The Reality of Constructing the Future

I got a new job. I'm now the foreman for a company that builds skyscrapers. Aren't you rather dazzled that a finance major who hasn't even hit thirty yet is able to achieve such an impressive feat? It is amazing what you can learn on the Internet from the comforts of your own home.

So, we are in the midst of building this 15-story building South of Market in San Francisco (I know it isn't exactly a skyscraper, but it is my first building, so my higher authorities wanted to keep it short and sweet the first time around). Naturally, we've planned the construction of this masterpiece to nth degree. Labor, materials, legal paperwork, city permits--you name it. If I really wanted to knock your socks off, I show you the advanced spreadsheets I've created to manage what will be my first masterpiece.

However, this week something drastic happened. The company I work for went through a major management turnover. The board of directors were overwhelmingly voted to oust the old regime who, while they weren't too bad at laying out stategies for constructing huge buildings, had a penchant for creating a boys club that was a bit corrupt and out of touch with the investors of the company. The investors own the company, and they let them have it.

Unfortunately, the new board of directors have a bit of a strategic blindspot. Immediately, rumors were flying around the yard that they might make us halt construction and stop construction altogether, while others said they would triple our workforce to increase the speed at which we'd finish.

Stopping construction halfway through would be a disaster, as millions of dollars would be left hanging as a three story frame which would attract squatters and all sorts of other misanthropes. But, the well intentioned, but curiously stupid suggestion that we speed up construction by tripling our force is also misguided. I sat in front of the board the other day, and was flanked by a group on my left that wanted to pull the plug immediately, but on my right was criticised for not getting the job done fast enough. The timetable which we built would not be tolerated by the investors, they said.

Responding to the increase the labor crowd, I hypothetically asked them what I would do with these extra men. Being that our objectives and resource procurement was fixed at a certain level, I wondered what I would do with an additional amount of men who would be standing around in a very, very dangerous place playing grab ass while they waited to cycle in. Not only that, how would this improve our already razor-thin margins. I explained to them that although their intention to give me more resources was greatly appreciated, i doesn't actually translate into anything that would help me to overcome the physical impossibility of finishing construction to a pushed up timeline determined by the false assumptions of misguided investors.

Sadly, one of the board members, who was also rumored to be running for chairman said to me, "I'm of course disappointed that basically you're advocating the status quo here today, which I think the investors in the last vote said is not an acceptable condition."

Doesn't he know that what he is advocating will cause our stock to drop like a rock when we report earnings well below those we are reporting now, only this time with the added expectations?

Ok, so you've probably figured out by now that although I've been on a work related hiatus, it is highly likely it wasn't really due to building skyscrapers. However, in the illustration that created, I wanted to emphasize the two main arguments that have been set-up as a strawman for finding a solution to our war in Iraq. Right now, the argument is being forced into, "Pull 'em out now," or "More troops."

Dammit, the American people have spoken that they won't accept what we're doing now!

Pull 'em out now would be a total disaster. If we leave, we'll see a vaccum in Iraq that won't just suck in Iran. Iran would indeed push their borders inward like the Soviets did with their satellite states, but we'd see Saudi Arabia move into the central/western areas of the country to counteract their Shia foes. Syria's loyalty would be available to the highest bidder. In the north, Turkey would battle the Kurdish radicals. In addition to that, we would effectively abandon our regional allies for the second time. We let them get slaughtered when we asked them to rise-up against Saddam at the end of Desert Storm, and we'd let them get slaughtered on an even more massive level yet again. Screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me. Mark my words, if we abandon them now, we'll NEVER earn their trust EVER again.

All hell would break loose, and we'd be hard pressed to find a horse that we could support in this race.

But, what if we sent more troops? Generals on the ground are repeatedly saying that long-term success in Iraq is completely dependent on Iraqis providing their own security. How are more American troops going to help further that along? The cause of the current instability has been directed towards the Shia militias and the Sunni insurgents who are trying to position themselves in places of power in a future Islamic state. One-tenth of our current troop deployment could easily handle these ragtags in an all-out fight, so why do we need more?

I heard Mark Steyn on the radio say that America is the first superpower with ADHD. This is painfully accurate. There are way too many who advocated for a war against Iraq in the beginning who have now jumped ship because Iraq hasn't turned into the heart-warming success story within a few short years. Because, they claim, we haven't seen success, it must mean that those executing the war did something wrong.

What we are battling in Mesopotamia now is focal point in the struggle of this new millenium: the fight against the disease of Islamic fundamentalism, which uses fasicsm, totalitarianism and western technology to secure and expand their power in the region and, hopefully, in their minds, most of the world.

What we realized in Iraq, wasn't that the United States had a bumbling leadership that screwed up scoring a lay-up, but that we were confronting a foe that was much more determined and hardened in their ideology than we'd initially anticipated. I have my criticsms where I think there could have pursued specific policies that would have been more beneficial, but ultimately, this engagement was not going to be solved with a quick invasion and the implementation of representative government. A liberal representative government is the still the end-game, but killing the disease that is infecting it is going require a lot more than a magic freedom pill prescribed by some omniscient doctor.

We simply have to fight this one out to completion, and that may take a lot longer than we initially had hoped for. More troops does not equate force multiplication and our experts on the ground whose necks are on the line keep repeating this over and over.

But if we can't solve this with more men, is the cause lost? Should we just come home and let the Iraqis deal with this without our help? Well, their problem also our problem now. We are already committed to it. This isn't a marriage where we can let the Iraqis have custody of the kids and half of our shared resources as we move back home.

I understand that fighting it out slowly isn't a very palletable option, but we have to follow through regardless of its difficulty. Unfortunately, the American public is looking for solutions that don't exist, and they are demonstrating that they'll bite off their nose to spite their face.

My hope is that the new Democratic Congress will also realize this and jump aboard after listening to those who are fighting over there. We need Democrats and Republicans to win this fight. Now that the Democrats control Congress, they have the cover and the opportunity to join it. Their more radical elements will make this very difficult for them, but they can still managed it.

If we pull-out of Iraq, we'll be in the deepest shit this country has ever seen. If Congress makes us take more troops, that's fine. Not ideal, but at least it keeps us committed there.

Anyway, here's to hoping for the impossible.

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at November 15, 2006 12:04 PM | TrackBack