What If--Hubris, Bay of Pigs, and Iraq

Just finished reading "Hubris" by Isikoff and Corn, focusing on the spinning of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. It was good, not too sensationalist. A main thread is the Niger uranium, Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. I would have liked some speculation: did Bush have a "Beckett" moment--who will rid me of this priest--was it Cheney, was one or both doing the details, or did Libby and Rove work out their campaign together, or was it just the knee-jerk reaction of political operatives? We'll probably never know, at least until Libby's trial or someone writes their memoir.

There's a "what-if" scenario that intrigues me. If I remember Secretary Cohen was waving a 5 pound bag of sugar around on TV during the Clinton administration. And he and Albright were pushing an aggressive line until they ran into a buzz saw of questions at some college that they didn't have good answers to. So just suppose that on the final days of the Clinton administration George Tenet had completed the National Intelligence Estimate that was done in the fall of 2002? In other words, say the Clinton Administration on January 20, 2001 was where the Bush administration was on November 1, 2002. Then the Bush people come in. What happens?

There's a parallel in 1961--Ike leaves JFK the Bay of Pigs operation. JFK modifies it but goes ahead. A difference--JFK had hit Nixon for not being hard enough on Castro; Bush never mentioned terrorism. Another difference--there probably was more comity, more "establishment rule" in 1961 than in 2001.

So does Bush go ahead with the flawed intelligence and missing plans? Or does his team say--Not Invented Here--and tear it apart? I suspect, given today's atmosphere, the latter.

You Know You're Old (and Senile) When...

You know you're old when you happen on a newspaper report of your old high school (Chenango Forks, NY) winning a regional playoff game and you figure the hero is mostly likely a grandson of a classmate (or the nephew--it was a big family).

You know you're senile when it takes you 2 days to compute.

Bureaucracies, Codes--Separation and Integration

This is a fascinating piece in the Washington Post on a move among local police departments to end the use of "10 Codes"--as in "10-4". The major reason is that, when an emergency requires employees of more than one department to coordinate, they all need to speak the same language. Who knew that different bureaucracies would have evolved differences in their codes?

We should have, it's logical. This is just another instance of the general principle: you put any group of people to talk among themselves and they develop their own accent, or jargon, or language, depending on the circumstances. The mechanisms are the same as outlined here: the need for fast, clear communication among the in-group; the desire to mark off the difference between the in-group and the out-group. This is a simpler, clearer example than, say, the difference between the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and the Soil Conservation Service (circa 1960-1994 USDA) or between FBI and CIA circa 9/11.

I'd predict that the effort will fail--there's too much geographical specialization and not enough times where integration is needed. That will sap the will of the people pushing the change, the bureaucrats will comply pro-forma, but when the change-pushers go, so will the move towards English instead of codes. (Reminds me of a piece I saw today--polygamy is coming back in Muslim parts of the old USSR--the Communists suppressed it, but it's now gradually returning.)

Aardvark comments on the parallels with other technology.

Ravages of Time--Women and Veterans

Recently visited the Women's Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, NY. Interesting subject, interesting park, with knowledgeable Park Service employees, but of course I have to find fault. Two problems:

• the visitor center had material on the place of women in American culture, including a 3-dimensional graph (the best description I can think of) comparing the numbers (percentages?) of men and women in various occupations over the years. The problem I have is the last figures shown were for 1990, almost 16 years ago. Women have gained in that time, in the professions and in ranking. (Since politics is timely, look at this boasting by Emily's List, which hasn't been updated to reflect the two additional women Senators just elected.
• the web site (see above). It's "under construction", with the last performance plan posted being for 2003.

My guess is that the park and the web site suffer from faults common to bureaucracy: something happens (in this case probably the 150th anniversary of the 1848 meeting in Seneca Falls) that generates activity (the Women's Rights National Historical Park). And the Internet comes along and people want to have web sites. But the golden hour passes, the party in power changes, projects get reprioritized, and interest fades. Result: a park that will gradually lose interest year by year.

I repeat, it's not a unique problem. It's a version of NIH (not invented here)--as time passes the first blush of enthusiasm pales and the founders move on to other things, the people who inherit don't devote the same time and energy to maintaining the project.

The same applies to Veterans Day. The 11 minute of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month can never mean the same to us as to those who fought in the trenches in WWI.

So Much for the Italians

Speaker-to-be Pelosi is attracting some attention as the first female speaker, and the highest ranking female official in government. She's not attracting attention as the first (I believe) Italian speaker (see here for a list of past speakers). Such firsts used to be noteworthy. That they no longer are seems to me a mark of progress.

Paper Trail for Voting?

Maybe I'm stuck in the past, but when I see a comment in Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly
blog saying that until we have paper trails on voting, we won't have fair elections, I get real tired. I learned to vote on lever machines. I saw JFK, LBJ, and RFK elected on lever machines. I saw RMN elected on lever machines. I never saw a paper trail on any lever machine, nor was there the prevasive questioning of the electoral mechanics we have now. People should chill out and enjoy the fall colors (currently just past their peak in Reston).

Grim Reaper and the Democratic Majority

A modest prediction--look for the grim reaper to play a hand in politics during the next 2 years. Why: with a one-vote margin, the Senate can go back to the Reps anytime Sen. Byrd has a more serious driving accident, Ted Kennedy succumbs to the Irish curse, John Kerry breaks his neck windsurfing, Frank Lautenberg gets overexcited, or [pick one] dies in a small plane accident. Or the GR may revisit the Supremes.

(Why am I so glum after the Dems finally retook Congress?)

Give Karen Hughes Some Love

The Post today provides the text of Karen Hughes (State's PR honcho) directive to embassies on doing local PR, "Karen's Rules". The accompanying analysis is rather critical--keying to the idea that Hughes, while in the White House, kept tight control on message and is not comfortable relaxing that control in her new job. Ms. Williamson quotes a couple academics on mixed messages.

I've no idea what's right, but I'd offer another analysis, looking at it as a bureaucratic message. Hughes says she's visited field offices and promised them guidance on what they could do. I've been there, done that. It's easy to forget the distance there is between DC and Bangkok or whereever. We may think that fast communications resolve issues, but people don't work like that (witness all the marriages that break down over "communications" issues). So I project my own experience into Hughes' text: she got hit with questions from the field, particularly from people who know her reputation for tight control and for being tight with Bush, so really, really don't want to get on her wrong side (and are therefore likely, in the absence of written guidance, to over react).

So Hughes gets back to DC and writes down rules, mostly to reassure people that they do have some leeway. There's also a subtle tug-of-war going on: Hughes is pushing PR, public advocacy. But she's a staff person [I assume], not in the line organization of State. Anything said in public at the local level can raise a stink, so the line organization is going to want to restrict the message to what's safe. No head of an organization (Condi or Bush) wants people making waves. But Hughes knows that safety is not the end-all. So in her directive she offers freedom from "clearance" [meaning running it up the ladder] for some things and help in getting clearance in others. The fact that she has the clout to put out such a directive is good.

(I regret the article didn't refer to the recent episode where someone at State "misspoke" (i.e., said the truth that didn't agree with the official line), I think in an interview on Al Jazeera. State pulled it back, but with support for the official.) Of course there's mixed messages, and control from the center--that's the way bureaucracy operates. But at least she gives something in writing. The able can take some initiative protected by some of the contents; the more cautious will rest easier.

Senator Webb?

I've told my sister that Webb had too much baggage for Virginia, but I may be wrong. In the hope that I am, I predict, if elected, Senator James Webb will become a cross between Sen. Coburn and Sen. McCain, i.e., a party maverick who hits some pitches and misses others.

I've read his book on the Scots-Irish, being half S-I myself (though my forebears went to New York and Illinois, not the southern Appalachians) and would give it a lukewarm recommendation. I'd suggest David Hackett Fischer's book, Albion's Seed, over Webb's, if you're only interested in the S-I.

Our Health Care System

Had another encounter with our health care system on our recent trip--my wife had to have her gallbladder removed. It was a much more positive experience than my earlier one. A major reason was that her illness was quickly identified so the medical routines and procedures went to work. Another reason was that the Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, where the surgery was done, is a newer facility with a more cheerful atmosphere. While part of the difference may be the organizational culture and the difference in patients, another part may be simply the difference in congestion. The previous hospital had two patients to a room, CMC had only one. So the ratio of patients to square footage was much lower at CMC. I believe patient care in a hospital is heavily dependent on people--you need nurses, aides, houskeepers, doctors, maintenance, etc. And each patient attracts visitors. So the lower density of patients meant a lower density of other people, resulting in less conversation and less noise, producing a more peaceful and relaxed atmosphere.

Anyway, my thanks to all of the doctors and staff, particularly Dr. Cora Foster, the surgeon, and Kathy Hauss (sp?), a nurse.