by events.
I think the situation in Iraq is the later.
Maybe this is a job for Action Item?
I understand why you’re tired of the exit strategy argument but it’s going to get worse as November 2006 approaches.
It’s about filling seats in the two branches. Bush’s numbers are low, which gives the opposition the desire to make hay. The DNC has to rally their troops to jump on the anti-war wagon to keep Bush’s numbers down. That’s a gamble the DNC has to take but congress people of both parties have more at stake. If they jump on the anti-war wagon and things go well in Iraq in 2006, they will probably lose to those that held the course as Bush asked. If things are going bad in the Fall of 2006, they win.
Watching the politics play out like a chess game is more entertaining than worrying about the words people are using. You know both sides are planning and scripting the words.
Regardless of the words, the 2006 actions in Iraq will determine where we go. If things go well, things may play out as Bush wishes. If things go bad, we may have a re-emergence of the Vietnam hawks and doves (regardless of party) and the US will be forced to retreat from an area that obviously has little hope of democracy.
Whatever you do, enjoy the show.
Comment by Dad — December 6, 2005 @ 7:54:24 PM
Great takes. I have to agree with Dad that the words used are meaningless. I like the idea of looking at it from that point of view. It’s certainly better on my stress level! Thanks for that perspective.
Jeremy. Would software development be better served by time based releases or event based releases? The former is how the not-so-small-software-company does things now. We will release by x date barring catastrophic disaster. Whatever features we can fit by then will be included. If we did the later, we would create a desired feature set and release when it is done. Whenever that may be.
The peril of time based release strategy is that you may get not quite fully formed features included in your product. Scope gets cut back as time runs out. The peril of feature based release strategy is the inability to plan much around the release and the ease at which targets can slip and slip and can even be manipulated (we won’t release until A is done, but I really think we should do B now… that will push back A, but that’s ok we can just say that A took longer than expected). I’ve worked in that environment too.
I don’t think we operate under either exclusively. The later can be a disaster, trust me. although I’m sure, managed correctly, it could potentially work. The former is rediculous if the dates aren’t based on realistic expectations. If marketing says we need to launch in a month and we need a bunch of new features, you’re doomed. But if engineering can estimate with relative confidence that features A-F can be released in 5 months, then set the date and work towards making that happen. If it happens, great. If it doesn’t, then re-evaluate the risk of releasing now vs. pushing back the date.
I really don’t think the Iraq situation is much different. Just more complicated and with bigger risks and rewards. But instead of a step where re-evaluation is openly and honestly discussed, there is a chess match. A war of words for political positioning.
Comment by Cisco — December 7, 2005 @ 12:26:51 AM
I have to agree completely with Dad and you Jer. This is a game of wrods that will be determined in November 2006. However, until such time it will be like watching endless hours of campaign slam ads on tv.
Some how that seems like an even more interesting strategy if you truely think about it. Numb the brains of the American public on the whole situation between now and November that they will agree with the liberal point of view just to get it out of the media. Therefore people will be urging the Government to pull out as quickly as possible just to shut them up.
Kind of a bully-like mentality on the American people, and my Dad used to tell me to smile and not engage a bully ;)
Comment by Mindi — December 7, 2005 @ 2:33:05 AM
Good question Cisco,
I think, like in most everything else, there is a delicate balance between the two concepts.
A good project plan will be time and event driven.
I think the best example would be a case where the project is primarily time driven, with time driven milestones, but there are triggers to re-evaluate when specific events occur (or not occur) Most projects that I’ve been on (with a few exceptions) were exclusively time driven.
I agree that using one, or the other, exclusively is a dangerous tactic. But on the whole, we seem to fall to the time side much more frequently than the event side.
Comment by Jeremy — December 7, 2005 @ 5:19:29 AM