[What] this president seems to do is kind of the reverse of what you would expect. He doesn't decide on a goal or an objective and then . . .
. . . decide on the means to achieve that objective. He decides on the means first.
Principally, the means he will not use. For example, we have no American troops on the ground, boots on the ground, as everyone now calls it, apparently in either place, except for the Special Forces and some limited number in Iraq. Certainly not in Syria. So that's off the table.
He must have a coalition of a certain size. We're not quite sure how big or small it has to be, but -- and they have to make a certain level of contribution. Then having decided that, he then sets a goal that fits with those means, which is upside down.
And in the case of ISIS, may not be enough to get the job done. Now, you hear it said by some, well, look, if we can't develop a coalition of people who certainly ought to be willing to contribute enough, we shouldn't do it.
But the problem is, can we afford not to? Does ISIS either now or in the near future pose a threat to the United States that it must be taken out to avoid that no matter what, as far as the size of the coalition and if it takes ground troops you have to do it? (Brit Hume, "Fox News Sunday," September 7, 2014 (reparagraphed, edited lightly)
Bingo.
The other way to do things -- the usual way -- is to figure out first what needs to be done, then to figure out how to achieve that goal. Ends first; goal later.
Here's what objective first, means later sounds like:
We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory; victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realized; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength." (Emphasis added)
If you don't know who said this, you should. Look it up.
Means first, objective later explains a lot of Progressive thinking.
In most cases, the means are the same: give me your money and do as I say. The objective? Doesn't matter. The gauzier the better.
That's why global warming is such a perfect crusade for the left. Make up a doctrine. Program some computers to "prove" it and prophesy apocalypse. Ignore contrary evidence. In the meantime, as we wait to see who's right, give me your money and do as I say.
Comments