Comments on: The daily cost of the Iraq occupation: $720 million http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/27/the-daily-cost-of-the-iraq-occupation-720-million/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:07:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: grumpypilgrim http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/27/the-daily-cost-of-the-iraq-occupation-720-million/#comment-17251 grumpypilgrim Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:56:59 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/27/the-daily-cost-of-the-iraq-occupation-720-million/#comment-17251 Bush's current plan for Iraq seems clear: spend whatever money and manpower it takes to prevent Iraq from becoming a civil war nightmare during Bush's term in office. It doesn't matter that the money and manpower expenditures are completely unsustainable: what matters to Bush is that he prevent the dung from hitting the fan until after he's gone. What happens to America or Iraq after he leaves office doesn't matter to him in the least. Indeed, if things blow up (literally or figuratively) after Bush is gone (and he is presumably replaced with a Democrat), Republicans will just blame the Democrats for the mess. So, in some ways, Republicans actually have a vested interested in making sure Iraq remains "a success" while Bush is in office, and then explodes after he is gone. The same thing happens in companies: a CEO will cut "expenses" (e.g., project investments, employee training, equipment maintenance, etc.) to make the company look more profitable in the short term, which drives up short-term stock price. Then, before the unsustainable strategy causes visible damage to the company's financial performance, the CEO cashes out his stock options and leaves the company. When the new management comes in, they and everyone else realize the company is in a shambles and the stock price tanks, thus making the company's previous "glory years" coincide with the former CEO's efforts. End result: the former CEO claims the "glory years" were due to his great leadership, because look at how great the company did while he was there and then how it tanked after he left. It's an age-old practice. Bush’s current plan for Iraq seems clear: spend whatever money and manpower it takes to prevent Iraq from becoming a civil war nightmare during Bush’s term in office. It doesn’t matter that the money and manpower expenditures are completely unsustainable: what matters to Bush is that he prevent the dung from hitting the fan until after he’s gone. What happens to America or Iraq after he leaves office doesn’t matter to him in the least. Indeed, if things blow up (literally or figuratively) after Bush is gone (and he is presumably replaced with a Democrat), Republicans will just blame the Democrats for the mess. So, in some ways, Republicans actually have a vested interested in making sure Iraq remains “a success” while Bush is in office, and then explodes after he is gone.

The same thing happens in companies: a CEO will cut “expenses” (e.g., project investments, employee training, equipment maintenance, etc.) to make the company look more profitable in the short term, which drives up short-term stock price. Then, before the unsustainable strategy causes visible damage to the company’s financial performance, the CEO cashes out his stock options and leaves the company. When the new management comes in, they and everyone else realize the company is in a shambles and the stock price tanks, thus making the company’s previous “glory years” coincide with the former CEO’s efforts. End result: the former CEO claims the “glory years” were due to his great leadership, because look at how great the company did while he was there and then how it tanked after he left. It’s an age-old practice.

]]>