There is a theory of psychology known as operant conditioning, which was first extensively studied by
Edward Thorndike. Thorndike's studies were based on the observances of cats attempting to escape from puzzle boxes. He observed that while at first the cats took a long time to escape from the boxes, they gradually improved over time, even getting better at escaping new and different boxes. This eventually led Thorndike to posit his Law of Effect, which theorized that successful responses, those producing satisfying consequences, were "stamped in" by the experience and thus occurred more frequently. Unsuccessful responses, those producing annoying consequences, were stamped out and subsequently occurred less frequently.
If only the Law of Effect was in place in the Bush administration, and their plans in Iraq.
The connection below the fold.
Yesterday, Mohammed at Iraq the Model had a bone-chilling
post about the situation in Baghdad. I urge you to read the whole thing, but one exchange between Mohammed and his father (who Mohammed says survived the monarchy, the first republic, the pan-Arab nationalists and the Ba'ath, which essentially means he has seen every political incarnation the Iraqis have created for themselves):
Me: How is this mess going to resolve dad?
Dad: it is not.
Me: Are you positive? Why?
Dad: People find solutions only if they wanted to and I think many of the political players do not want a solution.
Me: Is there a chance the situation will further escalate?
Dad: Most likely yes, we are a state still run by sentiments rather than reason which means it's a brittle state and any sentimental overreaction can turn the tide it in either direction.
This would hardly be the first disaster to occur in Iraq since the US-led invasion three years ago. If operant conditioning was in effect, it would be a reasonable expectation that President Bush and his administration would handle this crisis better than those in the past. The unsuccessful responses and the corresponding `annoying consequences' of the disasters with looting, with de-Ba'athification, with security, and with reconstruction in Iraq should result in an improved ability for the Bush administration and the President to understand the gravity of the situation and to come up with plans with higher probabilities of success.
Of course, what comes next is the punchline to a very bad joke.
Last week, President Bush gave one of his "so rare they ought to be considered endangered" interviews, with ABC's Elizabeth Vargas. I'd like to highlight an excerpt from that interview:
VARGAS: What is the policy if, in fact, a civil war should break out or the sectarian violence continues? Are you willing to sacrifice American lives to get the Sunnis and the Shiites to stop killing each other?
BUSH: I don't buy your premise that there's going to be a civil war. There's no question that the bomber of the mosque is trying to create sectarian violence, and there's no question there was reaction to it. On the other hand, I had the duty, which I did, to call these leaders, Shi'a and Sunni leaders, as well as Kurdish leaders. And the response was that we understand this is a moment that we've got to make a choice if we're going to have sectarian strife or whether or not we're going to unify. And I heard loud and clear that they understand that they're going to choose unification, and we're going to help them do so. The presence of the U.S. troops is there to protect as many Iraqis as we possibly can from thugs and violence, but it's also to help the Iraqis protect themselves, and we're making progress in terms of standing up to these Iraqi troops so they can deal with, deal with these incidents of violence.
VARGAS: But what is the plan if the sectarian violence continues? I mean, do the U.S. troops take a larger role? Do they step in more actively to stop the violence?
BUSH: No. The troops are chasing down terrorists. They're protecting themselves and protecting the people, and -- but a major function is to train the Iraqis so they can do the work. I mean the ultimate success in Iraq -- and I believe we're going to be successful -- is for the Iraqi citizens to continue to demand unity. And remember, one of the things that's lost during this troubled week -- and there's no question it's a troubled week -- was the fact that 11 million Iraqis, about two months ago, went to the polls and said, "We want to have a democratic government." So there's still a will of the people there that are interested in a unified government. Secondly, we're working with the leaders to form this unity government, and we'll see how it goes. We're making pretty good progress though. And I think the bombers really caused the leaders to say, "Wait a minute. We now have got to project civil war or civil strife or sectarian violence." And the other side of the equation has got to be to train the Iraqis to fight so that the people feel like there is a unified security force that's interested in protecting them from a few people who are trying to sow violence and discord.
VARGAS: But there is a concern that when you talk to these political leaders that they don't wield the real power in Iraq, that it's the clerics that wield the power and the clerics who are controlling these militias, the militias who were responsible for most of the violence in the last few days.
BUSH: Well, Ayatollah Sistani, who is by far -- not by far -- is one of the most revered clerics, has made it very clear that this type of violence is not acceptable, and that he calls for a unified government. And matter of fact, many of the clerics have spoken out for a peaceful unified future for Iraq. And there's no -- look, these are -- there are people that don't want to see democracy, and the reason why is because it defeats their vision of a totalitarian type government from which they can launch either attacks on America or future instability in the Middle East. You're witnessing this ideological struggle that's taking place, and Iraq happens to be the battle front for that struggle right now. And I believe we're -- we will prevail, and the definition of prevailing is an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, an Iraq that is not a safe haven for people like Zarqawi or al Qaeda and its affiliates, an Iraq which becomes an ally in the war on terror.
VARGAS: So let me make sure I understand you. No matter what happens with the level of sectarian violence, the U.S. troops will stay there?
BUSH: The U.S. troops will stay there so long as -- until the Iraqis can defend themselves. I mean, my policy has not changed. To summarize it, as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
No less than four times does Vargas ask President Bush how the possibility of imminent civil war will affect or alter the American strategy in Iraq. And no less than four times does President Bush state that it will not. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," and by extension, if the Iraqis stand up against one another, well, we'll figure that out when it comes to it and 150,000 of our soldiers are in the middle of a civil war with
no strategy or OpPlan from the Commander-in-Chief.
Mr. President, if a cat can learn from its mistakes and make repetitive errors less frequently, why can't you? And how long should the American people and for that matter, America's troops, have to put up with a Commander-in-Chief with a slower learning curve than a cat?