Personal - #501 - #59 - "Who pays for the "consequences", and "suppose it turns out that you were wrong!"

It could be the “wrong solution or guess for the future?”
This is called “leadership”…… You voted for him…. now what?

Anyone who has a so-called “plan” and is unwilling to say what the consequences could be and how they would handle them, is an unwarranted “pundit”. It is basically “incomplete” to not speak about the “consequences”.
Do you measure a solution at the time it’s made, or, do you “Monday morning quarterback” and measure the “plan” sometime in the future? Is “planning” all about the future?
Is “leadership” all about the present or about the “future”?
Do you give the plans for attack to your enemy so they can plan a response? Do you “publicly” give your “game plan” away? How much do you give to your public?
Was there a plan or plans for a yet unconquered Iraq? Some of the generals wanted 2 to 300,000 troops while others, fearing the name “occupational troops” wanted less of a footprint. Suppose some of the decision makers feared the occupation of Hermoz oil channel for the health of the “industrial world” much less the American continent. (After all, we could simply buy the oil from Iraq or others if all we wanted was oil for our economy.)
There were many different discussions that were had before the invasions. To NOW proclaim there were no previous plans is ridiculous!....(unless you want votes from the uninformed public!!)

How then can the “public” be part of the “effort”?
How can we inform the “public” without giving away our plans?
Is part of the “leadership job” keeping the “public” adequately informed? ….Is this where we failed?
Who determines “adequately”? ….What more can be said if we are at war? ….Who’s to judge?

These questions may have no simple answers but that doesn’t mean that they are not to be included in the discussions.