As a consultant, I've been to many corporate environments and witnessed this process in action again and again.
Usually, it's the outspoken person, the non-teamplayer, who says the 'wrong' thing time and again who gets the boot. Ironically, the insufficiently obedient employee is often the one warning about the negative consequences on profit of some hare-brained idea the owners have fallen in love with - it's his loyalty to the organization and its 'mission' which results in receiving the sack.
There are parallels to the Bush admin's Iraq venture.
The finer-grained debating points aside (control of oil? control of oil revenue flows? naked neo-imperialism?) everyone can agree the Bush admin hoped to achieve some serious geo-political and economic advantage by invading and controlling Iraq.
But cause and effect are harsh masters, unimpressed by carrier battle groups and JDAM ordinance: by firing a once loyal employee (the deposed Mr. Hussein) and assuming direct control of the operation, the US has set in motion a process which may very well end with a significant reduction in its hegemonic profit margins.
Just as some of the loyal (and derided) employees in the State Dept, the CIA and the 'American power can be used for good' crowd warned many months ago.
A very recent example: members of the IGC, for a variety of reasons, announcing their rejection of the US plan for political organization in Iraq -
Iraqi Panel Pivots on U.S. Plan Caucuses Rejected For Interim Rule
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, February 17, 2004; Page A01
BAGHDAD, Feb. 16 -- Most members of Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council no longer support the Bush administration's plan to choose an interim government through caucuses and instead want the council to assume sovereignty until elections can be held, several members have said.
The caucus proposal, which the council endorsed in November, is a cornerstone of the administration's plan to end the civil occupation of Iraq this summer. Seeking to lay the foundation for a political system that would shun extremism and keep the country united, the administration had wanted a transitional government selected by carefully vetted local caucuses to run Iraq through the end of 2005.
But with Iraqi religious leaders demanding that voting occur much sooner -- and with a growing expectation here that the United Nations will call for elections by the end of this year or early next year -- a majority of Governing Council members have quietly withdrawn support for the caucus plan.
"The caucuses are pretty much dead now," said Ghazi Yawar, a Sunni Muslim council member. Until recently, Sunni Arabs and Kurds, who make up 12 of the council's 25 members, had been the strongest proponents of the caucuses. But in recent days, several Sunni members have joined majority Shiites in opposing the U.S. transition plan.
Another Sunni member, Sameer Shaker Sumaidy, said that abandoning the caucus system and transferring sovereignty to the council on June 30 -- the date by which the administration has promised to hand over power -- now "makes the most sense." A senior Kurdish leader and council member, Jalal Talabani, said on Sunday that he, too, wants the council to assume sovereignty until elections can be convened.
The loss of support for the caucuses poses a complex challenge for the U.S. occupation authority. The council is made up of some of the country's key political leaders. "It's hard to imagine pulling off the caucuses without the Governing Council," one U.S. official said. "What happens when these people -- people we selected -- say they do not support the process? It can't work."
[...]
orig. url -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46176-2004Feb16?language=printer
condensed url -
...
DRM
===== http://www.monroelab.com/blog/the-departed.html Yahoo Instant Message ID: idoru345 secure email account: drm5979 at hushmail.com