Increasing Airline Security Essay -- Papers

Increasing Airline Security Over the past five months, airline and airport security has been in the news almost daily. The events on and since September 11 have completely changed the viewpoints of many Americans, as well as the world, concerning airline security. Between the 18 suicide hijackers to Richard â€Å"the shoe bomber† Reid and the many other terrorists that lurk in the world, flying is definitely not as safe as it once was. I strongly believe that security in airports should be much more strict than it is now, even if it infringes on the people’s right to privacy. The last part of that statement is the point of clash for many people because they strongly believe in privacy rights. Before I get to why there should be stricter airport security, I will define a few the main terms in this debate. First of all, stricter security calls for a more systematic, more careful searching of passengers, bags and airplanes for contraband items, like guns, knifes, explosives and anything that could be used as a weapon. I will go into more detail later about different practices to give airports stricter security. Another crucial part of this debate that perplexes many people is the phrase, â€Å"right to privacy.† Rights to privacy can be defined as the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by the government, the media or other institutions or individuals. Article IV of the Bill of Rights states that â€Å"the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated †¦Ã¢â‚¬  Airline security has always been a very important issue, but the significance has multiplied exponentially since the September 11th terrorist attacks. On that horrific day, ... ...ace for those airports that do not follow the correct procedure. Depending on the size of the airport, fines should be high enough to make a difference to the owners. For example, an airport in New York City should have a very hefty fine of at least $25,000 per infraction. Smaller airports cannot afford such amounts, so the fines should be tailored to their income. The funding for these new procedures and equipment has been allowed for in the President’s new budget for the fiscal year. Also, raising ticket prices only a few dollars each would help fund the new equipment. The fines from faulty airports could go into a fund to help pay for more equipment. Ultimately, I believe that these stricter changes would not only prevent events like those on September 11, but also they would deter would-be terrorists from even trying to breech the security at airports.

Organisational Design

Nine tests of organisation design The weight of research and insight into organisational design is heavy and growing. Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell cut through the complexity and emerge with a new approach to organisation design which includes a rigorous framework for design choices based on nine key tests of organisational effectiveness. Michael Goold is a director of the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre. His research interests are concerned with corporate strategy and the management of multi-business companies, and he runs the Centre’s programme on Group Level Strategy. Product-market strategies What are the factors that should guide the choice of organisation design? There are many managerial rules of thumb about things such as spans of control and reporting relationships. In addition, academics and consultants have produced a huge amount of work on organisation design. But our research told us that managers still lack a practical and systematic framework to guide their organisation choices. An important purpose of our work has been to condense previous ideas on organisation design into a few core principles, on which to base a usable framework. Less an intellectual triumph than a practical checklist for addressing the most important issues, FIGURE 1: FRAMEWORK FOR ORGANISATION DESIGN GOOD DESIGN PRINCIPLES Specialisation principle Email: michael. goold Corporate strategy Co-ordination principle @ashridge. org. uk ORGANISATION DESIGN People Control and commitment principle Knowledge and competence principle Constraints Innovation and adaptation principle 4 DIRECTIONS FIT DRIVERS www. ashridge. com/directions The Ashridge Journal Summer 2002 Ashridge Business School http://www. ashridge. org. uk FIGURE 2: NINE TESTS FOR ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN Product-market strategies GOOD DESIGN TESTS Specialist cultures test Specialisation principle Andrew Campbell is a director of the Ashridge Strategic Management Centre and visiting professor at City University. Previously Redundant hierarchy test Knowledge and competence principle Market advantage test Corporate strategy Difficult links test Co-ordination principle Parenting advantage test ORGANISATION DESIGN People he was a Fellow in the Centre for Business Strategy People test Accountability test Constraints Control and commitment principle t the London Business School, and a consultant at Feasibility test Flexibility test FIT TESTS Innovation and adaptation principle McKinsey & Co. Email: andrew. campbell our framework is grounded on some basic principles. The first and most important, the fit principle, embraces four drivers of fit – productmarket strategies, corporate strategies, people and constraints. The other good design principles are the specialisation principle, the co-ordination principle, the knowledge and competence principle, the control and commitment principle, and the innovation and adaptation principle (Figure 1). The principles are broad in nature and not always easy to convert into prescriptive guidance. They are more valuable in orienting managers than in resolving particular organisational dilemmas. However, as we worked with the principles, we found ways to convert them into some practical tests. Perhaps the most important contribution of this lies in the insights and understandings that the tests produce. The tests match the fit drivers and the good design principles. (See Figure 2). @ashridge. org. uk The fit tests One almost universally agreed proposition is that organisations need to be fit for purpose. Strategy, 5 DIRECTIONS www. ashridge. com/directions The Ashridge Journal Summer 2002 Ashridge Business School http://www. ashridge. org. uk Nine tests of organisation design therefore, should be a key driver of organisation design, and we have found it useful to distinguish between product-market strategies and corporatelevel strategy. But strategy is not the only driver of organisational design. At least as important are people. Many authorities counsel against designing an organisation around people, preferring to build around the strategy and change the people if necessary. However, people cannot always be changed and new ones with the required attitudes may be hard to find. So designs should take account of the people available to lead and work in them. Finally, organisation design is subject to various constraints, ranging from laws laid down by governments to organisational capabilities or resources that are deeply embedded. The people test: â€Å"Does the design adequately reflect the motivations, strengths and weaknesses of the available people? † The feasibility test: â€Å"Does the design take account of the constraints that may make the proposal unworkable? The fit tests bring out the most important inputs that should guide organisation design choices. Provided the design has been selected with these inputs in mind, there should be no problem in passing the fit tests. However, organisation design choices are not always so rational. All too often, organisations evolve in ways that are not sufficiently related to the strategy of the compan y, or else pay scant attention to the limitations of managers who will fill key positions. In one company, we were told that the structure had always been primarily driven by the balance of All too often, organisations evolve in ways that are not sufficiently related to the strategy of the company, or else pay scant attention to the limitations of managers who will fill key positions. power between the four barons who ran the main divisions, resulting in business unit groupings that had little to do with the opportunities in the markets being served. Under these circumstances, the organisation will be a barrier to successful strategy implementation and will damage competitiveness. The fit tests ensure that organisations that are evidently not fit for purpose will be exposed, and that more suitable alternatives will be adopted. The good design tests The fit drivers lead to four fit tests: While the four drivers of the fit principle are The market advantage test: â€Å"Does the design allocate sufficient management attention to the operating priorities and intended sources of advantage in each product-market area? † recognised by most managers, we believe the good design principles and tests represent more of an advance. They synthesise the vast quantity of academic research and managerial experience about what makes an organisation work well into The parenting advantage test: â€Å"Does the design allocate sufficient attention to the intended 6 DIRECTIONS few basic tests that should guide any organisation designer. The specialisation principle and co-ordination principle both concern the boundaries between sources of added-value and strategic initiatives of the corporate parent? † www. ashridge. com/directions The Ashridge Journal Summer 2002 Ashridge Business School http://www. ashridge. org. uk units. The specialisation principle states that boundaries should exist to encourage the development of specialist skills, whereas the co-ordination principle emphasises that activities that need to be co-ordinated should be located within the boundaries of a single unit. Although these basic principles are clear, there are unfortunately often trade-offs between specialisation and co-ordination. A broadly-based product structure may give economies in purchasing and manufacturing, but be detrimental to the development of specialist products for particular markets. A disaggregated geographical structure with many local units may support the special skills needed for different regions, but prevent effective co-ordination in product development or IT infrastructure. The difficult organisational problems arise when there are trade-offs between different ways of grouping responsibilities. In order to help with these trade-offs, we have developed two tests, which give more precision to the basic principles and make them more practically useful. business unit, with little or no contact with the rest of the company. Alternatively, instead of setting up a separate unit, it may be possible for the corporate parent to ensure that the specialist culture receives sufficient protection by flexing corporate policies and procedures or by giving it certain powers. The test focuses attention on the dangers of suppressing or damaging activities that fall outside the mainstream corporate culture, dangers which are easy to overlook. The difficult links test recognises that many co-ordination benefits can be achieved through spontaneous networking between units, but that others will be more difficult. For example, best practice sharing can often be left to networking between units, whereas the establishment of common technical standards is unlikely without a corporate policy which makes them mandatory. Organisation designers should focus only on the few co-ordination benefits that will be difficult: where networking will not deliver the benefits. For these difficult links, it is necessary to develop appropriate co-ordination mechanisms or interventions to overcome the difficulty, or to The specialist cultures test: â€Å"Do any ‘specialist cultures’, units with cultures that need to be different from sister units and the layers above, have sufficient protection from the influence of the dominant culture? † readjust the design so that the co-ordination lies within the responsibilities of a single unit. This test makes managers assess which co-ordination benefits will be difficult to achieve if left to the network, and to think through whether and how the difficulty can be overcome. The difficult links test: â€Å"Does the organisation design call for any ‘difficult links’, co-ordination benefits that will be hard to achieve on a networking basis, and does it include ‘solutions’ that will ease the difficulty? † Together, the specialist cultures test and difficult links test give managers a powerful means of assessing the trade-offs between the benefits that can be gained from co-ordination and from specialisation. In the 1980s, IBM decided to set up its PC division as a very separate unit, free from the influence of the IBM corporate culture and The specialist cultures test questions whether the required specialist skills will thrive only if the managers concerned are insulated from the influence of other parts of the organisation. For example, sometimes the best way to develop and market a new product is to set it up as a separate policies. This promoted a specialist PC culture that was highly successful in bringing the new product to market rapidly. Using a similar logic, many commentators argued that, when faced with performance problems in the early 1990s, IBM should break up the whole company into separate, 7 DIRECTIONS www. ashridge. com/directions The Ashridge Journal Summer 2002 Ashridge Business School http://www. ashridge. org. uk Nine tests of organisation design independent units. Lou Gerstner, however, believed that the opportunity for IBM lay in providing integrated customer solutions. He therefore kept the company together. But he recognised that co-ordination between separate product divisions was not proving a satisfactory means of offering integrated solutions, due to conflicting divisional priorities and incompatible technologies. He therefore gave authority to IBM Sales and Distribution division and to a new unit, the Global Services division, to concentrate, respectively, on customer solutions and services, using both IBM and competitor products. These divisions have the power to offer a unified approach to customers and have dealt well with the previously difficult links between IBM divisions. At the same time, Gerstner has encouraged new business activities, such as Business Innovation Services, IBM’s e-business initiative, not to be bound by IBM’s traditional policies nd ways of doing things. IBM’s structure now takes account of both the difficult links and the specialist cultures tests. The difficult links and specialist cultures tests help managers to address the organisation design issues faced by companies such as IBM, where there are evident advantages both from specialisation and co-ordination. The tests identify the real trade-offs between co-ordination and specialisation and h elp managers to find ways of gaining the benefits of co-ordination without undermining the development of specialist skills. The knowledge and competence principle is mainly concerned with delegation. It states that responsibilities should be allocated to the person or team best placed to assemble the relevant knowledge and competence at reasonable cost. The practical test that follows from the principle is: This test is based on the premise that the default option should be to decentralise to operating units, only retaining responsibilities at higher levels if there is a knowledge and competence rationale. As we have argued in previous work, hierarchy can only be justified if it adds some value to the functioning of the organisation. 1 Questions about whether and how the hierarchy adds value have helped numerous companies to sharpen their thinking about the design of their headquarters, group and division levels. The redundant hierarchy test is a way of formalising these questions. The control and commitment principle concerns two challenges that arise in any decentralised organisation: how to maintain appropriate control and how to ensure high levels of motivation. Units should feel strong pressures to self-correct if they are failing to deliver, and parent-level managers to whom the units report should be able to identify problems easily and promptly. This leads to a further test: The accountability test: â€Å"Does the design facilitate the creation of a control process for each unit that is appropriate to the unit’s responsibilities, economical to implement, and motivating for the managers in the unit? † The accountability test focuses managers on the pressures that exist for a unit to self-correct. These depend on the relationships the unit has with ts internal and external customers, the performance measures for the unit, and the unit’s reporting relationship. Market-facing business units with arms-length customer relationships and bottomline performance measures are relatively easy to control and motivate. Corporate functions with no external customers, tied internal relationships and The redundant hierarchy test: â⠂¬Å"Are all levels in the hierarchy and all responsibilities retained by higher levels based on a knowledge and 8 DIRECTIONS subjective performance measures present more accountability problems. In a complex structure, it is all too easy to create a design that looks good on paper, but leaves unit managers de-motivated and unclear about their performance objectives, and competence advantage? † www. ashridge. com/directions The Ashridge Journal Summer 2002 Ashridge Business School http://www. ashridge. org. uk parent managers unable to control those who report to them. The accountability test helps managers design units and establish performance measures that produce effective, low-cost controls that are highly motivating. The innovation and adaptation principle states that structures should be designed to innovate and adapt as uncertainties become clarified and environments change. An organisation design that is perfect for today is of little use if it cannot adapt to cope with the conditions of tomorrow. The principle yields our last test. under-attending to product or from underattending to geography? † Often there is no clear The flexibility test: â€Å"Will the design help the development of new strategies and be flexible enough to adapt to future changes? answer to these trade-offs, but making sure that the question is asked helps managers to find a reasonable balance between competing interests. By pointing out the trade-offs and weak points in a The test recognises that some structures allow for evolution and adaptation, whereas others build in rigidity and power bases that resist change. It ensures that the designer considers the changes which may be needed and whether the design will b e flexible enough to make them. chosen design, the tests help managers to be more thoughtful about problems that may occur and future changes that may be needed. The tests also help managers weigh the advantages and disadvantages of different designs and provide a rigorous analytical structure for making design choices. An organisation design that is perfect for today is of little use if it cannot adapt to cope with the conditions of tomorrow. Using the tests The purpose of the tests is to raise issues. Some can be addressed by refining the structure, by designing process solutions, or by appointing different managers. A key benefit from using the tests comes from the ideas for design improvements that they suggest. For example, a common problem is the creation of a layer of management, say a geographic region or a product group, without specifying what responsibilities should be retained by this layer and why. The redundant hierarchy test helps point out this design weakness, alerting managers to the need either to eliminate the layer or to define the responsibilities, skills, management processes and leadership style that is needed to make the layer a positive influence on performance. Some issues raised by the tests point to unavoidable trade-offs: â€Å"do we lose more from The nine tests are the core around which we have built our new approach to organisation design. This article is drawn from Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell’s new book, Designing Effective Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, 2002). REFERENCE 1. Goold, Michael; Campbell, Andrew and Alexander, Marcus. (1994). Corporate-level Strategy, John Wiley & Sons and Goold, Michael; Pettifer, David and Young, David, â€Å"Redefining the Corporate Centre† , European Management Journal, February 2001. 9 DIRECTIONS www. ashridge. com/directions The Ashridge Journal Summer 2002 Ashridge Business School http://www. ashridge. org. uk

Why Obama Won the 08 Presidential Election

Barack Obama decisively won the presidential election due to many factors, including weaknesses of his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain. His own strengths also helped propel him to victory in the 2008 race to become the 44th President of the United States. Empathy and Genuine Help for Middle-Class Americans Barack Obama gets what it means for a family to worry financially, to work hard simply to make it, and to do without essentials. Obama was born to a teenage mother, abandoned by his father at age 2, and raised largely in a small apartment by his middle-class grandparents. At one point, Obama, his mother, and younger sister relied on food stamps to put meals on the family table. Michelle Obama, close counselor and best friend to her husband, and her brother were similarly raised in modest circumstances in a one-bedroom apartment on the South Side of Chicago. Both Barack and Michelle Obama speak frequently about what it means for middle-class Americans to be at a disadvantage financially and otherwise. Because they get it, both Obamas referred with heartfelt eloquence to middle-class fears during the campaign and early years of the Obama presidency, including: The climbing unemployment rateThe staggering home foreclosure rate gripping the nationCrashing 401(k) and pension plans, leaving retirements in limbo48 million Americans without healthcare insuranceHigh percentages of public schools failing our childrenThe continuing struggle of middle-class families to balance work and parenting demands In vivid contrast, John and particularly Cindy McCain exuded an aura of financial insularity and well-heeled elegance. Both were born wealthy and were quite wealthy for their entire lives. When cornered by Pastor Rick Warren during the campaign, John McCain defined rich as I think if youre just talking about income, how about $5 million. Middle-class anger was palpable about economic fairness during those tough financial times and came after what many viewed as then-President George W. Bushs $700 billion bailout of rich Wall Streeters. Obama offered actual, understandable policy solutions to help middle-class Americans, including: A detailed 12-point program to repair the economy for middle-class families, including a $1,000 tax cut, creation of 5 million new jobs, protection of family homes from foreclosure, and reform of unfair bankruptcy laws.A Small Business Emergency Rescue Plan which included emergency lending for small and family-owned businesses, special tax incentives, and tax cuts, and expansion of Small Business Administration support and services.A specific plan to reform Wall Street practices, including new regulation of the financial markets, to blunt the greedy influence of special interests, crackdown on manipulation of financial markets, and more. John McCains tin ear on middle-class financial woes was evident in his prescription for the economy: more tax-cuts for major corporations, and continuation of the Bush tax cuts for U.S. millionaires. And this McCain stance was consistent with his stated desire to slash Medicare and privatize Social Security. The American public was fed-up with failed Bush/McCain economics, which claimed that prosperity would eventually trickle down to everyone else. Obama won the presidential race largely because voters perceived that he, and not John McCain, cared about and would address middle-class economic struggles and inequities. Steady Leadership, Calm Temperament Barack Obama earned at least 407 newspaper endorsements, versus 212 for John McCain. Without exception, every Obama endorsement referred to his presidential-like personal and leadership qualities. And all echo the same basics about Obamas calm, steady, thoughtful nature, versus McCains impetuousness and unpredictability. Explained  The Salt Lake Tribune, which has rarely endorsed a Democrat for president: Under the most intense scrutiny and attacks from both parties, Obama has shown the temperament, judgment, intellect and political acumen that are essential in a president that would lead the United States out of the crises created by President Bush, a complicit Congress and our own apathy. The Los Angeles Times noted: We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement ... as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obamas character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity. And from  the Chicago Tribune, founded in 1847, which had never before endorsed a Democrat for the presidency: We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready... Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. ... He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions. In contrast, during the past two months of the 08 presidential campaign, John McCain acted (and overreacted) inconsistently, unpredictably, and without forethought. Two examples of McCains unsteady leadership were his erratic behavior during the financial markets meltdown, and in his poorly-vetted pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate. John McCain served as the perfect foil to highlight Obamas solidly grounded leadership skills. Obamas even-keel temperament made him seem well-suited to be president for the troubled, turbulent times. And the mere image of ultra-volatile, careless John McCain in the White House was enough to scare the majority of the electorate into supporting Obama. Health Care Insurance Americans were finally fed-up enough with the unfairness of health care delivery in this country to be ready to make the issue a priority in selecting a president. The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. As a result, in 2008, more than 48 million U.S. men, women, and children had no health care insurance. Despite being ranked No. 1 in health care spending by the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. was ranked  72nd among 191 nations  in 2000 in overall level of health of its citizens. And the state of U.S. health care deteriorated further under the Bush administration. Obama set for a health care plan and policies that would fairly ensure that every American will have access to good quality medical care services. McCains health care plan was a stunningly radical scheme that would: Still exclude millions of the uninsuredRaise income taxes for most American familiesIn the opinion of most experts, cause millions of employers to drop health care policies for their employees And unbelievably, McCain wanted to deregulate the health care insurance industry, much as Republicans disastrously deregulated U.S. financial markets under President George Bush. Obamas Health Care Plan Obamas plan intended to make available a new plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The new plan was to include: Guaranteed eligibilityNo one would be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditionsComprehensive benefitsAffordable premiums, co-pays, and deductiblesEasy enrollmentPortability and choice Employers that did not offer or make a significant contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees would be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of this plan. Most small businesses would be exempt from this mandate. The Obama plan required only that all children have health care coverage. McCains Health Care Plan John McCains health care plan was designed to control health care costs and to deregulate, and thus enrich, the healthcare industry, and was not necessarily designed to offer health care coverage to the uninsured. For consumers, the McCain plan: Required that insurance policies from employers be included in employees taxable income, along with salary and bonuses, thereby causing employees income taxes to increase;Then provided a $5,000 tax credit to partially offset increased income taxesDeleted the employee health care insurance income tax deduction for all employers Innumerable experts predicted that these massive McCain changes would: Cause the taxable income of the average family of four to rise by about $7,000Cause employers to drop health care insurance for employeesCause an increase, not decrease, in Americans without health care coverage McCains plan was intended to push millions of Americans into the market to buy their own individual health care policies, which will be offered by a newly deregulated health care insurance industry. Newsweek reported, The Tax Policy Center estimates that 20 million workers will leave the employer-based system, not always voluntarily. Midsize and smaller companies are likely to drop their plans ... CNN/Money added, McCain sorely lacks a plan for people in their 50s without corporate benefits, and Americans with pre-existing conditions, who would be brutally stripped of coverage if insurance crosses state lines. Observed blogger Jim MacDonald: The result ... won’t be healthy competition that will lower costs for everyone. It’ll be higher costs and fewer options for the poor, the old, and the sick. That is, the people who need health care. Young, healthy, rich people won’t be affected ... Obamas Plan: The Only Viable Choice Obamas plan fairly and inexpensively ensured that all Americans have access to quality health care services, but without the government providing those services. McCains health care plan was intended to free the business community from providing for its employees, to enrich the health care insurance industry, and increase income taxes for all Americans. But not to provide health care services for the uninsured. For anyone who valued their health care insurance, Barack Obama was the only viable choice for president. Withdrawal of Combat Troops from Iraq Barack Obama bested Hillary Clinton by a small margin for the 08 Democratic presidential nomination due mainly to their differing positions on the Iraq War, especially at the wars inception in 2002. Sen. Hillary Clinton  voted yes in 2002  to give the Bush administration authorization to attack and invade Iraq. Sen. Clinton rightfully believes that Congress was misled by Bush, and after a while, she admitted her regret for her vote. But Clintons 2002 support for the unpopular war was brutal fact. In contrast, Barack Obama famously  spoke out in late 2002 against the Iraq War  before Congress voted, declaring: I dont oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt ... to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. Obama on the Iraq War Obamas stance on the Iraq War  was unambiguous: He planned to immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He promised to remove one to two combat brigades each month and to have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Once in office, however, Obama stuck to the Bush administration timetable of complete withdrawal by December 31, 2011. Under an Obama administration, the U.S. would not build or maintain any permanent bases in Iraq. He planned to temporarily maintain some noncombat troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats, and to complete the training of Iraq troops and police forces, as necessary. Also, Obama planned to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort would include all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria. McCain on the Iraq War McCain, a third-generation Naval officer, voted in 2002 to give President Bush full authority to attack and invade Iraq. And hes continually served as supporter and cheerleader for the U.S. War in Iraq, albeit with occasional objections to strategies. At the 08 Republican Convention and on the campaign trail, McCain and running mate Palin frequently proclaimed a goal of victory in Iraq and scoff at withdrawal timetables as foolish and premature. McCains website proclaimed, ... it is strategically and morally essential for the U.S. to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred. McCain took this stance: Despite the  $12 billion monthly pricetag  to U.S. taxpayersDespite the fact that the Iraqi government had a substantial budgetary surplusDespite mounting deaths and permanent maimings of U.S. soldiersDespite exhaustion of U.S armed forcesDespite the crippling effect the Iraq War has on U.S. armed forces abilities to address other conflicts and emergencies Gen. Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state, disagreed with McCain, as did Gen. Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, and as did dozens of other retired generals, admirals and other top brass. The Bush administration also disagreed with John McCain. On November 17, 2008, the Bush administration and the Iraqi government signed a status of forces agreement to begin troop withdrawals. Even Gen. David Petraeus, often referred to with great reverence by McCain,  told the British press  that he would never use the word victory to describe U.S. involvement in Iraq and  commented: This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade ... its not war with a simple slogan. The hard truth is that John McCain, Vietnam War POW, was obsessed with the Iraq War. And he couldnt seem to shake his angry, unhealthy obsession despite either reality or exorbitant cost. Voters Wanted Out of Iraq Per  CNN/Opinion Research Corp. polling  from October 17 to 19, 2008, 66% of all Americans disapproved of the Iraq war. Obama was on the correct side of this issue, according to the voting public, especially per the centrist, swing voters who decide most election outcomes. Obama won the 2008 presidential election in part because he consistently exhibited wise judgment on the Iraq War, and because he insisted on the correct course of action. Joe Biden as Running Mate Sen. Barack Obama won the presidency in part because of his wise selection of highly experienced, well-liked Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his vice-presidential running mate. The first job of the vice president is to assume the presidency should the president become incapacitated. No one doubted that Joe Biden was fully prepared to become President of the United States, should that terrible occasion have arisen. The second job of the vice president is to be of constant counsel to the president. In his 36 years in the U.S. Senate, Biden was one of the  most respected American leaders on foreign policy, the U.S. judiciary, crime, civil liberties, and many other vital areas. With his gregarious, warm personality, Biden was suited to offer direct, smart counsel to the 44th president, as he has done for many other U.S. presidents. As an added bonus, the working chemistry and mutual respect between Obama and Biden were excellent. For Americans concerned about Barack Obamas level of experience, Joe Bidens presence on the ticket added a large dose of gravitas. Had he selected one of the able, but far less experienced candidates on his short list (Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, to name two top contenders), Barack Obama may have been less likely to reassure a majority of voters that the Democratic ticket was experienced enough to tackle the days tough issues. Joe Biden vs. Sarah Palin Joe Bidens deep grasp of the issues, appreciation of U.S. history and laws, and steady, experienced leadership were in jarring contrast to that of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate. Republican nominee, 72-year-old John McCain, has wrestled with three episodes of melanoma, the most aggressive form of skin cancer, and had an in-depth skin cancer check every few months. McCains serious health challenges greatly increased the risk that he could become incapacitated and/or pass away in office, which would have required his vice president to become president of the United States. It was widely recognized, even by a plethora of conservative pundits, that Sarah Palin was wholly unprepared to assume the presidency. In contrast, Joe Biden was widely regarded as well prepared to assume the presidency.