I always believed that good management was when the highest person checked with the lowest person directly and not asked other bosses directly under them. The other bosses will agree with everything and go along with it all and tell the top person that it was a brilliant idea . This way the bosses will remain bosses because they made the top person feel good. After all it's not them that has to deal with it. This happens even if the lowest person hates what they are doing. This is known as kissing the top persons butt or stepping on others to get ahead. Isn't this the true "AMERICAN WAY"? Ask the Bush Administration.
2006-12-13 05:41:56 · 18 answers · asked by Joseph W 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No! This fool wouldn't know how to manage the Salvation Army if he were put in charge yet alone the US military.
2006-12-13 05:55:25 · answer #1 · answered by LaissezFaire 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
interesting
I think whenever possible, the peer to peer system works.
For military I can see how it might not be best. The Romans made a system based on ten people answering to one, on up the chain of command. Efficient when you need things to happen fast and no questions asked I think. Big companies do and should have time to think and plan so its not best for them I think. If I ran a large company, I would try to give each employee a little time to talk with me honestly. Even 5 minutes a month. It would have been nice to have that at Xerox or Digital. They would have learned a BUNCH from me. Maybe not what they wanted to hear. I don't have kids and would have told them though. The truth even.
2006-12-13 13:49:07 · answer #2 · answered by kurticus1024 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes and No...
Does the President of the United States have an inherent obligation to do whats best for his country even if that means securing strategic resources or politicial relationships by using force? (Military, Economical or Political Force) He definetly does and if he wasnt doing so he wouldnt be doing his job. The presidents job isnt feeding 3rd world countries, or saving the whales, his job is for the benefit of Americans 100% all the way.
Is this war soley about Iraqi Independence? Ofcourse not. We as a nation are gaining much more out of this than the warm fuzzy that we are helping people, and to say that this war is all about oil I highly doubt we would spend Billions and Billions on a war for oil that we couldve just bought straight from Saddam himself for much cheaper, becides the largest exporter of Oil to the United States contrary to belief is not the middle east its Canada.
Now what I dont believe in is going into Iraq and castrating our Armed Forces so they cant do their job and take care of business, but thanks to the huge facist ultra left wing population in our country we have soldiers thinking twice before they shoot not because they are scared of death but because they are scared of being prosecuted by their own nation if they make an honest mistake on that battlefield.
2006-12-13 14:29:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lol
Dude no one could manage to achieve what they are trying to achieve in Iraq.
These people despise America and Britain and Christians it is part of their tradition and belief.
Is Bush inept yes he's idiot i'd rather have a Gorilla in charge of America. Did he creat this problem in the first place yes he did he was told not to invade by the UN if you do something like that you'd better be right.... Was he? No!!!!!
Is there anything he can do to put it right no. The only thing now is to pull out and crawl back to the UN tail between legs apologise and ask for them to deal with it.
2006-12-13 13:48:25 · answer #4 · answered by Bohdisatva 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's the Generals who manages the Armed Forces, not the President.
2006-12-13 13:50:26 · answer #5 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
With a couple million military personell, it would take Bush 4 years to talk with each of them for 1 minute each, assuming he didn't sleep. Lets say he spent 8 hours a day to speak to each of them for 60 seconds, it would take him 12 years.
How long do you want him in office?
Wake up and smell the paint chips.
2006-12-13 14:02:46 · answer #6 · answered by CP 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. We have air superiority, so why are we fighting a ground war?
I keep reading about shooters in Baghdad in the upper storeys of apartment buildings. What I want to ask is... why the heck do apartment buildings in Baghdad still have upper storeys?
2006-12-13 13:52:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
About as good a job as the Saudis are doing of following the money they send to Osama Bin Laden and clapping him in irons.
He waited until he had made the situation irreparable, then decided to ask people who agree with him what to do. This goes way beyond incompetence.
2006-12-13 13:48:02 · answer #8 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The President does not manage the armed forces. The secretary of defense does. Bush is clueless unless he asks.
2006-12-13 13:44:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I would rather consider Mr. Bush's govt as the worst ever govt ruled the USA. He has totally ruined the militry force, misusing the power what he had.
2006-12-13 13:47:41 · answer #10 · answered by v b 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋