Sat 4 Apr 2009
Country Policies Should Be Designed By People Who Know the Country
Posted by USA / dchauls under Balkers
[19] Comments
Foreign policy decision-makers should give far greater credence to the views of country experts. Their expertise should trump expertise on the Big Picture issue of the day, such as the War on Terror. Had we done this in the past, we would not have fought in Vietnam; Afghanistan might have had a very different recent history, without the Taliban and al Qaeda; and we either would not have fought at all or would have employed very different strategies in Iraq.
Historically, most of our major foreign policy decisions – especially those that failed – were made by amateurs, by people with only a cursory understanding of the past or current situation of the country concerned.
Vietnam. Take Vietnam as an example. In the 1950s and early ‘60s, the few Americans who were experts on this country knew of Ho Chi Minh’s high regard for the US after World War II, when he even based their declaration of independence almost directly on ours. They knew that his communism was only skin deep, that he was primarily a nationalist. They knew of Vietnam’s historic animosity towards China, and recognized that any alliance between the two was of a pragmatic nature only – one that would easily be severed when the situation changed. They knew that the historic relations between the Vietnamese and other Indochinese peoples made laughable the idea that Vietnam might serve as a ‘domino’, causing other countries to follow it into Communism.
But no-one paid attention to these experts. Instead, both Democratic and Republican presidents relied on advisors whose major international expertise concerned communism, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War. These advisors believed in a Big Picture – that International Communism was expanding from country to country and had to be stopped. They assumed that a little country like Vietnam would simply fit into this Big Picture, and that knowledge of the specifics of its history, culture, and leaders would be of minor concern.
The advisors were wrong. The decisions made by our presidents were wrong. Thousands died.
Afghanistan. Another, more recent example concerns Afghanistan. During the 1980s, after Soviet troops had invaded and installed their own Afghan government, our Big Picture experts touted the same Cold War message: We needed to stop the spread of International Communism. They knew nothing of Afghanistan, its history, its culture, or its relationship with its neighbor, Pakistan. Focusing only on defeating the Russians, our experts decided that we should send huge quantities of arms to the mujaheddin who were attempting to fight them. The conduit for these arms had to be Pakistan, as this was the only plausible route for sending rifles, hand-held rockets, and other arms to the mujaheddin.
After making this decision, our experts disregarded the process that followed. They completely ignored the fact that Pakistan’s main interest did not coincide with ours: we wanted to see a free and stable Afghanistan; they wanted to ensure the weakness of a post-communist Afghan state (primarily out of fear that a strong Afghanistan would prove attractive to Pakistan’s own Pashtun population). To our Big Picture decision-makers, this was a minor issue, not worthy of their time or energy. So Pakistan had its way; it helped create a series of competing armed groups, knowing that these groups would eventually fight among themselves. The mujaheddin succeeded in kicking out the Russians. Then – as Pakistan had intended – they fought amongst themselves, ensuring a weak government. When that happened, the Taliban came along spouting reform and took over the country extraordinarily quickly, primarily because the Afghan people were sick and tired of the mujaheddin groups’ infighting. And we all know what the ascendancy of the Taliban in Afghanistan led to.
But in the 1980s there were Americans knowledgeable about Afghanistan and its history, who were saying that we were making a terrible mistake, that Pakistan was not a country on which to rely, that our support for multiple groups would create chaos in Afghanistan and lead to a situation worse than Russian control.
The country experts’ predictions came true. The Big Picture experts were wrong. Thousands died.
Iraq. Our invasion of Iraq was a similar situation. By 2003, the Big Picture issue had changed from the Cold War to the War On Terror. For the neo-cons in power under George Bush, a subsidiary Big Picture issue was Democratizing the Middle East. But neither the President nor any of his top advisors knew anything about Iraq, the country. To them, it was simply next in line on their Big Picture quest. To Cheney and Rumsfeld, Iraq was intended to follow Afghanistan as a successful element of the fight against the perpetrators of 9/11. To Wolfowitz and his neo-con gang, Iraq would be the domino that would topple other Arab countries into democracy.
To the extent that they relied upon anyone with real knowledge of Iraq’s history and culture, they chose people like Ahmed Chalabi, who had his own very obvious reasons for misleading our leaders. They paid no attention to the views of neutral American experts on the country of Iraq – and certainly not to anyone who might have suggested that our occupation of the country would prove difficult.
Our Big Picture experts were wrong. Thousands are dying.
* * *
Decision-making. In these examples, there were individuals with long-term, in-depth understanding of the country – people who knew the country before it made headlines – who recognized in advance that we would fail, and knew why we would fail. Had we listened more carefully to them we would have made much better decisions – and thousands of Americans and others would still be alive. But these experts were not the people who made the decisions.
Instead of country experts, foreign policy generalists craft our policies. They usually claim that they listen carefully to country experts, but they don’t. In reality, they base their decisions on how they think other people and countries ought to act, rather than how the specific people and country actually act. And usually they believe that countries ought to act within the framework of their own Big Picture understanding of the world. But every country has its quirks: generalizing across national borders is bound to lead to errors.
To improve our foreign policy decision-making, the decision-makers need a lesson in humility – to recognize that their own understanding and prediction of other people’s behavior might be completely wrong. By the time someone becomes a Deputy Secretary or Secretary of State or Defense, or a National Security Advisor or the Vice President or President of the country, he or she has certainly developed a considerable amount of expertise. But that expertise is usually in areas very different from the topic of the day: being an expert in one area does not make one an expert in all areas. To some extent, top decision-makers do recognize this dilemma: for example, they generally have no qualms about relying on outside, neutral experts concerning technical, scientific, or engineering topics that are beyond their own realm of expertise. Unfortunately, this humility is not carried over to issues of human behavior. Political leaders and their top advisors tend to believe that they know how people will behave; they see their own political success as verification of this conclusion.
But people in other countries are not Americans. They think and act differently. Foreign policy that ignores this fact is bound to fail.
Our country’s leaders believed that they knew how the Vietnamese and the Afghans and the Iraqis would act. Surprise.
* * *
The Big Picture issue of the day often is very relevant. But it is not the only issue. Country expertise is usually of greater import than Big Picture expertise. Our foreign policy decision-makers need to pay at least as much heed to neutral national experts who have a long-term relationship with the focused country. Their expertise will be crucial to the success of our country’s foreign policy decisions and success.
Very well done dchauls – welcome aboard to our latest Balker! I will have specific remarks to add in a few hours here. But this is an excellent angle IMO, and never more true than in the tragedy which was Bush’s invasion of Iraq. (He reportedly did not even know the sectarian differences, between Sunni and Shiia Islamics).
I believe in the case of the Iraq invasion, Americans and the “coalition” nations were sold known suspect information about WMD, to justify Bush’s hidden agenda of taking out the Hussein regime – probably in part as payback for Saddam’s attempt on Bush I’s life on a victory-lap trip to Kuwait, after he was out of office. And also to help insure Bush II’s re-election as a “war-time” president, and to aid the ongoing decimation
of the U.S. Constitution they had underway at the time.
And they (Bush II regime) probably did believe the principle of regional change that a democratic Iraq would be a catalyst for. I can see that objective also. But achieving it on a reckless invasion on cooked intelligence is, if true, prosecutable at The Hague IMO.
If polled, most of the world would call for such a trial if I’m not mistaken. Look at the carnage, which we only see the snippets of on U.S. television. The last figures I heard were perhaps 100,000 Iraqis dead, and 1 million displaced. Now true, they are free of Saddam. But again, poll the matter and vast majorities, do not choose this route to achieving it.
Bush/Cheney did not listen to their own SOS Colin Powell, who was a voice of caution and reportedly lobbied against the invasion, before he went to the U.N. as a GOP lackey, and made a bogus case for it.
Too strong? Invest 30 minutes in this Bill Moyers expose about how the U.S. media cheerled the pre-war buildup, instead of reporting known facts that contradicted what was getting spun by the White House and the RNC. Moyers has the documentations fully assembled. You can watch it on a broadband connection;
Buying The War
-
As a foreigner I have a view as to how the USA could usefully develop reprehensible policy, and from a world position I would ask: what gives the US a right outside of the auspices of the UNO to be involved in any other nations affairs without prior invitation by that selfsame nation and the obvious majority of its population, subject to very straightforward definitions of the UNO constitution?
Welcome aboard baldeagle, posting our first Balkbacks from France! I’ll defer to dchauls on this question, although I’ll have a chance later today to reply on the other well-conceived remarks you posted.
About B/P, no need to use a word like foreigner – we’re each World Citizens here! And while we’re beginning with mostly American voices (has to do with where I’m allowed to freely post the Balkingpoints URL on news blog sites), B/P is already receiving hits from all continents. Over time, word of the site will reach interested Balkers across the world I’m sure.
And it’s a venue for debate of course – but a larger function of the site is the exchanging and sharing of viewpoints across borders, that major media routinely fails to do. They keep us divided and less than fully informed, which we discover quickly when we talk directly to each other.
As I mentioned on the About page, it’s time to harness the inherently populist medium of the WWW, and bypass the gatekeepers of our global understanding!
Times of London, and the BBC, both censored me last night in fact… ;^)
Excellent posting dchauls.
It’s insanity to empower foreign policy officials with no expertise in the history and current events of a country, to make decisions that impact that country, or our policies toward it.
I’ve come to believe that standards need to set and met, for any public office, in order to ensure intelligent, qualified leadership at the highest levels. Presidential and VP candidates need to meet certain standards of experience, knowledge and education before being eligible to run for these positions. Candidates should have to demonstrate achievements that truly qualify them for the office they seek.
And cabinet level positions shouldn’t be filled with friends or those who helped elect a President to office. For every public office, we need to establish standards and qualifications that must be met before a candidate can be considered.
This is not about elitism, but about drawing and empowering those who can best provide the intelligent, effective leadership needed to help us — as a human race — evolve in stronger, healthier, more constructive and cooperative ways and ensure the survival of life and our planet.
Hi all,, I will add my two cents here.
I think that there are two sides to this coin of American Empirism. And also there is an unknown or invisibleforcefactor.
First, in no paticular order, there is the constitution and the rule of law, and the right to defend our country, and to defend our national interests aka Oil! We have been doing this since a hundred plus years ago, in fact we probably spend about as much money now defending our ‘Oil’ interests as we do on its actual usefulness ,in other words its not even helping our economy or our lives anymore, its actually now just pollution and its hurting us overall. On the otherhand if it ‘oil’ was used for good then we could build the infrastructure to create a sustainable based economy. The other side of the coin is keeping the rich in power under the guise of promoting ‘democracy’ and ‘[freedom’ this is the neo con stategy and they feel as though they have some sort of privelage over everyone else ,and that they are smarter ,and we the people are sheep, they are old ruling class and they have bought our country, they own everthing, Except the true power of ‘truth and goodness’ this cannot be bought or sold, it is the great balancer, now ‘we the people’ have the oppotunity to stand up and protect human rights, it is a stuggle that will last lifetimes but is the only real struggle , and it is about peace,non-violence and the livable conditions to foster this growth . How can we as a country not practice what we preach less we are hippocrits. We went to war on anecdotal evidence, and now the economy is in bankrupcy, and we give all the money to the people and institutions who got us into the problem in the first place, there is little sense of urgency ,nobody is changing a thing, waste waste and more waste, arrogance ,greed , violence, perpetuated by lust and power, our leaders have steered us all down this path, Im not religous , the churches dont stand up for the truth, only there own interests, I am a citizen of the United States Of America and i am disgusted by my country, it is going down the sewer drain. And Obama is too much of a nice guy ,he is not urgent enough he is asking us to do the work , and not standing up for us, he smiles too much for a man who is supposed to lead us out of a looming global meltdown, mark my words, start saving food and survival gear folks. On a lighter note, if somebody would stand up and really lead us out of our druggy oil depency and into a healthy sustaiable ,eco based society we may just be able to save this existence, if not we are doomed,,i give us 5 years to avoid the train wreck. Good Luck .
Most of these comments are off the mark. The title of my posting (which got cut in half) was Country Policies Should Be Designed By People Who Know the Country. The basic idea is quite simple: our foreign policy decisions about country x should be made largely by people who know country x. Not by our high-level leaders who think they know everything simply because they are high-level leaders. Country experts, rather than foreign policy generalists, will usually make better decisions.
Title updated! :^)
A next major foreign policy dilemma that President Obama will be addressing is Afghanistan. If he follows my advice, he will pay relatively little attention to the top people in the Defense and State Departments who never heard of Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Instead, he will listen to the small number of experts who really know the country – who knew it before it made the headlines.
We , the US, cant expect to change (force our will) upon other people half way around the world. It is an occupation, and it is and will be resented. The war on terrorism is flawed, stateless peoples (tribal) are labeled insurgents because they hate americans who kill there family members. The only way for a peaceful strategy is to support the UN, they are more respected, we have worn out our welcome, we are bankrupt. I was just reading about the trillions of dollars we are spending on fighter jets, how is this helping the world, can anybody tell me. Obama is falling into the ‘Tough Guy Talk Act’ If we start now to convert half of our military budget into real good projects like energy upgrade systems we would be on the right track. If not, and we continue meddling in other countries we will be inviting the next “terrorist atack’, maybe thats what the neo cons had planned all along. What happened to the UN?
Since the invasion they have been sidelined, and we have been the worlds Police. What a crappy deal, this is not lawful, and most americans do not support this ongoing war, we voted out George the half-wit. Now we have to hold Obama to his words and speak out againts the US occupations , let the UN serve its purpose.
I also believe that the U.N. has a more prominent role to play, in the
global strifes and also interdependences, that will define this century.
I’d like to think both Obama and Hillary, are balanced enough and intelligent enough not to form policy with blinders on, as it strongly appeared was true of Bush/Cheney.
But I’m going to watch this now to see what reporters if any, cover this issue of whom exactly their advisors are for Afghanistan, or say Sudan / Darfur, North Korea – list goes on and on.
I tend to doubt any voices, could fundamentally change offensive U.S.
policy against a terror organization proven lethal to Western civilians. (even if ignoring those voices to begin with, gave rise to that enemy)
Yet only when we know in detail where we tread, can we expect successful outcomes. That was the change that Petraeus brought in Iraq – he paid attention to local expertise, and found ways to work with the interests of civilian Iraq, instead of our previous (and failing) posture as occupiers only.
Not that Petraeus is the best example. The entire situation there remains awful IMO. But Bush finally turned to someone, who would fold in the knowledge of nationals wiser than himself.
DChauls, USA,
What I intended to say, I don’t think, is all that different from what you are saying. Perhaps I just didn’t say it very well.
I was trying to make several points. One is that I agree with you: “foreign policy decisions about country x should be made largely by people who know country x. Not by our high-level leaders who think they know everything simply because they are high-level leaders.”
Secondly, I think its imperative for the US to elect ‘qualified’ people for public office. By qualified, I mean those with the experience, skills and expertise to do what’s best for our country, and the international community. So much of the time, those who ’serve’ have an agenda to impose and they serve themselves and those who support them.
As voters, we can do more by meeting our responsibility to read and be more thorough in learning about the people we’re electing, before going into the voting booth.
But I’m also thinking out loud about how we could weed out “leaders” who are clearly unqualified for public office, those who don’t have the skills, expertise, or knowledge to lead the country; for instance, someone like George Bush, who clearly was not qualified to be President. He wasn’t allowed to hold press conferences for quite a while, as President, until he’d been “trained” to speak and address the issues (without demonstrating that he clearly didn’t know what he was talking about). Bush had a personal agenda he was determined to impose on the country, on behalf of the far right element in the country. After 30 years of imposing their agenda, they’ve set the country back on many levels and countless concerns and issues.
Adding to the problem, our MSM no longer seems to do its job of keeping people informed — most of the media are far too busy propping up the current administration and powers that be, whoever they are.
I think all of these problems are worth thinking about and discussing, and that’s what I meant to say.
I think the solution to qualifying leaders before election can only rest in
the voter-responsibility aspects of it / getting informed before voting, etc. Democracy inherently is about the ability for the electorate to pick whom they want – even if a bad choice of course.
Which Americans are pretty good at… ;^)
And of course Bush lost the 2000 election – but even that he’d come that close, was a very sad comment on us as that electorate.
You might also expect party leaders, to only back the qualified amongst those vying for air in the primaries. The Democrats thought they’d accomplish just that with the “Super Delegate” system they cooked up a few decades back. Here again for my money, it proved to be a total joke
in the 2008 cycle. They piled on behind the new face drawing the biggest crowds – some even going so far as to effectively try to deny Hillary her chance, by pressuring her to quit. While the states were still voting. Ridiculous.
In Barack’s case along with the inexperience, we get an intellectual whom
is (and has already been) far more likely to make informed and balanced decisions. Sarah Palin, anyone… ;^)
As you suggest Carol some of it comes down to the major media IMO,
who should be on this issue much stronger of exactly whom is serving in advisory capacities. That would help us at election time. But they’re mostly beholden to entrenched interests of mega-corporate owners, all entangled with the Washington elite, serving the god of ratings & maybe tossing us a kernel of accurate info along the way.
Wrong on health care and everything else, John McCain has been right
all along about divorcing the money from our electoral and legislative processes. Obama has promised it also. Meanwhile, regular citizens just
go online and render the traditional media more and more irrelevant… ;^)
Do you understand the history of the Taliban conflict? Begin here:
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/ayesha-siddiqa-beyond-the-original-sin
DChauls/US – Thanks for a nice commentary. However, I do have some problems with your idea that each country has an expert. Now, I would imagine that you are speaking of an expert other than the Ambassador of that country? Do you realize how many countries that would be and how much it would actually swell our government? I think the Ambassador working with the State Department can do a real thorough job.
I was not suggesting that the State Department actually hire an expert for each country. There are people who know each country at universities, think tanks, and other places (including Americans who live in the country). They may be anthropologists or political scientists or other specialists who have studied and written about the country over a period of years. Or they may just be ex-Peace Corps Volunteers with a continuing interest in the country. If and when the State Department needs ideas on what to do for a specific country, these non-employees can be called upon to give their advice. The final decisions may be the President’s or the Secretary of State’s, but they need to pay much more heed to these experts’ expertise than to their own ‘big picture’ expertise.
By the way, ambassadors are very rarely experts on the country in which they serve.
Experts who have a long-term relationship with the focused country being heard by world leaders? Many public officials in power, i.e., US and other countries are not known for their humility but for their focus on personal career, ego, greed, power trips, corruption and their need for “yes sir” people surrounding them. Facts/advice that fit their agenda and spin for public support. We can only hope Obama is not like that. Time will tell. Obama’s words still bring hope but it’s his actions that will speak the loudest.
Welcome aboard Gorgegirl, Darwin & diggersstory!