I would have had a lot more respect for Powell if he'd been more of a warrior and less of a soldier.
Tom Freidman suggested that there were only two ‘Democrats’ who had any influence over President Bush: Colin Powell and Tony Blair. Freidman goes on to explain these two were the only voices counseling patience and recommending resolutions through the UN to apply military force only after renewed inspections failed. That’s a story in itself. If you somehow find Powell guilty of not standing up to Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheny, then can we expand this guilt to our Democratic representatives and senators?
[H]e knew the public basis for the war was being terribly hyped, he knew that the lives of his soldiers were on the line.
Well, I knew that the lives of our soldier were on the line, as well, and I wasn’t even in the White House or State Department.
Powell has also said that at least one person in the CIA knew that he was getting doctored intelligence, but didn’t come forward for fear of reprisals. I can only guess from where. You know the intelligence that Powell was getting. Would you send a copy to me?
The reasons for why he didn't are often expressed as his "being a good soldier." Maybe that's a mark of loyalty but in my view it's no mark of leadership and certainly no profile in courage.
So if the military officers follow Bush’s orders, they then have no courage or leadership?! A carrier military officer’s life is defined by the order received, carried out and passed down the line. If he felt he had received and unlawful order, I think he could have resigned then and there. It was because he had spoken out against the invasion in the White House and Pentagon that he was push aside, and his influence minimized by Cheny and Rumsfeld. As a military officer, Powell would have raised his objection, but the end of the day he would have saluted and carry out his lawful orders. I respectfully disagree with your view stated above.
It ain't as bad as you think. It will look better in the morning.
<That's trite.> Not to me, because it has been applicable to me many times. For me, these statements imply that one tends to make poor decisions when one is very emotional, typically after a serious trauma to body or spirit. Once a person calms down and gets a good nights rest, they can rationally move through the problem.
Get mad, then get over it.
<I'd say get mad and use the resulting adrenalin when you need to. If you don't need adrenalin then get over it and start using your head employing cold logic.>
From your personal experience, when do you need the adrenalin saved from having been mad? This next rule follows from the first item: becoming emotional is a natural defense mechanism to an assault of some kind. The body pumps adrenalin to infuse the blood with anti-coagulants, shuts down the digestive system, and stops the repair of damaged tissue. All this is meant to provide all of one’s energy to fight off an attack, or run quickly away. Trying to suppress one’s anger confounds the problem for many people, including myself. The idea here is to allow the anger to rise and fall away, and get back to “cold logic” as you’ve said.
3) Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it.
<On the other hand, be prepared to have the courage of your convictions even knowing that if you're wrong you'll look and feel like a fool. That's the risk you take when you take a stand and that's how life teaches you to be wiser next time.>
I think I’ll skip this lesson, but thanks for the effort. What you speak of is hubris, pure and simple. I sincerely believe that pride comes before a fall. I see it time after time. I can’t be surprised that posters and pundits rail and rant any tripe that passes for an opinion these days. Their reply when they’re shown to be wrong: “So what!” Have you seen any poster become wiser after their “position falls?” I’ve seen them become more vituperative and ever more hostile. If you provide the example to support your thesis here on SI, I guarantee you that I’ll cherish that post.
This rule advocates humility, and that one can learn new things at any time, and don’t be pig headed.
4) It can be done!
<Only fools believe that there are no insurmountable obstacles. Only fools accept the proposition that iron will can overcome insurmountable obstacles. Some fools become Presidents of the US.>
Yes, fools become presidents, but let’s take the negation of the rule: It can’t be done. Only a defeatist starts out with the idea of eventual failure. I’ll provide examples of task that were said to have been impossible, but none the less accomplished, and you provide examples that had someone claiming “It can be done with the courage of their convictions even knowing that if you're wrong you'll look and feel like a fool.” Let’s compare the list when we’re done.
Does this really equate to foolishness to you? You wrote of morale before, but this where I put it. Esprit de corps is fundamental asset for a soldier or marine. It improves the probability of success; it doesn’t guarantee success. Demoralizing troops is the antithesis of providing an esprit de corps – the purpose of “psy-ops” in military operations.
So, what’s better: “People, we can do this if we work together” or “People, don’t put yourselves out, if we get the job done, fine, but if not, no big whoop.” ??
So far, as I move through your replies, I get any overwhelming sense of cynicism, but you’re probably entitled, so I won’t deny you. <g>
5) Be careful what you choose. You may get it.
<Very good advice.> Cool, I’ll leave this one be…
6) Don't let adverse facts stand in the way of a good decision.
I agree with neo on this.... and a lot of other views he holds.
OK, I won’t address this further than I already have.
7) You can't make someone else's choices. You shouldn't let someone else make yours.
<Maybe. If your past record indicates that your choices are often shallow, emotional and wrong, find someone to follow and try to choose wisely. Christianity provided great guidance for a lot of Christians until they confused the Christian religion with right wing politics and started following the rigid dogma of televangelists and the shouters on the radical right.>
This reply seems to have moved off of Powell – and on to Bush?? This response may be better suited on another board. I’ll guess that is Bush/Christianity/Second coming/foreign policy stuff. Not my problem for this post.
8) Check small things.
But never lose track of the big picture because things like gay marriage won't change your life but big things like the loss of respect for and adherence to sacred, previously untouchable constitutional protections will.
Again, moving away from Powell. I will concur that this means ‘keep your eye on the big picture, but always check the small things as well.’
9) Share credit.
<And accept responsibility.> Absolutely. Next?
10) Remain calm. Be kind.
<When they’re called for.> This is close to being trite, but OK.
<When making the best of bad choices, however, make the right choice even if it's not the kindest. When faced with aggression, oppression and bullying respond with appropriate force and passion. >
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi would turn in their graves, and the beloved Dali Lama would give a wry smile at such a sentiment, just before he gave you a hug.
11) Have a vision. Be demanding.
<Yes.> Good and OK.
12) Don't take counsel of your fears or naysayers.
<No, take counsel of your fears and examine the rationale of naysayers. Denial may make you stronger but your fears and the existence of naysayers may be trying to tell you something you need to hear. The bravest and strongest are often fearful. Their courage and success comes from making wise choices and taking action despite their fears.>
Let your fears control your life?! Not for me, sorry.
<The bravest and strongest are often fearful>
Yes, so are the most cowardly and effete. That leaves a lot of people in between. To me, naysayers are those to don’t back up their opinions with facts and reasoning; they simply say things like “no you can’t” or “you’re so stupid” or “Democrats can’t fight wars” or “Republicans don’t like poor people.” (This was for humor more than illumination.)
I would not take counsel from naysayers, but I would still listen to people who disagreed with me. I have consciously looked for counter-indicators from people for the last 20 years, or so. When I find someone who is consistently wrong, I worry more whenever I happen agree with them.
13) Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.
<Perpetual optimism is a hallmark of mental retardation, blind faith or brain damage. You can use this platitude to lead a herd of sheep off the cliff but you cannot make them fly.>
I’m going to be unkind here: You’re pissing in the wind. Leadership in its best form can rally the lost and broken. We’ve also have seen leadership at its worst.
My take on your reply is that you resent the current administration and everyone who currently serves or has served under the Bush presidency. If I’m wrong, please correct me. This starting point leads me to conclude that you find these simple rules to be foundation of our foreign policy somehow, and that these ideas inherently corrupt their followers. Uh, OK.
I wish you well. |
