"We've complemented that with a second office to think about how we need to prepare ourselves for that period 10 or 15 or 20 years from now, by way of investment in our technology, our organization and our people"
About this Quote
The sentence reads like a budget request dressed up as destiny. Cambone isn’t trying to inspire; he’s trying to normalize a particular kind of government growth by framing it as prudent, inevitable preparation. The key move is temporal: “10 or 15 or 20 years from now” stretches the horizon so far that the present-day tradeoffs (cost, oversight, mission creep) blur into the fog of responsibility. Long timelines are politically useful because they make skepticism feel shortsighted.
“Complemented…with a second office” is the bureaucratic tell. It signals expansion while sounding modest, as if the new unit is merely an accessory to existing work rather than an institutional foothold. The vague “that period” does more work than it seems: it implies a looming era of risk or transformation without naming an enemy, a technology, or a measurable goal. In national security language, ambiguity is not a bug; it’s leverage. If the threat is undefined, the mandate can stay flexible.
Then comes the familiar triad: “technology, our organization and our people.” It’s an all-purpose justification that sounds comprehensive while avoiding specifics that could be audited. “Investment” softens what might otherwise be called spending, procurement, hiring, contracting. The subtext is continuity and self-perpetuation: build capacity now so the institution is structurally committed later. It’s politics as infrastructure, where the rhetoric of preparedness becomes a way to make expansion feel like common sense rather than a choice.
“Complemented…with a second office” is the bureaucratic tell. It signals expansion while sounding modest, as if the new unit is merely an accessory to existing work rather than an institutional foothold. The vague “that period” does more work than it seems: it implies a looming era of risk or transformation without naming an enemy, a technology, or a measurable goal. In national security language, ambiguity is not a bug; it’s leverage. If the threat is undefined, the mandate can stay flexible.
Then comes the familiar triad: “technology, our organization and our people.” It’s an all-purpose justification that sounds comprehensive while avoiding specifics that could be audited. “Investment” softens what might otherwise be called spending, procurement, hiring, contracting. The subtext is continuity and self-perpetuation: build capacity now so the institution is structurally committed later. It’s politics as infrastructure, where the rhetoric of preparedness becomes a way to make expansion feel like common sense rather than a choice.
Quote Details
| Topic | Vision & Strategy |
|---|
More Quotes by Stephen
Add to List
