FA+
Shop
Who gets credit
14 years ago
I have spent a few hours now arguing with one person in particular and posting an occasional comment to others about who SHOULD get credit for Bin Laden's demise.
I now realize that a much bigger problem needs to resurface after coming for air so many times before. Everyone tends to like leaders that good things happened under. This shows false belief that one person (even if that person is the leader of a government) is responsible for all the good things that happened. The same applies when leaders are blamed for all the bad stuff that happened during their tenure. I would like to remind everyone that the a leader of a sizeable entity only give that entity direction and monitors progress as they take care of overall decisions for portions of that entity.
The US government is an entity with three legs and many people in charge of keeping it on its feet. The direction it attempts to move in is decided indirectly by the people through the Congress and the President. But in order to keep it together, there are parts of it that the people have less control over through lengthy tenures and merit-based positions. This is good as it keep things stable while still allowing a giant behemoth to move where it's people want it to without causing armaggedon. It also reflects the fact that people change their minds a LOT, and if you don't want the same thing 10 years after advocating a major change in government, then why should the government run in resource-wasting circles?
How the President plays into this is that they are 'figurehead' of the US government and try to make the changes they and their supporters think need to happen happen. But, if a well-oiled machine that has little to do with politics is already in place, then why should they go out of their way to mess with it? They leave the said machine in place and simply give it applicable goals. The secret special operations and CIA groups that killed Bin Laden are some of these well-oiled machines. They were already learning and improving constantly in order to keep running, and when they advanced enough to be able to beat the terrorists thoroughly in a deadly game of hide and seek, they found Bin Laden and made a plan. This plan was then presented to the general overseer, or the President. Obama (being the current President) was smart enough to sign off on the plan leave the rest to the secret special operations and CIA groups. They carried out their plan, and succeeded in doing what all their efforts to advance made them capable of. Where in this does it say the President had anything to do with the success other than leaving the group to its own devices and not terminating it? This is one of many ways a President can ride on the excellent work of his underlings or the sheer luck of factors like the economy with little effort.
I now realize that a much bigger problem needs to resurface after coming for air so many times before. Everyone tends to like leaders that good things happened under. This shows false belief that one person (even if that person is the leader of a government) is responsible for all the good things that happened. The same applies when leaders are blamed for all the bad stuff that happened during their tenure. I would like to remind everyone that the a leader of a sizeable entity only give that entity direction and monitors progress as they take care of overall decisions for portions of that entity.
The US government is an entity with three legs and many people in charge of keeping it on its feet. The direction it attempts to move in is decided indirectly by the people through the Congress and the President. But in order to keep it together, there are parts of it that the people have less control over through lengthy tenures and merit-based positions. This is good as it keep things stable while still allowing a giant behemoth to move where it's people want it to without causing armaggedon. It also reflects the fact that people change their minds a LOT, and if you don't want the same thing 10 years after advocating a major change in government, then why should the government run in resource-wasting circles?
How the President plays into this is that they are 'figurehead' of the US government and try to make the changes they and their supporters think need to happen happen. But, if a well-oiled machine that has little to do with politics is already in place, then why should they go out of their way to mess with it? They leave the said machine in place and simply give it applicable goals. The secret special operations and CIA groups that killed Bin Laden are some of these well-oiled machines. They were already learning and improving constantly in order to keep running, and when they advanced enough to be able to beat the terrorists thoroughly in a deadly game of hide and seek, they found Bin Laden and made a plan. This plan was then presented to the general overseer, or the President. Obama (being the current President) was smart enough to sign off on the plan leave the rest to the secret special operations and CIA groups. They carried out their plan, and succeeded in doing what all their efforts to advance made them capable of. Where in this does it say the President had anything to do with the success other than leaving the group to its own devices and not terminating it? This is one of many ways a President can ride on the excellent work of his underlings or the sheer luck of factors like the economy with little effort.
