Fri - February 8, 2008An Army of DellI used to work for Dell Computers. At first it
was an amazing place to be, full of energy and focus. It was woefully far
behind Apple, my previous employer, on how to use technology but it was miles
ahead on changing the world with new manufacturing techniques.
But over time, Dell grew and became too leviathan, too bloated with middle managers who no longer cared about the success of the company and their every decision was made on how it made their career improve. This loss of focus resulted in some disastrous and near disastrous results. For instance, they built a new factory for the Optiplex line of business using cooked numbers. It took years to finally reach the goals promised for the first few months after it opened. In another dramatic incident, they shut down plans to start building notebooks in Malaysia for delivery to US customers a few days before the planned start date because someone leaked to Michael Dell the real numbers on the costs – Dell would have lost money on every sale. Why did this happen? Because the company became an institution no longer concerned with the company's well being and was instead nothing more than a vehicle for individuals to make money regardless of the company's health. Recently, the US Army has suggested that Gen. Petraeus be transferred from Iraq to Europe. Thankfully, this has been squelched for now, but the very idea that anyone would propose such a move is an indicator that the army is not an Army of One, it is an army of individuals no longer concerned with the good of the nation. It has morphed just as Dell morphed. It is now an Army of Dell. From the very beginning of this war, the military
has not really taken it seriously as something that requires a difficult
commitment. Units are rotated in and out as though it's just another routine
matter to fight a war. Why aren't our soldiers and Marines kept in theater
until the war is over? I'll bet if generals, especially, were kept in country
until the war ended, that there would have been much more dramatic progress
before Petraeus arrived.
And now that we've finally gotten a general officer that has a winning way, in dramatic contrast to his lack luster and inert predecessors, the army heirarchy wants to pull him out. The reasons for this proposal were not clear but I can imagine a few. 1. President Bush may want to reward Petraeus with a plum assignment. Europe has been traditionally an important post for general officers. But that was when we were at war with Europe. Or when Europe was the staging ground for an expected war against the USSR. Europe is docile and the USSR is tamed for now. Europe is the least important place for a general officer from a strategic or tactical level that we can send them. It's not where decisions are made, like the Pentagon, it's not where policies are shaped such as the war colleges or training commands. The US military in Europe is a bloated series of palaces and soft comforts with no military purpose. 2. More charitably, President Bush might be trying to put Petraeus in the position to have more power within the army and have more influence on the future of the army. I don't buy this. Influence comes from supporting him and his ideas, and Petraeus doesn't need a more prominent post, there are no more prominent posts than his current one. 3. The US army bureaucracy may just be pushing its four star generals through an administrative machine and not thinking about where they are going. This is nonsense. Even the army isn't so big that four star generals are transferred according to timetables and standard processes. 4. The US army bureaucracy is jealous of the influence of Petraeus and is trying to get him out of Iraq. I think this is the most likely reason. Petraeus has upset the apple cart. He's made Casey look like a bumbling incompetent. He's making waves in the way the army looks at war and wins war. He's taken the army out of its comfort zone and pushed it to change. Change is dangerous to middle managers, it makes them nervous. The Dells have shaped their lives and their careers on rules of behavior that have remained in place for generations. To them, it's not fair to change the rules. By moving him to Europe they would be forcing him to accept their formula for success. He can't be a success until he conforms to the old rules, thus if they conform to the old rules, they will also succeed. Thank goodness Petraeus has turned this Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents | |