"Structural" & "systemic" - versus "battle stations" & "shaking the trees"

[scottxyz]

Condi keeps talking about "structural" and "systemic" problems that prevented the FBI and the CIA and the NSC from talking to each other and from moving information up to the top and orders out to the field.

My question is: isn't "going to battle stations" and "shaking the trees" (as Clinton and Clarke did) precisely the way you SOLVE those "structural" and "systemic" problems?

If everyone know agencies don't talk to each other, isn't it the President's job to make sure they at least talk to HIM and he talks to THEM?

Isn't this what "shaking the trees" and "going to battle stations means"? Isn't this the purpose of "principals meetings" (versus "deputy-level") meetings? To heighten awareness and cooperation, so as to cut through the "systemic" and "structural" problems - at least during times of extreme alert?

Everyone knows that agencies sometimes don't talk to each other and information doesn't get handed up and down the chain from the commander-in-chief to the department heads to the people in the field.

= = =

We have seen two approaches to "structural" and "systemic" problems:

- pre-Millennium: "Go to battle stations" holding daily principals meetings with department heads so their people will "shake the trees".

- pre-9/11: Go on vacation and cut brush.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. What Clarke and Clinton (and Sandy Berger) did is called being

pro-active. It's one of those qualities that separates the good managers from the bad managers.

[Desertrose]

2. don't forget tactical vs strategic

goddang...what doublespeak....!

[scottxyz]

4. Oh, yes: "tactical" versus "strategic"

"Tactical" response (also called "tit-for-tat") - After they blow up the Cole, relatiate militarily.

"Strategic" response: Sit on your hands and do nothing. Saying you're tired of "swatting flies". Ask "where's my plan?"

[JHB]

3. Also on point:

"If there were 'structural' problems with interdepartmental communication (as revealed by the need to 'shake the trees' during the Clinton administration) which would have been obvious if the Bush administration had indeed made hunting Al Queda a priority before 9/11, why didn't you take any steps to fix those 'structural' problems during the first eight months of the Administration?"

[RoyGBiv]

5. Two comments

Condi keeps talking about "structural" and "systemic" problems that prevented the FBI and the CIA and the NSC from talking to each other and from moving information up to the top and orders out to the field.

When she said all this stuff she was, in the words of another DUer, shrilling for the Patriot Act. She mentioned it by name 8 times in her "speeches" and referred to it several others. Her basic claim was that the law prevented those organizations from talking to each other and from gathering domestic intelligence. IOW, she was doing stump speeches not only for the PA, but for PA II and likely PA III, which I think, based on her comments, would involved the creation of an agency combining the CIA and FBI with the authority to turn all its investigative powers on the residents of the US.

My question is: isn't "going to battle stations" and "shaking the trees" (as Clinton and Clarke did) precisely the way you SOLVE those "structural" and "systemic" problems?

Yes. As Rep. Nelson pointed out on Hardball, there were already systems in place that would have allowed all the info to connect had the people in the positions of making that happen done their jobs. They did not do their jobs.

IOW, we don't *need* the PA or any variation of it. What we need is to use the system we have in place properly.

IMO.

[stopbush]

6. Typical corporate speak. The kind of BS thrown out by staffing

consultants when they're brought in to "right size" companies. "We need to eliminate this department and combine these two together while adding an oversight group to run the new one. Of course, we need to fire 100 people to do this, but luckily, we know 5 high-priced suits who can do it all...as long as there's a big signing bonus and a free car involved."

It's never the company leadership. It's always the underlings, the "bloated processes" and the "lack of vision" being shown by the, er, leadersh...the new streamlined processes will take care of any leadership focus tangents!"

Even in the public eye and on the hot seat, Condi reverts to her native tongue.