OIF Strategic Decisionmaking

[SteveMetz]

The casus belli for the Iraq War drove another nail into the coffin of the "Lessons of Munich," the idea that it is better to fight a small war now rather than a larger one later. Similarly, public confidence in intelligence gathering and analysis is considerably reduced; the aerial photography that showed Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962 would probably not arouse the same response today that it did nearly 50 years ago.

While I don't get into it in this monograh, in my book on Iraq I noted that the Bush administration elected to use the "Hitler" analogy--a dictator unchecked simply becomes worse--rather than the "Cold War" analogy--a totalitarian system contained eventually collapses on its own. But the administration never explained exactly why Hussein was more like Hitler's Germany than the Soviet Union.

One of the dominant characteristics, perhaps even pathologies, of this decision was that September 11 created a political climate where major assumptions went unchallenged. The notion that if Hussein had WMD he would give them to terrorists or would renew armed aggression against neighboring states was one example. That democracy would flower if the Iraqi political system was decapitated was another, as was the notion that democratic states will control extremism.

[Pete]

While I don't get into it in this monograph, in my book on Iraq I noted that the Bush administration elected to use the "Hitler" analogy ...

The "Axis of Evil" did have a certain connotation about it.

[John T. Fishel]

evaluating any explanation called Occam's Razor in which the simpler of any two equally explanatory hypotheses is considered valid. It is always simpler to assume that people mean what they say and that is, most often, the correct answer. It would have been correct to take Hitler at his word in Mein Kampf. Of course, it is sometimes wrong as it appears to have been in the case of Saddam who seems to have wanted to convince his adversaries as well as his supporters that he had - or soon would have - WMD when he really didn't... Sometimes, there is no accounting for irrational stupidity
Still, my experience has been that people -even politicians - usually mean what they say.

Cheers

JohnT

[Schmedlap]

... the simpler of any two equally explanatory hypotheses is considered valid

It's quite a leap of faith for me to take a politician at his or her word, so that's why I don't view both as "equally explanatory."

Still, my experience has been that people -even politicians - usually mean what they say.

In attempting to illustrate my point earlier, I was actually going to cite a few examples from politicians, but I didn't want to risk sending the thread onto a political tangent, since most of examples would be fairly recent.

I agree that people usually mean what they say. I would go even further and say that people often unintentionally reveal more about what they believe than they intend. But I disagree when you add to that assertion "even politicians." Politicians speak from teleprompters and prepared statements and see public appearances as an opportunity to parrot talking points. If they mean what they say, it is coincidence. Politicians have to be intelligent to get elected and intelligent people don't generally speak in the dumbed-down phrases that we see them blabbing on TV. They stay on message. That message is drafted for a purpose, just like a PSYOP handbill, with a particular target audience in mind.

[John T. Fishel]

PSYOP, according to US doctrine, is NOT deception nor is it untruthful - even if not 100% of the truth.