Do you know what you don't know?

[Rank amateur]

NGOs don't follow commands. They operate by consensus. You are one person sitting around the table, with one vote and everyone else at the table is a loopy, wanna save the world left wing liberal. (Except for Tom's wife. I'm sure she's a wonderful woman.)

[Ken White]

...............

[Tom Odom]

NGOs don't follow commands.

true

but you can pull their funding

(Except for Tom's wife. I'm sure she's a wonderful woman.)

not true, at least the one you referring to,

[Stan]

true

but you can pull their funding

Too True, Tom.

Soldiers are disciplined and follow the ROE. I think we got along to the extent we humanly could (there) and we were not politically-driven by some agenda (other than wanting to go home).

AMBOs come and go, and we had the pleasure of having a few without agendas. Our team worked because it had to (down to 13 from a "once upon a time" 500 plus "official employees" in a mere 5 days.

Get the job done (or, as Tom did, send the Sierra home and get the team in order).

Enough said

[Beelzebubalicious]

I don't know shinola, so by definition, I don't know sh*t. That's how I always introduce myself. Seriously, I do get far by admitting I have a lot to learn and that's one of the reasons I follow SWC. I also have a preference for getting things done and avoiding bullsh*t.

I work in a not-for-profit and the consensus model drives me nuts sometimes. It paralyzes and frustrates. It's a model for those who don't want to make decisions and take accountability for those decisions.

NGOs can certainly benefit from different management and operational structures. The problem is that when you work with local counterparts on long-term development and capacity building stuff, a lot of time it's about working with them and coming to consensus on how to move forward. It doesn't really work to come in and tell people what to do and how to do it.

[Rank amateur]

I also have a preference for getting things done and avoiding bullsh*t.


It doesn't really work to come in and tell people what to do and how to do it.

That's it. You have to let the locals and NGOs BS until they're ready to do something themselves. The good news, however, is that once everyone agrees, it will get done and if the insurgents try to destroy whatever was built, the population will get really angry at the people who destroyed their work.

Think of it as Reagonomics at a local pace.

[jcustis]

I see this issue pop up every time I read a text from an NGO on security management affairs. Their going-in position is that gaining acceptance and ensuring transparency are big priorities if the effort is to ever get off the ground and make headway.

The military answer?..."You want acceptance? how about you accept this M16 in your face." It's an extreme quote, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of folks on one side or the other get polarized by perception and it screws up just about everything else.

I'd offer that those in the development business are selling their efforts short when they take a statement about not knowing what the issues are at face value, and don't have the maturity to realize that self-admitted ignorance is way different than bling ignorance. If anything, they should work harder to inform, change impressions, and overall educate where possible.

We in the military tend to give up too easily too. It's always easier to go with the "damn hippies" comments than making a serious effort.