The most important cause of the Iraq War was >>>>>>>>> ?

Groupthink!!!!

Please read everything below!!!!! I have been in groups where Groupthink has occurred and I can't express more strongly how important this post is. Most people don't understand Groupthink and need to read this information to see how important this is. I would suggest this is one of the more important posts I have ever made on DU as this problem MUST be fixed in public policy yet so few people understand what it is much less know it was the cause of the Iraq war and most major blunders in US policy.

Please hear me out!!!!

The important question here is: >>>>>> How do we prevent Groupthink from happening in the future in Administration decisions? The sad thing is it's EASY to prevent Groupthink which I will go into below.


EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:

http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm

Examples of Groupthink: Past and Present


Examples of groupthink “fiascoes” studied by Janis include US failures to anticipate the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the escalation of Vietnam war, and the ill-fated hostage rescue in Iran. Current examples of groupthink can be found in the decisions of the Bush administration and Congress to pursue an invasion of Iraq based on a policy of “preemptive use of military force against terrorists and rogue nations”. The decision to rush to war in Iraq before a broad-based coalition of allies could be built has placed the US in an unenviable military situation in Iraq that is costly in terms of military deaths and casualties, diplomatic standing in the world, and economically.

My proposal to stop Groupthink from occuring in Administrations:

I would suggest their be a "Groupthink Prevention Committee" created of say 12 neutral senators from both party's. This committee would be in charge of testing Administrations decisions and checking for Groupthink. If the Committee decided they felt Groupthink was occurring in the Administration they could call a vote to stop an Administrations decision. It would then go to debate
on the senate floor (closed door session). The Senate would then have to see if they felt Groupthink was occurring and vote on weather to let the Administrations decision stand.



What is Groupthink?

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.


Symptoms of Groupthink

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.


When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.




Review the following consequences of groupthink and consider how many of them apply to the Bush administration’s handling of the ‘war on terrorism’ and the issues related to Iraq and Saddam Hussein:

http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm



a) incomplete survey of alternatives

b) incomplete survey of objectives

c) failure to examine risks of preferred choice

d) failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives

e) poor information search

f) selective bias in processing information at hand

g) failure to work out contingency plans

h) low probability of successful outcome




My Thoughts:

I cant express how strongly I feel about this! Groupthink has been the leading cause of many of the worst historical decisions throughout time. It has lead to the loss of perhaps millions of lives in a countless number of wars that could have and should have been avoided. Why on earth Administration officials are not required to take a course on Groupthink is a travesty!!!!! In fact I think measures should be put in place as standard operating procedure to prevent Groupthink in US Administrations. This should be proposed as a Bill by a group of Democrats as soon as possible!!! How can we make this happen?


Remedies for Groupthink (These should be MANDATORY!!! in Administrations)

First my proposal also listed above:

I would suggest their be a "Groupthink Prevention Committee" created of say 12 neutral senators from both party's. This committee would be in charge of testing Administrations decisions and checking for Groupthink. If the Committee decided they felt Groupthink was occurring in the Administration they could call a vote to stop an Administrations decision. It would then go to debate
on the senate floor (closed door session). The Senate would then have to see if they felt Groupthink was occurring and vote on weather to let the Administrations decision stand.




Decision experts have determined that groupthink may be prevented by adopting some of the following measures:



a) The leader should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member



b) The leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the outset



c) Each member of the group should routinely discuss the groups' deliberations with a trusted associate and report back to the group on the associates reactions



d) One or more experts should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis. The outside experts should be encouraged to challenge views of the members.



e) At least one articulate and knowledgeable member should be given the role of devil's advocate (to question assumptions and plans)



f) The leader should make sure that a sizable block of time is set aside to survey warning signals from rivals; leader and group construct alternative scenarios of rivals' intentions.

Some links on Groupthink:


Rice appointment assures more Bush Administration Groupthink

http://www.thedailyaztec.com/media/storage/paper741/news/2005/01/25/Opinion/Rice-Appointment.Assures.More.Bush.Administration.Groupthink-840011.shtml?norewrite200606050225&sourcedomain=www.thedailyaztec.com

Chickenhawk Groupthink?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-02.htm

Fahrenheit 9-11: Jolting Us Out of 'Groupthink'
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0629-11.htm


http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/09/16/isgroupt.html

I noticed it's getting votes but no replies and is drifting down.

Thanks!

policy making apparratus. I think this is the most ideological group of people ever to grace our Executive branch. They have a hidden agenda that they are all onboard with. They don't want to open their plans for debate or even consensus building. It's a few people that agree....and everyone else is on-board to execute the plan. Unfortunately for us, they aren't nearly as smart, nor as realistic as they need to be. Hence, one policy disaster after another.

I would suggest their be a "Groupthink Prevention Committee" created of say 12 neutral senators from both party's. This committee would be in charge of testing Administrations decisions and checking for Groupthink. If the Committee decided they felt Groupthink was occurring in the Administration they could call a vote to stop an Administrations decision.

You are right that this Administration was doomed to Groupthink from the start and perhaps was soooooooo insane a few simple guidelines wouldn't work. Thanks for pointing that out.

More powerful than the executive branch, and elevated above the rest of Congress. It would radically change our system of government with no guarantees as to their continuing "neutrality." Congress is supposed to balance the administration, and search out bad policy - they have the power to do so. When it came to the Iraq war, they failed.

on the senate floor (closed door session). The Senate would then have to see if they felt Groupthink was occurring and vote on weather to let the Administrations decision stand.

and they wouldn't have anyone checking to see if it affected the decision. Somehow we need some way to check specifically for groupthink.

I will tell you this! If you haven't been in a group and experienced groupthink you really have to see what if feels like. It's an amazing experience and you have to really be aware what is occurring and how badly it's effecting group decisions. It's difficult to detect unless someone is watching for it and taking the necessary steps to prevent it.

I took small group communications classes in collage and we had classes in Groupthink using experiential Learning. Only by experiencing it can you really appreciate how dangerous and subtle it is.

It explains how groupthink occurred in the Administration. Why the senate didn't catch it is beyond me.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-02.htm

HOW WE GOT TO HERE -- > PNAC 101 - Rise Of The Neocon
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=932617&mesg_id=932617


George W. Bush constantly reminds the nation about the threat of terrorism that began with 911 but he leaves out a few important details that you should know.........

June 1997 - The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was born. Populated by influential Movers of industry and Shakers of public opinion, the PNAC is an organization united in the vision for a global U.S. empire - "Pax Americana" - through coercion and military domination. Their philosophy can be simply summarized:


* There are countries to plunder and fortunes to be made. You have it, we want it. Do as we say or suffer the consequences.

* The U.S. already has a powerful military but we plan to nurture and grow it until it's massive and we are indominable. Resistance is futile. We are.......


Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, William J. Bennett, Frank Gaffney, and I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, signator's - among others - of the PNAC's "Statement of Principles".

"We need to...challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values."

"We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future."

"It is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm


JANUARY 1998 - The PNAC knew that he who owns the oil also owns the world so they sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power since he put "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil at hazard". Clinton didn't grant them their wish and the PNAC was disheartened that they couldn't manipulate the military while outside of the White House power structure.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


MARCH - APRIL 1999 - In an effort to capture and control the castle and all its warriors and weapons, the PNAC offered up members Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle and Gary Bauer to run as Republican candidates in the upcoming Presidential election.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/profile.htm


JUNE 1999 - Ever persistent and determined to maximize their potential for success in the Presidential campaign, the PNAC exercised their power of nepotism and member-Jeb Bush's brother George stepped up to the plate to join the race.


SPRING 2000 - The PNAC may have felt confident with their candidate's chances for winning the White House but they were absolutely smug over what they saw as a possible Fallback Plan...electronic voting machines with severe security flaws that included hidden backdoors, erasable audit trails and multiple vote totals with the potential to propel vote tampering to new heights through the magic of remote access.

How To Rig An Election In The United States
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

Can the votes be changed?
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm

GAO Report Finds Flaws in Electronic Voting
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102105Q.shtml


Bettter yet, Chuck Hagel - a fellow Republican loyalist - owned the ES&S voting machine company that counted 60% of all U.S. votes. He had already won one election and was part of the U.S. Senate power team in Washington.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00166.htm

Assured that the White House would soon be theirs, the PNAC debuted their 76-page blueprint to achieve world domination. "Rebuilding America's Defenses" became the PNAC's manifesto, detailing the ideal level of military power to specifically eliminate the hostile regimes of Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea and it endorsed pre-emptive strikes against them, tradition be damned. Iraq was given star billing as Control Central for their Mideast base of operations.

"At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible."

"American landpower is the essential link in the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence.

"We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership."

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."


What is particularly foreboding and chilling in view of events to later unfold, is this statement bemoaning the lengthy process of rebuilding the existing U.S. military according to the heightened standards and specifications the PNAC aspired to.

"...the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm


NOVEMBER 2000 - Saddam may have sensed an ill wind in the air when he made the first strike, turned his back on the U.S. Dollar and accepted only Euros as payment for his oil. This had the potential of seriously destabilizing the U.S. economy and the PNAC considered this an hostile act of aggression towards their personal and business interests. The heat was on for them to make their first move.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp


DECEMBER 2000 - In a highly contentious Presidential vote battle on the home turf of PNAC-Jeb Bush, the Supreme Court decided that George Bush was the new President.

Bush now had the green light to seamlessly merge members of the PNAC into his Administration with no one the wiser. PNAC members elevated to the Bush hierarchy include, among others:


* Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense

* Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense

* Elliott Abrams - Member of the National Security Council

* John Bolton - Undersecretary for Arms Control and InternationalSecurity

* Richard Perle - Chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board

* Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State

* John Bolton - Undersecretary of State for Disarmament

* Zalmay Khalilzad - White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition


An Honorable Mention was awarded to Condoleezza Rice - National Security Advisor - who is a former oil-company consultant having been on the board of directors of Chevron as its main expert on Kazakhstan.

The PNAC agenda had now passed "Go". The most powerful military machine in the world stood at their ready and Saddam was in the crosshair.

<more>

"Groupthink is a mode of thought whereby individuals intentionally conform to what they perceive to be the consensus of the group."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink


The invasion of Iraq clearly is the result of deliberate planning - not the result of mere perception of consensus, unless perhaps you stretch the definition of groupthink so that it includes any plan or action that originates from a group - but that would render the whole notion of groupthink virtually meaningless.

I didn't make this stuff up. The information I posted above about the Bush Administration and the Iraq war was already defined as groupthink by those who study it. Thats why when you do a search for groupthink and the Bush Administration a billion hits come up. This is set in stone in communications research now. What happened with the Iraq war is being printed in Communications textbooks across the nation now as a classic example of groupthink.


Look again. This is cut and paste NOT my writing:

http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm

Examples of Groupthink: Past and Present



Examples of groupthink “fiascoes” studied by Janis include US failures to anticipate the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the escalation of Vietnam war, and the ill-fated hostage rescue in Iran. Current examples of groupthink can be found in the decisions of the Bush administration and Congress to pursue an invasion of Iraq based on a policy of “preemptive use of military force against terrorists and rogue nations”. The decision to rush to war in Iraq before a broad-based coalition of allies could be built has placed the US in an unenviable military situation in Iraq that is costly in terms of military deaths and casualties, diplomatic standing in the world, and
economically.



What is Groupthink?



Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.



References (also see annotated bibliography of books, articles and websites below)



Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, Irving L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Second Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin.





Symptoms of Groupthink



Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:



Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.


When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.

That's like saying if me and a couple of buddies decide to rob a bank, it is the result of group-think leading to a faulty decision. Feeble excuses for criminal behavior.

Please stop using incompetence as an excuse for these criminals.

Which is just another name for Groupthink By a Very Small, Smug, Arrogant Group.

This whole country was caught up in Groupthink before the war.

Groupthink is defined as something that happens in small groups however if that small group is in charge of a country it can spread like wildfire especially if they are using "mind-guards" and saying things like "If you don't support the war you are not American". This kind of belief in their "moral authority" to peruse their goal at all costs can sweep up a nation and lead to disaster!

but they often do. Wikipedia's article on groupthink includes these comments:
You see this problem all the time in business and other groups, too, but successful organizations put into place processes and practices to minimize the groupthink tendency. Healthy skepticism and the freedom to speak freely are key.

:evilgrin:


but seriously, folks, this is very interesting.

i think some people are more vulnerable to groupthink than others, although perhaps this is different even in an individual depending on the particular topic. shrub's personality makes his administration a natural for groupthink, and their mode of communication with the media is clearly an attempt to extend groupthink to the masses.