The manager dilemma

One of the fundamental problems that arises from managers decisions is this paradox:

If I say I can solve a problem only if a manager gives me $1 million (for example) to build the solution and the manager refuses then who is right?

By default the problem can't be solved without that solution. So the manager is right. By default. Without making a solution one can't dispute this outcome.

But that doesn't mean the solution won't work. The solution might be workable. It might solve a problem no one or thing else can. It might change the world. It might revolutionize society.

But without support no one will know.

If no resources are spent there is no way to prove or disprove the proposition. Not all solutions will work. But they all can't fail either. There is inherent risk in all solutions but to hide behind no action is not management. It is abrogation of responsibility to hide from being wrong.

While no one funds the effort, the manager remains right and can remain right forever. There is no way to dispute the truth yet society can't move forward if all managers get to say no.  They get to keep their jobs their benefits and avoid hard decisions and tests to their status.

There must be a way to enforce progress despite the comfort of ignorance.

Where Obama has sold out: Iraq

There are many issues that Obama has staked a position that is pro-citizen and anti-cronyism.

http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/fffd6e71-3772-416e-a397-ce503b151c12.img

Iraq and Syria is not one of them.

The reason why the West is not winning in Iraq is in part due to the fact that Obama has sold out to special interests on strategy in Iraq against ISIS. He is allowing side objectives to get in the way.

What he told the American people about the objective in defeating ISIL :

"This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL."
http://www.ibtimes.com/full-text-obama-isis-war-speech-islamic-state-terrorists-are-going-lose-president-1813394

What he is not telling the American people is that his real objective is:

This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL AND maintain favorable interests in Iraq."

That means propping up the corrupt Iraqi leaders that caused this whole mess in the first place. They turned Anbar over to ISIS by not being inclusive to Sunni Arabs. Iraq has disintegrated as a result!

Obama can win or he can maintain the cronys in Iraq that are pro-USA. He can't do both.

If winning is the ultimate objective then all secondary objectives must disappear. If the only way to do that means arming and cooperating with Iranians to crush ISIS then that should be the strategy. If that means arming the Kurds to crush ISIS then that should be the strategy. If it means US ground troops in Syria then that should be the strategy. If it means nuking Raqqa then that should be the strategy.  There is no middle ground in war. There is no appeasing side interests on the way to victory.

The American people deserve to know the truth that Obama doesn't want Iraq on his CV and he is leaving the decisions to the vested interests that caused the mess in the first place. That is making defeat more likely, not less.

If I was Obama, I would tell Abadi he's got 30 days to start showing some victory or Abadi is out of the picture and the coalition will fight over top of what's left of Baghdad.