JCC Congratulations Austria

I think you need to look at it as "if you haven't worked somewhere where, if you don't perform and continue to perform, you could lose your job". Right now, the public service does not have that same standard attached. But we have an expectation of our elected officials not far removed from what most shareholders have of the leadership teams of most companies. So it's not unreasonable to suggest that any enterprise that's wealth creating (which, for the Vivecs in the thread, doesn't mean the MAEK ALL TEH MONIES jobs; it means where the company produces a good or service for profit. This distinguishes it from non-profit enterprises such as public service) is a better template for public office because the expectations are aligned. My boss and his boss don't want to front the board for failure, and I'm either performing and getting rewarded for it; or underperforming and risking being let go.

It's really just that simple; you need the carrot and stick approach and the stick is less to in- significant in non-wealth creating jobs.

 

What are you talking about? The man whose planned realignment of the US military was largely a failure? Whose tenure was remarkably void of consequences for the string of bad commanders in Iraq? The man who was infamous for a stream of meaningless memos that came to be called "snowflakes" which would come to be ignored with impunity by the underlings who received them?

 

I know. I was trying to pile on to Ender Sigh's demonstrably terrible statement, but I forgot to quote erase your quote from my post.

In connecting to Jello's original point, we haven't even begin to connect the dots between Rumsfeld's self-serving instincts that led him to being dubbed a "ruthless [expletive]" and his willingness to retaliate against people like Shinseki who made inconveniently fact-based assessments. Because, you know, it sort of seems like his focus on external evaluators of his performance, coupled with a lack of interest in the actual policy details, led him to focus on optics issues that were exactly the wrong points, and heightened the disasters his tenure would see.

 

Yeah I went back and checked; there was elements of moderinisation that worked but clearly by Iraq he was simply messing stuff up. Statement retracted.

 

You do honor to Espy. I formally acknowledge your good act.

 

Well, my brother-in-law, who is now Austrian ambassador to a not insignificant country, is not amused. Not only does Kurz not have any foreign ministry experience, he hasn't even finished university. His only qualification is that he made a name for himself in the student branch of the party, and that he's fairly charismatic.

Far worse, imo, is that he's no worse a hack as the rest of the new government.

 

Oh boy...

He started out as the butt of every joke. The feeble attempt to inject some youth into an overaged christian conservative party.
Surely there are far more qualified people even at his age to do the job.

 

So he's Sarah Palin?

 

Austria has a particular culture that makes this possible. An outward, constant show of arrogance is one of the non-negotiable requirements of professional life there. If a twenty-something can consistently demonstrate the same level of professional arrogance as a, say, 50-year-old with a quarter-century of hands-on experience in the field, then for all practical purposes as far as the average Austrian is concerned, that twenty-something has effectively displayed an equivalent level of competence as the 50-year-old.

I know the Austrian trade rep here in Chicago as well as the Austrian consulate general, who has unfortunately left to serve as Austrian Ambassador to Albania, since the Chicago consulate has closed. One of the things that rubbed off on both of them (worse for the ex consulate general, since he married an American) was a Chicago-ish self-deprecating style. Unless they can shake that off, neither of them will be fit for any high level job in Austria.

 

Isn't Paul Verhoven originally from Austria too?

 

I think so. I could probably be prime minister.

 

We could all run for PM at the same time and win.

 

I'd like to go for a UN secretary/President combo like Kurt Waldheim back in the day when old men with shady Third Reich pasts still ran the country.

I always liked this slogan:

"Wien darf nicht Chicago werden!"

 

Jello, sorry for going back to a post of yours which is a couple of days old contained within an entirely different topic, but I think the focus of your criticism about Rumsfeld is just about as opposite as it should be. E_S's prior assessment was actually pretty accurate.

First, let's compare Robert McNamara's tenure as Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War. McNamara brought his experience taken from the boardroom of Ford Motor Company and applied it to the Defense Department. McNamara standardized the procurement system. McNamara pushed for small arms that made the best use of technology despite the objections of the old school generals within the military. In a nutshell, what McNamara did from the standpoint of the Department of Defense, was use the current war to win the next war, whatever that might be. He looked to the future, the benefits of which are still being felt in the Defense Department. What McNamara didn't do- nor could he do- was immediately and specifically end the Vietnam War right at the time when the public was focused on it.

Rumsfeld was the exact same way, and out of a ranking of all the SecDef's, it would be difficult to put Rumsfeld and McNamara above or below each other, probably at the number 3 spot. Rumsfeld completely transformed the US military away from a cold war machine. He transformed the very "anti-Soviet" heavy division structure that had defined the US military since the end of WWII. Rumsfeld was also pretty good at picking and choosing which programs to continue and which to cancel, despite the entrenchment of the military/industrial complex. However, just like McNamara, what Rumsfeld couldn't do was immediately end the conflict in Iraq, precisely at the time when that was all the public was focused on, because of the nature of the mission there.

Should Rumsfeld be beholden to the fact that his boss came off as a dofus? I don't know, McNamara served under Johnson under much the same conditions. I guess it depends on how much wants to combine the political aspect of a conflict with the technical aspect of conducting the same operation.

But I'd say, overall, that figures like McNamara and Rumsfeld perfectly illustrate the point of this thread, and why it may/may not actually matter, depending on the circumstances. Both McNamara and Rumsfeld (both times) were just about perfect SecDef's as SecDef's could be, because of the nature of their private/public experience. But in both cases, the long term benefits that they brought to their position were overshadowed by the short term politics of the situations they were engaged in. E_S was right on the money with his assessment, filtered through the real world.

 

Hij komt uit Holland!

 

I think, though, Iello, that you're actually making an argument in favour of a truth in between "flub" and "hero"?

 

Paper pusher compared to whom? See, what I think you're doing is glossing over the what the office of the Secretary of Defense does. The SecDef is the principle staff element for all the branches of the military and controls policy and resource management. (through the President of course) In other words, the SecDef isn't just a paper pusher, the position is the ultimate paper pusher for the entire military. The authority then cascades to the individual branch and unit commanders.

First off, I just don't think you can judge any official like this on one element. During his first term, Rumsfeld was instrumental in transitioning the US military from a conscription force to a volunteer service, precisely because he applied his business experience to the military. Without Rumsfeld pushing for the end of the draft and increasing the technical aptitude of the volunteers for the military so it was more in line with the private sector, the US still might have a conscription based defense department. Under Bush, he was SecDef when Afghanistan was initiated. Did he fail to listen to any general in the military for it? Was Afghanistan not a US lead NATO mission involving dozens of countries? His mobile transition for the military is what is keeping the US edge in relation to the current worldview. And in fact, regarding the initial troop levels for Iraq, General Franks, the then commander of Centcom at the time, and who lead the invasion of Iraq, recommended a troop level of 400,000-500,000 troops. 400,000 troops were provided, which was the low end of the estimate needed, but still within the range provided by the specific commander who was in charge. Could there have been disagreements? Sure. I'd hope any operation of this scale who have disagreements. But it's not like the Centcom commander wanted 500,000 troops for Iraq and Rummy shrewdly only provided a third of that. A rough estimate was given and accepted.

What I'm saying is that based on the job requirements for the Secretary of Defense position, Rumsfeld was one of the most effective ones. The US has had 24 Secretaries of Defense. Personally, I'd rank George C Marshall (of the post-WWII Marshall Plan even though that was when he was SecState) as number one. James Forrestal might be number 2, because he just about single handedly created the uniquely US concept of the carrier battle group and what it has meant to US power project ever since. Certainly, Rumsfeld and McNamara would be tied for number 3. The rest of the SecDef's fall in line after these 4, and none have had as much of an impact.

To me, you're basically saying that because Iraq sucked, Rumsfeld was a failure in his position. That's extremely short-sighted, and outside of the norm with the successes and failures of every single other Secretary of Defense. For instance, Forrestal resigned from his position as SecDef. Should he be solely judged by that one incident? Even though I ranked George Marshall as number 1, he was SecDef when the Korean War broke out, and was criticized by MacArthur for the stalemate. (MacArthur wanted to take a more shall we say-direct approach- against the North Koreans and Chinese.) Does the fact that Marshall disagreed with MacArthur and took a more measured approach in Korea automatically mean that Marshall was a failure as Secretary of Defense? Were MacArthur's military wishes more important than Marshall's political constraints? (And does that sound familiar?)

In fact, you show me a Secretary of Defense who didn't generate controversy, and I'll show you one who was hiding in his office.

But going back to the thread. For instance, Rumsfeld didn't continue transitioning the US military from a conscription based force to a volunteer one out of the blue, he used his experience from the private sector to make the volunteer military competitive with private industry. It was quite controversial at the time to increase military pay and benefits when the country was basically getting the same thing for free, but from a accountability standpoint, it made sense.

 

Damn I must've made that assumption when I watched Black Book.

 

Mr44, it is time to end all of the pretence and deception. Please come clean with the truth and finally admit what we all (ecpecially me) have suspected for years, that you are in fact Mr Rumsfeld.