Author: Tim J. Clark

Reducing illiteracy – Prevention & Prosperity

ARTICLE: Together, we can reduce illiteracy, By Travis DiNicola,
Indianapolis Star,  May 11, 2008

Wjln you cna’t read, the wurbs in the nefspopir cen louk lide tls. When you can read, the words in the newspaper can look like this.

In Marion County, 20 percent of adults cannot comprehend the words in this newspaper.

Adult illiteracy is an educational, health, economic, public safety and family issue. Health care costs for an illiterate adult are four times the national average, the majority of incarcerated adults struggle with reading, and the single best predictor that a child will not graduate from high school is if his or her mother is illiterate.

My hometown paper, the Indianapolis Star, solicited ideas for improving the quality of life in the community. The idea for reducing illiteracy was one of the suggestions selected.

Looks like this will serve as excellent application for illustrating  the quality leadership paradigm and framework.

First community meeting is June 17, 2008.  Stay tuned for follow up postings.

Call to Service … Again

ARTICLE:   Return To Sender – Iraq Veteran Gets The Call Again
(San Francisco Chronicle)…Colby Buzzell, May 8, 2008
Pg. B7

…But of course this is ridiculous: No one in their right mind would enlist now, whereas I’ve already signed the papers. I’m now going back to Iraq for a second time because people like me – existing service members – are the only people at the Army’s disposal.

Individual story of a Soldier that joined the military which entails a total commitment of active and inactive service of 8 years.  Served a tour, was honorably discharged, returned to school and got called back for a second tour.

Containment, Nukes, Rationality

ARTICLE: A Lack Of Patience. Containment worked before. Why not again? By Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune, May 8, 2008.

Examples on the use of Smart Power: Excerpts:

The centerpiece of the U.S. approach to the Soviet Union was vigilant containment 

…  containment worked against Stalin and Mao—both unbalanced dictators with nuclear weapons. 

For that matter, containment had worked against Saddam Hussein. In the 12 years after the first Gulf War, we kept him in a box, where he was no threat to us or his neighbors. 

Reagan took a different approach. In response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he continued President Jimmy Carter’s covert aid to the rebels, but didn’t send American troops. 

One common trait of governments and their leaders is an overriding desire to survive. If Iranian nukes are ever used for aggression, the regime can be sure Iran will be, as Hillary Clinton so vividly put it, “obliterated.”

One member of the “axis of evil,” North Korea, has acquired a nuclear arsenal. Instead of launching a preemptive strike, the Bush administration has chosen to 1) live with it if we have to, 2) negotiate with Pyongyang to give it up, and 3) maintain strong defenses in South Korea.

Iran – changes in U.S. Military Leadership

BLOG POSTING: Alarmist on Iran, except ….

Comments by Tom Barnett regarding his article in Esquire magazine, The Man Between War and Peace (http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon), in context with the article in the Washington Post: U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran, By Ann Scott Tyson, , April 26, 2008; Page A07

So, yes, I guess my piece in Esquire was as alarmist as some claimed, except:
-> I said Fallon could be fired and he was.
-> I said someone more pliable would be found, and he was.
-> I said Fallon’s firing could signal the ramp up on Iran and we get both Petraeus and Crocker saying that enemy #1 in Iraq is Iran.
-> And as soon as Petraeus is named, we get the obviously released story about the preparations for military strikes.
We are told by Gates and others that “this is all passed” and that the only ones who argue it isn’t are people who unduly alarm the public.
But the more open this latest ramp-up becomes, the harder it gets to deny. Those who simply mouth the Bush line will tell us again that this is all silly.
But the underlying truths remain: Bush has made his promises to friends in the region and Cheney believes it must be done on his watch.

As I mentioned in the Mission Accomplished posting, three options plus the choice of using soft or hard (smart) power:

1. Maintain/sustain the current situation?
2. Incremental change?¼br /> 3. Radical/Transformation Change?

Mission Accomplished ?

COMMNENTARY: Regarding the much derided “Mission Accomplished” banner.

On May 1, 2003, on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush made a speech  announcing the end of major combat operations. Visible in the background was a banner stating “Mission Accomplished.” 

Military experts have estimated that it would take 25 years to assess most of the positive as well as the negative aspects of the War.  Leadership at the strategic level is responsible for taking the long-view and the associated risks when considering the appropriate level of action. 

Regime change in Iraq has transformed the dynamics in the Middle East – this particular mission represented a strategic level change that was accomplished quickly and decisively.

Regarding action, leaders have three general options. Maintain/sustain the status quo, incremental improvement or radical (transformational) level improvement.   One could argue regarding peace in the Middle East, that initiatives related to sustaining the status quo and incremental change have had limited success – depending on the definition of success.

The ideal challenge for what I define as “Quality Leadership,”  is to win the war and achieve expected outcomes without firing a shot.  The Chinese military philosopher,  Sun Tzu in the Art of War, reinforced this philosophy in his statement: “The acme of skill is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

Cost of War … two sides of the issue

EDITORIAL: The Price Of War? Obscuring the debate with fuzzy math.
(Washington Times)…Chris Duquette, May 9, 2008, pg. 21

Editorial provided a counter argument to economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of the book: “The Three-Trillion Dollar War”, that the war is the cause of our recession, contributed to the increase in the cost of war, and added to our national debt.

Editorial provides more facts on the debate: Rise in oil prices can be attributed to global demand and the weakening dollar. We are not in a recession as defined as two straight quarters of negative economic growth , and regarding debt, relative to an annual U.S. GDP of $14 trillion, the war is not unaffordable.

Food and Security

ARTICLE: Mullen Directs DOD To Assess Security Impacts Of Global Food Crisis, Inside The Pentagon…Jason Sherman, May 8, 2008, pg.1

The Pentagon’s top officer has directed his staff to size up the national security implications of what many experts believe is a global food crisis, the latest development in a wider push by Defense Department planners to increasingly factor non-military dynamics with the potential to disrupt international order into contingency plans.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last week directed the Joint Staff to examine whether the recent spike in the prices of food staples like wheat, corn, soy and rice, which some food aid experts warn could trigger unrest around the world, presents a challenge the Pentagon should consider, according to military sources.

Reinforces the importance of systems or strategic thinking, e.g., changes in one area can contribute to effects on others.

Monitoring Progress – Terrorism Index

ARTICLE: The Terrorism Index, September/October 2007

In the third Terrorism Index, more than 100 of America’s most respected foreign-policy experts see a world that is growing more dangerous, a national security strategy in disrepair, and a war in Iraq that is alarmingly off course.

A source on information for assessing progress on the global war on terror. Refer you also to my posted page on Prediction Markets.

Wild Cards – National Power

ARTICLE: Where The Wild Cards Are (Washington Post)…David Ignatius, May 8, 2008
Pg. 23

The potentially transforming events in the 2008 campaign are matters of war and peace. Both may be in play between now and November, in ways that add extra volatility to the presidential race. Let’s start with war: The United States is already fighting two of them, in Iraq and Afghanistan. But judging from recent statements by administration officials, there is also a small, but growing, chance of conflict with Iran.

The 2008 campaign has been so mesmerizing that it’s easy to forget what’s going on out in the real world that could disrupt, once again, the certitudes of the pollsters and strategists. The campaign in recent weeks has focused on pocketbook issues because of worries about a deep recession. But as these economic anxieties fade a bit, we are likely to return to the ground zero of the Middle East, and to the themes of war and peace that will be interwoven through the remainder of this campaign.