In the summer of 1970, a college senior named Paul Orfalea opened a store near the University of California, Santa Barbara, campus. He called it “Kinko’s” after his own nickname, and, with his partners, he sold college school supplies and around-the-clock copying services for students. After twenty-five years, Kinko’s had grown to 1,200 stores and 23,000 employees, and Orfalea privately and lucratively sold it to FedEx.
Over the many years that Orfalea ran his start-up, his business became amazingly profitable, but also imposed enormous stress on him and his founding partners and coworkers. As he put it, “I don’t hide the fact that I have a problem with anger.” Since selling the company, Orfalea has spent many years mending relationships with those who worked most closely with him while he was building it.
What contributed to the tensions Orfalea felt while managing this burgeoning enterprise? Long hours, of course, but also the need he felt to sustain his initial success, to make each year more profitable than the last. Entrepreneurs often believe they are only as successful as their last quarter’s profit and are driven to exceed it. Orfalea also felt that he alone was equipped to call others to account and veto what he felt were bad business ideas. Anger became a chief enemy he battled.
“In my mid- to late-forties,” he said, “I struggled increasingly to manage my own emotional nature. Sometimes I felt I’d created a monster. The monster wasn’t Kinko’s, it was me.” Orfalea acknowledged the anger and resentment that he often felt toward other longtime staff at the company, which overpowered the respect that he knew he owed them. Consequently, he directed comments and actions at his colleagues that he has spent many subsequent years attempting to redress. All in all, he has labored diligently to repair friendships that he admits were frayed by his behavior alone.
leets that can be stationed throughout the Persian Gulf (Lostumbo et al. 2013), allow for flexibility to respond rapidly to any situation at any time across a broad range of unpredictable events. So, if at any point additional ground troops or artillery assistance is needed, the aid is available quickly and efficiently. Currently in Syria and Iraq, there a few small Special Operations Forces teams deployed (Navy SEAL teams and Delta Force operators) to do small time raids against ISIS troops threatening neutral civilian populations and aid in the training of local troops. Recently, the U.S. military has drawn up early plans that would deploy up to 1,000 more troops into Syria in the coming weeks. Under this plan, “the added American forces would act primarily as advisers, offering expertise on bomb disposal and coordinating air support for the coalition of Kurds and Arabs” (Gibbons-Neff 2017). In February 2014, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper estimated the strength of the insurgency in Syria at “somewhere between 75,000 or 80,000 or up to 110,000 to 115,000” (Blanchard et al. 2014). With our military training being taught to this enormous force by a continually growing U.S. special forces presence being sent in to Syria, the rebellion will gain a HUGE (*said in exaggerated Trump voice*) advantage over the existing regime and terrorist fighting units. This making the war fought by Syrian rebels and aided by us rather than the other way around, saving both U.S. lives and money. The final piece of military presence that would ensure continued cooperation and success is that of tactical air assaults against regime ground forces via drones and launches from the nearby mobile fleets. Such an operation would heavily shift the advantage in the rebellion’s direction in multiple ways. First, these precise and powerful air assaults run by U.S. forces would quickly eradicate any regime forces that posed any sort of threat to civilian or rebellion populations. And second, knowing that they could be targeted anywhere, anytime, regime soldiers’ morale would rapidly drop causing many to flee from the conflict altogether (Pollack 2013). Knowing that involvement in this conflict will save countless lives and protect the future of our country, and having the plan of action to effectively carry out this intervention, it is absolutely in the best interest of the United States government to launch this calculated military plan into action. Successful U.S. intervention would represent a useful reassertion of American power and reinforce the notion that the breaking of international law will never go smoothly for any sovereign state or organization. “At worst, the Syrian crisis would be as problematic as it is today, but there would be fewer civilian casualties, and the United States would gain leverage with its allies on other matters because of its beefed-up engagement in Syria. At best, a more aggressive U.S. effort in Syria would limit Russian overreach, increase the likelihood of a political solution, and roll back some of the destabilizing regional consequences of the Syrian implosion” (Thanassis Century Foundation). The U.S. has so much to lose by playing the isolationist role, and so much to gain by directly aiding the Syrian resistance. Said best by John F. Kennedy, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.”>GET ANSWER