Worst-case scenarios

Last updated on: March 19, 2007 at 2:11 pm by Fred Clark

Worst-case scenarios 2007-03-19T14:11:28-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Since before the American-led invasion of Iraq four years ago, I have written more than once about possible bad outcomes from this adventure. "Gaza on the Tigris" has come to seem the most apt of these possibilities, but it was not the worst-case scenario.

The worst-case scenario is something more like Rwanda in 1994, about which more in a bit, but first let me clarify something about the meaning of "worst-case scenario."

By "worst-case scenario" I mean the outcome I dreaded, not what I necessarily expected, and certainly not what I wished for.

That would seem self-evident to anyone who understands the word "worst," but we live in strange times, times in which a disturbing number of people claim to believe that giving any thought to worst-case scenarios and potential bad outcomes is equivalent to desiring such bad outcomes. They claim that they can see no distinction between planning against the worst and hoping for it. Thus those of us who opposed this war and were pessimistic about its prospects are accused of wanting America to lose, of giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" and of all manner of similar sickness.

The consequence of this way of thinking is that worst-case scenarios, and even less-than-optimal-case scenarios, are never considered. To imagine Plan B, the logic goes, is to hope for the failure of Plan A, and hoping for such failure is tantamount to treason (giving "aid and comfort," etc.). Thus, to avoid such treason, the invasion of Iraq was planned for and conducted with Plan A and only Plan A in place. That plan involved a military "cakewalk" with American forces being "greeted as liberators," followed shortly thereafter by the flowering of a pro-America, pro-Israel democracy, funded by privatized/westernized oil revenues that would limit American expenditures for reconstruction and nation-building to $1.7 billion.

This sounds like mocking exaggeration, but it is not. That was precisely the plan. The phrases "cakewalk" and "greeted as liberators" were actually spoken, and $1.7 billion was the precise figure cited by the Bush administration. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that America's military involvement, "Could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." That was Plan A and there was no Plan B. Plan B could not be allowed, because even to think of it was to hope against, and somehow even to bring about, the failure of Plan A.

Members of the Bush administration — from the president himself, to Vice President Cheney and on down through Rumsfeld, Rice and White House spokesmen Fleischer, McClellan and Snow — have repeatedly accused critics of the war in Iraq of undermining that effort, aiding the enemy, wanting America to lose and "the terrorists" to win, etc. I've mostly thought of this as a disingenuous and despicable bit of political theater — a desperate attempt to use the "stabbed in the back" myth of Vietnam as political insulation against being held accountable for what Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., called "the worst foreign policy disaster in American history."

But it's also possible that these accusations are sincere — that they really believe this. It is possible that they really cannot see any distinction between planning against contingencies and hoping for failure, between carrying an umbrella and hoping for rain, between carrying an umbrella and causing rain.

For evidence that their inability to make such a distinction is sincere, see again their planning and conduct of the war in Iraq. Their refusal to consider or to plan against any sub-optimal contingency was steadfast. Four-star generals got fired for mentioning less-than-perfect possibilities. Gen. Garner was prohibited from hiring anyone who had ever been involved with contingency planning for a post-Saddam Iraq.

I still tend to think that this disastrous refusal to consider anything other than a pie-in-the-sky Plan A was a deliberate, political decision. I think the Bush administration was so desperate to win public support for its desired invasion that no discussion of any potential less-than-perfect, less-than-easy, possibilities was allowed — even internally. If the public got wind of any consideration of a possible downside, the administration might not get to have its war. This political motive trumped military prudence and military necessity. That seems to me to be the likeliest explanation for their criminally negligent refusal to allow any consideration of Plan B.

But the Bush administration's behavior, its determination never to plan against worst- or less-than-best-case scenarios, is also consistent with the sincere belief that any such planning is a kind of "defeatist" treason, the sincere inability to distinguish between planning against contingencies and wishing for/causing them. This is such an elementary distinction that it seems impossible that any group of adults capable of tying their own shoes could really fail to understand it. Yet we have another piece of evidence that this may be the case: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Snow have repeatedly said so. They have all, time and again, stated that critics of the war are aiding "the enemy." They have all, time and again, claimed not to understand any distinction between planning against contingencies and deliberately causing failure.

This last piece of evidence is not persuasive. Their stated claims require us to accept that they are all incapable of the kinds of elementary distinctions that make one mentally competent. People who are truly incapable of making such distinctions do not have jobs like vice president or secretary of state or White House spokesman. They have jobs assembling boxes under the supervision of caseworkers. It seems more charitable to me to presume that their claims are disingenuous rather than to presume that they are mentally incompetent.

In either case, the outcome is what it is. The refusal to plan for contingencies left the Bush administration unprepared to face such contingencies as they arose. That reckless lack of preparation — whether due to mental incompetence or to horrifically cynical political calculation — has been a death sentence for thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

The administration had it backwards. Planning against worst-case scenarios does not cause them to happen; failing to plan against them can.

Iraq

Previous Post

March 16, 2007

L.B.: LPU&B

Next Post

April 2, 2007 Unfreely speaking

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not _____ or boast...

Select your answer to see how you score.

Fail Brag Scream Envy