Interesting Cognitive Dissonance over Iraq

The conflict between the President's pronouncements and those from the administration are increasing. It began with the flap over the renaming of the global war on terror (GWOT) as the Struggle Against Violent Extremism (SAVE).

On 8 June special forces commanders and intelligence directors for the US and its closest allies were summoned to the Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, to discuss the new anti-terror theology. General Bryan D Brown, special operations commander and a favourite of Donald Rumsfeld, gave the conference the wistful title Partners in Security. Brown and other senior security and military figures announced that the Global War on Terror, or Gwot, was over. In its place has come Save, the Struggle Against Violent Extremism.

This name change was categorically refuted by Bush who stated it was a war on terrorism.

President Bush clearly did not agree with the clarification. He corrected his two key secretaries of state and defense by mentioning the "war on terror" five times in one speech. "Make no mistake about it," he said, "we are at war." He used the word "war" 13 times in a 47-minute speech devoted to domestic policy.

That dissonance has been echoed in recent statements about a troop reduction in 2006. For example:

The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq has given the Pentagon a plan to cut troop levels by 20,000 to 30,000 by the spring of 2006, the New York Times reports.

This reduction was quickly countered by Bush with:

"Pulling the troops out now would send a terrible signal to the enemy," Bush said.

This cognitive dissonance is an example of how decision making cycles at the top of the US command structure are being disrupted by the war. The administration (including the military leadership), likely in response to a better grasp of the information flow, is trying to adjust the country's strategy. In opposition, the President is forcing stasis due to isolation from that information (for a variety of reasons).

This breakdown of mental functioning is classic Boyd. Non-cooperative centers of gravity are forming. These centers will battle it out until decision making is completely paralyzed.

Comments

[b]

Thanks John - thought about this issue just yesterday and wondered when Bush will fire Rumsfeld.

You can see the same playing out in the economic field where Greenspan is not chooking off Bush's spend-and-decrease-taxes fueled bubble.

BTW I still wonder why they fired Gen. Byrnes. The official reason is unplausible. Was he a "non-cooperative center of gravity"? And then why?

[Chet Richards]

John - interesting insight! For those who aren't familiar with Boyd, here's what he has in mind: "Generate many non-cooperative centers of gravity ... in order to magnify friction, shatter cohesion, produce paralysis, and bring about collapse." (Patterns, 117) One way to do this is to pump up things like ambiguity, deception, and fast transients and by exploiting cheng/ch'i maneuvers -- all of which are now happening to us in Iraq and in the "war on terror" (or whatever it now is) generally.

Is anybody else disturbed that our commander-in-chief is now abruptly and publicly overruling his field commanders?

[b]

My - I should learn English someday:

I wrote: "where Greenspan is not chooking off Bush's spend-and-decrease-taxes fueled bubble."

I intended to write: "where Greenspan is now choking off Bush's spend-and-decrease-taxes fueled bubbles."

@Chet - it is disturbing. How did this administration, which ruled nearly without unintended leaks until recently, is getting so unraveled. Is Rove too busy with other stuff? Are they concentrating on something else?
It makes them unpredictable and even if this (most likely) is unintended it is dangerous as friends and foos are lost in doubt and may act on assumptions that are wrong.

[Jeremiah]

Apparently Rumsfeld got wind that General Byrnes was "weak on the war," meaning he was critical of the way the brass was fighting it. He was one of 10 generals who were planning to write a condemnation of US war policy. So Rumsfeld had him scrutinized, and lol and behold, he had a girlfriend before he was officially divorced (just separated.) So out he goes.

LOL they are attacking TRADOC now for being pinko scum. Who next, OPFOR?

Oh wait, OPFOR is under TRADOC IIRC. Silly me.