Mike Pence Says His Role Model Vice President is Dick Cheney

Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence discusses his VP role model and his debate prep on “This Week.”

Let’s stop pretending what he ( Pence) is talking about. Cheney was the “grownup” in the relationship and Bush was the “spoiled kid”.

We can see from where Mike Pence is coming from. He will have to run the country and become the commander-in-chief, because, like Bush, Trump isn’t up to it. He is not completely ignorant, but stupid.

Bush, in a stupor, had to have his Chief of Staff run the war in Iraq, because he, Bush, thought it was about another Crusades.

My guess is that Pence will continue the war against Islam, while ignoring Nixon’s connection to Globalization, while Trump moves America towards authoritarianism. #fail

Source: Mike Pence Says His Role Model Vice President is Dick Cheney

Enduring Values

I believe those were the words the guy in charge of Obama’s legacy used to describe the US military’s pivot towards, or what is now called, the “Indo-Pacific”.

The words used to describe the pivot was changed from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”. The words were changed to highlight the most important partner in the area included in the pivot.

I believe the guy in charged used “enduring values” (if that was the correct quote) in his conversation about the  “pivot”,  because a “pivot” with “enduring values” in its narrative has no change in momentum nor values.

The US military representing the values of the U.S.A isn’t turning towards the Pacific, because it never really left. All the US military needs to know is whose with them in this pivot.

In other words, in order for the US to pivot towards the Pacific, we don’t have to fight the momentum of changing values to get there. Our values are in the pivot, and they are highlighted in India.

So I guess the guy was basically saying “stuff it”, we are pivoting towards an area of the globe in which our values are the same as India’s and everyone else within the area of the Indo-Pacific Pivot.

For a nation such as the US, who are supposed to be sons of Abraham,  this is quite a big deal. For an area that owns most of our debt, it is a reassurance of the repaying of that debt.

I think this repaying of debt is going to surprize a bunch of people in the US, who thought nukes countered debt (rock over paper).

North Korea first.

.

The Flag

A General on a mission is called a flag-general. In today’s world, of video games and simulations, it is important for a flag-general, especially with a Red team under his/her flag, to understand not just when he loses, but that when he wins is also an important event to note.

Because it is harder to prove a negative than a positive, the flag-general may not remember whose side he is on, and, because all flag-generals are winners, it is doubly hard to prove, by their Red team, that they are losers.

As an example, if you are a flag-general and just bought a house and,  if you are on your hands and knees, crawling around under that house looking for only God  knows what, then, perhaps, you haven’t really won.

If this is true that you didn’t actually win, it is because you didn’t know your enemy. The reason you didn’t know your enemy is because the Red team hid the enemy from you. That is what Red teams do, they hide things from you.

But what we do know is that a flag-general would do only what his God knows, to complete his mission. This is because his God is under his flag, and, of course, because the reverse of that is true, they are both positives.

Boyd and the U.S. Navy’s Return to History

For him the likely victor was the competitor who best adapted to change while keeping his opponent off-balance. That meant swiftly observing how conditions have changed, orienting to change, deciding how to adapt, and acting on that decision.

via Boyd and the U.S. Navy’s Return to History | The Naval Diplomat.

One problem I have with this quote’s description of the victor’s OODA loop is that you don’t orient to change; “...observing how conditions have changed, orienting to change, deciding how to adapt, and acting on that decision.”

The victor orients towards an advantage in the environment observed.

When the environment changes and you lose or gain an advantage, your orientation destructs and then constructs a new structure that takes advantage of that new environment. Boyd was a genius, because he could destruct and construct a new orientation faster than anyone; they need to re define genius.

The victor’s decision then is not on how to adapt, because both Orientations has changed and to the victor will go the spoils of that adaptation. But the victor does need to decide on Acting according to the victor’s new advantage, or disadvantage. The victor does not always have the advantage in the environment, as Boyd later learned, but, to win, the victor needs to make it his advantage.

The Orientation of both the victor and loser has to change, because of the feed-ahead they are getting from the past environment, of relationships and connections, mixed with the feed-back they are getting from the future environment, of  judgments and potentials, creates a new leaver that either the loser or victor can take advantage of. That leaver is reliant on the momentum at the full-come-point at the moment of inertia.

I mean, one may have more  advantage, in any particular environment than another, but each “others” has momentum that can be used to change the direction of both. Grabbing the momentum first can even change the direction of the one with the most advantage. And, as the one who can take advantage of the momentum first is able to possibly change the directions of both, the one who is able to make Decisions, to Act on the momentum, faster, has a chance of winning.

As most of the time in a OODA loop is spent between Orientation and Decision (building an Orientation and Deciding how to use it) the person who is able to make those decisions (or any decision) quicker has a great advantage, as The Act has already been judged by the orientation an advantage before the Decision to use it is given (OOAD).

Most of the time it is a great enough advantage that it can even make the loser the victor, and to the victor an IQ of 90.

Obama’s Strategic Shift: Is Storytelling the Secret Weapon of the 2012 Race?

Obama’s Strategic shift did not just occur in the South China Sea, it also has apparently begun in his attack to keep his job.

.” But it got really interesting when the conversation turned to what the president considers the biggest mistake of his first term. It was, he said, “thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right.”

If you replace the word “policy” with process, then what this statement is saying is: “I have gone strategic.”

Policy builds and maintains the process inside a OODA loop. Strategy creates a moment of inertia to by-pass the policy.

Strategy is, as diagrammed, by the way of the Double Freytag Triangle, in the book Tempo, by Venkatesh Rao, narrative decision-making.

 “The nature of this office,” he said, “is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

Obama has “found” strategy and he is using it to continue the narrative (“story”-telling) that is the USA.

I wish him luck on this, because all strategy is flawed, and the worst environment to try and maintain strategy is one in which everyone puts the “bad breath” on you and your narrative. Ill-will puts the focus on your flaws, which is a distraction that keeps your “story” from becoming transparent.

The good news is: it does’t take much to hide/expose the narrative, because of the nature of complexity.

The environment that strategy runs in is so complex, in its policy, that the “tipping point” between a successful and failed strategy is very close in either direction. Policy is created to make sure the process is both accurate and precise, it is both of these (accuracy and precision) that “target” the “tipping point”, in any process.

In other words, strategy has just as much chance of success as failure despite the complexity, but it demands that you get the “story” out, which is an uncertain process.

The only thing that is certain, when using strategy instead of process, all strategy is flawed, in at least one point in the narrative. As Venkatesh Rao shows in the Double Freytag Triangle, all strategy starts out as a “Cheap Trick”, but, before the story ends, it changes into a more powerful form of the “Cheap Trick”. If it doesn’t change, then the “flaw” absorbs the strategy into the “story”, and the narrative continues, or not.

I think it is getting close to the time when we will be able to tell if Obama has found that flaw and is able to take advantage of the situation. Perhaps the “Cheap Trick” can be found inside the Constitution, and the story will move on to another “peak”.

As this article leads me to believe that Obama has bet his presidency on strategy, one has to admit that it took some guts and a whole lot of faith, in the process, which he built his strategy on, to change.

via Arianna Huffington: Is Storytelling the Secret Weapon of the 2012 Race?.

Social isn’t a strategy. – Thoughtfaucet

Whether or not social helps small business compete with big box stores will depend on strategy.

Yes, and it is only leaders who have strategy. You may not think of yourself as a leader, but once you have a strategy you become one. It only takes one “second dancer” to create a leader. There is a great clip on YouTube showing the power of a second dancer, if anyone is interested.

 Let’s dig in a little, in the spirit of the great conversations I have with these guys.

Yes, as you say, “Let’s”.

I think the best way to start is for you to define “leader” for me.

While it is my term and not yours, I think you will agree with me when I say that only a leader has strategy.

There are a few things to unpack in this definition of strategy and since I’ve come this far I may as well unpack them.

• Strategy is an art because it involves personal choices.
• Strategy is a science because there are often visible and repeatable results.
• Maintaining resources is about conservation and growing.
• Deploying resources is about spending and taking action.
• Freedom is your ability to execute your plans at will.
• Flexibility is your ability to respond, react and pivot when required.
• Winning means to continue operations.

Yes, your bullet points all point to a leader (you) being the one of strategy, as all your clients are lacking in at least one of these points.

So to start off I will define leader.

To me a leader is one that commands the crowd controlling the movement.

Yea, I could go on, as you did, about art vs scientist (as type of leader); resources being the “means” of the “end”; deploying, freedom, flexibility, and winning as the “way” towards the “end”; but basically you (as the leader) command the crowd. You do this through the coin of the realm, give Caesar what’s his, ect…..

Like strategy, the best answers are always simple, at least to start out with.

To keep it simple, all control is self-control, so what controls the crowd is the collective”self” of the crowd. The leader can only command.

So if the leader can only command, there is nothing more to be said, unless there is something else that connects the Command to the Control.

That something else is the vision of the leader that controls the crowd.

Does that mean that the OODA loop is a process by which a vision can be formed?

via Social isn’t a stategy. – Thoughtfaucet.

What Is Strategy?

"@HBSExecEd: Can You Say What Your Strategy Is? http://t.co/Kz0AlSQn" – 1st Define Strategy, what is it?

— Nigeria what is new? (@Nigeriawhatsnew) June 24, 2012

I have tried to answer this question, “What is Strategy”, for myself many times and failed. After looking at the prices for classes dealing with strategy, perhaps defining it  is something worth thinking about.

Of course I am kidding, but after looking at one of the classes listed: (Risk Management for Corporate Leaders; Integrating Best Practices for Superior Strategy Execution) the definition of strategy could come from understanding what this course is about.

It appears from the title that strategy is for leaders (in this case Corporate),  something that can be executed (in seemly superior and sub-superior manners), and is executed in something called practices (executed in an integrating manner between the best instead of the worst).

Some of the “practices”  (and seem to be mostly human practices) taken from the course’s “Key topics” are:

• Behavior
• Management
• Processes
• Events
• Risks
• Functions

So almost all the practices can be considered Ways of people.

As all Strategy covers three domains (End, Ways, and Means), this course’s key topics are the Ways of strategy, which the course’s statement: “…explore the many ways that strategies and enterprises can fail” seems to imply that the Means to failure is usually in the Way of humans. In my way of thinking, strategy’s End comes from the leaders, the Means is in the execution, and the Way is in practices.

So the program “Means” of controlling the “Way” of humans should be within the End of strategy, if this was a course in strategy. In strategy there are two Ends, the beginning of the End and the end of the End. The End is a explicit image as the word “recognize”  in the sentence, “…as well as how to recognize ” suggests. But it is the leaders who “recognize”, so perhaps it is safe to say that all “Ends” come from leaders.

From the program’s statement,,”You will learn how to develop and implement effective risk management processes”. To me the statement implies that the program doesn’t really teach Strategy–it teaches process. The “process” is the in “Way” of executing the  “Means” of strategy. The “Means” are all the resources available to the leader. This course teaches how to process the “way” of strategy. The resources in the process are mostly human, according to my bullet points.

Process, like planning and practices, is a part of strategy, but it doesn’t really answer the question: ‘What is Strategy”. After taking this course and learning the process that integrate the Means with the Ways, a person can still only hope to have a clear image of the End of strategic thinking. To get that, would take some kind of leadership course, so the definition of strategy can’t really come from this course.

Which leads me to ask another question, “Do they still have leadership courses at Harvard, if you are only going after a MBA?”