The Leveller: A modern day regulator

Groupthink...A drunkard's search

Originally posted 27 December 2004

I maintain the opinion that the architects of the recent Iraq foreign military adventure had corrupt intentions. Although some of the more prominent members of the highly esteemed clique of neocons do sincerely believe they are doing the world a favor, there are the more powerful elements who saw this opportunity for what it is. And that it is nothing more than what has occurred throughout all of the twentieth century and before in the American experiment.

Business and economic interests whether or not deemed for the good of the American consumer preempt at the expense of everyone else. This existence that ultimately makes us perhaps our own worst enemy should not surprise anyone. The detailed accounts of foreign misadventures for economic resources that are responsible for the many wars we have participated in are chronicled for all to read and will not be revisited here. Furthermore, let me answer that yes, some wars are indeed just and necessary, it seems that those wars are very few and far between, while unfortunate to be necessary at all. Let me also add that this latest escapade in the middle east will probably be last of its type from the United States assuming it is now dusk of the American empire. (This can be discussed further, but for now let me justify that last statement by saying since Gulf 1 it’s generally posited that the U.S. could not since that time field an army again the size of that force. And since the current circumstances indicate the U.S has trouble sustaining one fifth that size today in Iraq it is obvious.)

Let us assume for a moment there are no corrupt intentions. For the sake of argument we shall entertain dominant Republican notions that this is a just war for the virtual Campbell’s alphabet soup of reasons for taking the United States to Iraq. Let’s give the benefit of doubt.

Consider Bush’s incessant rambling about the dream of a free Iraq. Do we not understand him and must he continue to remind us why the U.S. is in the middle east? Are we ‘technically retarded’ or is he? I do not know and do not care. But part of the simplistic reasoning follows like this, “We do not need details here. All we need to know is that Iraq will be free.” According to Bush we should not worry about the details here. Is it because he didn’t?

It seems in retrospect, and currently during Cheney’s suspicious silence at the moment that Bush and Rumsfeld are on cue with their parsimonious communications to the press. And perhaps parsimony is the reasoning that dominated during the time before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Meanwhile, at the same time we hear these simplified reasons that apparently might have been to save George W’s cognitive resources it is perhaps the stratagem that made it easier for the American public at large to support this action into the Middle East. The Bush administration is losing its ability to project themselves as coordinated and Machiavellian. They are in fact blundering and incoherent.

Typically when people are asked to report how many kinds of evidence they used to arrive at a decision, people claim to use a large number of cues, but statistical analysis of the pattern of their choices indicates they rely on only very few. Cognitive resources are conserved by declaring that many alternatives are simply impossible. Once a person has worked through the arguments that led to the policy erode, they are often gradually replaced by new ones and sometimes incompatible ones. Thus, an experiential induced belief can persevere even when the person is told that the evidence which established it is false. It seems that policy advisors such as Perle and Wolfowitz including the cabal of cabinet statesmen surrounding the President such as Cheney and Rumsfeld, including the cheer leading Kristol and assorted fan base have continued to look only where the light is brightest. This is not surprising since the data these policy makers used to justify invading Iraq is distinguished by their ready availability than their relation to the questions that originally should have been asked.

Like a drunk who looks for his keys not where he dropped them but where the light is brightest these people used inadequate information that was readily available and used misleading measures because they were simple. Using simple models and decision rules is psychologically congruent with conserving cognitive resources. People prefer simple decision rules and unitary causal accounts to ones that posit a multiplicity of factors and causal paths. In areas in which they are expert, people may reject an explanation as too simple, but even here there may be more lip service than actual avoiding of simplicity. Simplicity can be a good thing especially when properly used in traditional scientific theory where parsimony is a criteria having the ability to explain a lot with relatively few independent variables. But finding parsimony at the end of intelligence data gathering is one thing, assuming it from the start is another. Furthermore, like most other people living their lives these statesmen and their cabal saw only a minimum of a causal factors at work, minimized uncertainty, used simple benchmarks and analogies making comparisons that are manageable but inappropriate. These self designated neoconservative sophists conserved their intellectual resources, but at a high price!

Now, one precondition for groupthink is as follows: when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. The neocons were highly cohesive for a brief period of time. Time enough however to make the decision they did. In this instance the blueprints for their modern day Wilsonian dream were well thought plans for in their words bringing Democracy to the Middle East, Iraq in this case, and be a beacon for the rest. Now, the cataclysmic event they deemed their plans depended arrived on 9-11. The highly cohesive ‘click’ of neocons were under considerable pressure at this time. The pressure was how to gather support for their plan, how to go about it and convince enough of the public to support it. “Groupthink is a concept that was identified by Irving Janis that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions”. This is clearly my contention surrounding the events after 9-11 inside closed doors at the White House. Lets examine this more closely. Some negative outcomes of groupthink include: Examining few alternatives, not being critical of each other’s ideas, not examining early alternatives, not seeking expert opinion, being highly selective in gathering information, and not having contingency plans. Ok, now this is only theory. A theory that was developed back in 1972. It doesn’t take too much imagination to consider each of these negative outcomes and apply to the present day situation about Iraq. Any one of them has been illuminated by insiders, be it a current or previous supporter of the administration. And as we witness the neocon wagon circling around Rumsfeld in order to oust him for his “passing the buck”, which is something I and others have noticed much earlier, but nevertheless these negative outcomes of groupthink are becoming even more vivid. Take a moment and reflect on previous news briefings of the president and his staff to find examples of each of these outcomes.

Let us turn to the symptoms of groupthink. These symptoms are as follows: Having an illusion of invulnerability, rationalizing poor decisions, believing in the group’s morality, sharing stereotypes which guide the decision, exercising direct pressure on others, not expressing your true feelings, maintaining an illusion of unanimity, using mindguards to protect the group from negative information. Surprising is it not? Again this was all developed a quarter of a century ago. This theory has been applied to examine many faulty decisions in some presidential administrations and other major failures of decision making since inception.

Remember when Powell was almost the lone dissenter? Apparently, according to groupthink, members strive for unanimity and override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

Here we have an explicit indictment from a Bush supporter made recently that typifies many criticisms of this administration.

Army Historian Cites Lack of Postwar Plan:

Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. “This overly simplistic conception of the ‘war’ led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve ‘success,’ “ he writes.

Lets sit back and watch as weasels such as Kristol find fault in anything but the very plan they supported that caused needlessly the death and destruction of thousands the way they have sat back and watched in shock and awe at the unfolding of events they didn’t consider in their protected offices drinking whiskey, smoking cigars, getting drunk and patting themselves on the back about how brilliant they are, enjoying a Christmas they don’t deserve to see having induced others to bravely sacrifice their own.

If they really believe in Iraqi freedom, what the neocons can really do about it is simple. Just because the United States Army will not accept them, because of age perhaps, health, or maybe privilege, certainly the new Iraqi army will take them among their ranks. Let’s give them a ticket to Baghdad and outfit them with the best Army issue TA-350 available. They can then walk up to any local Iraqi recruiting station and join. Then they can sacrifice Christmas and all the other privileged things they enjoy, you know, just to really make it their pursuit of freedom, if freedom is what they are really after.