Regarding President Bush’s decision for OIF, President Trump’s campaign position echoed Russian disinformation that blatantly contradicts the law and fact basis of the Iraq intervention.

According to the operative enforcement procedure for the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441), the facts show President Bush’s decision was correct. The US and our allies were right on Iraq.

Excerpt from the answer to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq”:

For OIF, Bush properly established the trigger for enforcement was Iraq’s noncompliance with the UNSC resolutions as Clinton had done for ODF. But in a departure from Clinton’s public presentation, Bush additionally cited the pre-war intelligence, despite that the intelligence, by the operative enforcement procedure, could not trigger enforcement. OIF opponents pounced on Bush’s mistakes of presentation to shift the burden of proof away from Iraq proving it had disarmed as mandated by the UNSC resolutions and onto the US proving Iraq was armed matching the pre-war intelligence estimates. However, the presentation error does not change that Iraq’s proscribed armament was established in the factual baseline of the Gulf War ceasefire as the foundational premise of the disarmament process. The only legal and reliable way to know Saddam had disarmed, short of regime change, was Iraq proving he was compliant with “full and verified completion [of] the disarmament process” (UNSCR 1441) mandated by the UNSC resolutions enforced under US law.

On March 6, 2003, Iraq’s “continued violations of its obligations” (UNSCR 1441) – including the basic failure to declare and destroy all its as-of-Gulf War WMD under international supervision – were validated by UNMOVIC with the Clusters document, which imputed continued intent and possession by Saddam. Upon the confirmation that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” in its “final opportunity to comply” (UNSCR 1441), President Bush properly applied the operative enforcement procedure to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” (P.L. 107-243).

The truth is at the decision point for OIF, Iraq had not disarmed. Saddam was rearming and evidentially noncompliant on the weapons and non-weapons mandates of the UNSC resolutions.

Validate him all you want.

If “bullshit”, as he says, is part of the way to success, I vehemently disagree, as I’ve seen that to be hit or miss, and overwhelmingly on the miss side.

Why? Because I’ve seen several entrepreneurs spectacularly flame out once someone pulls on a thread, as the whole frame of b.s. then comes crumbling down.

As for the rest, anyone can read about “growth hacking” or some of the crap from so-called “business / wealth gurus” and come up with similar stuff.

Because it is trendy doesn’t mean it is true or applicable.

When one is running THE largest organization in the world, freestyling a/b testing just won’t do.

You don’t just throw out an EO and see what “sticks”, for gosh sakes!

A total misunderstanding of the concept.

The spirit of a/b testing is to experiment on a micro level and scale it, for crap sakes!

adams is certainly practicing what he is preaching with this “bullshit”.

Just remember what he thinks about his readers, as you shake your head up and down in agreement.

“May be titillating, but only serves one’s fantasy or bias rather than reality.”

Gotta disagree here, Maq. Adams’ observations about management style in dinosaur orgs vs dynamic orgs conform exactly with my own observations gathered over more than 45 years as an IT contractor in many varied industries and government entities.

May be titillating, but only serves one’s fantasy or bias rather than reality.
.

adams won’t come out and say it directly, but he essentially believes that most (all?) of his readers are idiots of some sort.

As a comparison, Nassim Taleb is rather arrogant, and is particularly vocal about the “idiot elites”. But, at least his ideas don’t depend on we trusting he has special observational powers and foresight we don’t / cannot have.

Talib may think people are mistaken or foolish, but he hasn’t (to my knowledge) categorized the vast majority as meat puppets who can only succumb to one pied piper or another.

There is something of a “confirmation bias” in what adams says, which makes it tantalizing for folks, and which, therefore, obscures this big picture of his “philosophy” and what it really means about his readers.

To give him credit is to validate this proposition of meat puppetry, which seems nonsensical for anyone who believes they are an independent thinker.

In adams’ binary world, you select option three.

That’s okay, as I think people are FAR smarter than adams gives them credit for.

For Leftists, win-win.

I kinda gave up on speculation when I blew my not insignificant fortune on Segway stock.

How would Adams define me? I dunno and can’t say that I’m much interested. If I were to characterize myself I might opt for “observer of the passing scene”.

I said that the article was interesting. Perhaps you read too much into what I have to say.

Meat puppet or master persuader?

In adams’ own recent words, here is a clue:

“I’m seeing a dangerous situation forming that I assume is invisible to most of you.“
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156540315831/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-especially-if-it-is

He makes “interesting” points, but as far as really being an explanation for much, start with his framework, and see if you really buy into that, first.

I find that article hardly sufficient to explain away the (poor) execution, nor the level of planning (or lack thereof).
.

The consequences for this foul up can be far reaching.

Take one… Suppose his case is lost in the court?

How might it hamper / hamstring future action on this front?

Does trump double down and then try to delegitimize the “so-called” (his words) courts? Does he claim his DOJ is filled with “losers” and second rate incompetent lawyers? Does he put the courts “on notice”? Does he claim they are part of the “opposition party”?

Nothing good could come from any of that, but trump’s behavior doesn’t rule any of it out.

Also, remember how the court reversed obama’s expansion of DACA by EO?

Many decried that as “proof” obama was using EOs to skirt the Constitution and legal limits to his power.

That shadow was hard / impossible to shake.

So then, the left would get to make the very same case.

And, that was 2015, seven years after obama was voted in, not weeks into his presidency.

Nice!
.

No doubt, if it does go trump’s way, there will be hails all around about how “brilliant” trump was, and how this was his goal all along (or at least since May).

Roy L: Consider me among those skeptical Trump is playing 3-D chess anymore than Obama was.

The blitzkrieg may have been planned well in advance, but that doesn’t mean it was planned well.

Nor does it prove Trump isn’t impetuous and precipitous.

I don’t believe Trump wings everything but it’s clear he wings some things.

“I’m all for a “blitzkrieg” if it was based on conservative policy, well thought out, and executed well.”

What is conservative policy? Perhaps we might consider the words of Russell Kirk, perhaps the preeminent conservative thinker of the 20th century:

“The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.”

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/.

“We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks”

I found this article by Scott Adams addressing management style to be quite interesting:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156628357041/is-president-trump-doing-management-wrong

Best,
Roy