Bethany Cheney
FitzGerald
Government 132
Week 3 Blog
20 September, 2011
When hearing about the Blog assignment options for this class, I instantly gravitated towards the “flawed foreign policy” choice. Primarily, I made this decision because the concept of groupthink (“...a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise other courses of action” [Janis, 1971]) is so interesting to me. The fact of the matter is that all leaders, from figureheads such as the Queen of England to hleaders such as the President of the United States have obstacles to overcome within their positions. Therefore, a large-scale decision made by any one of these leaders is subject to analysis and discussion. This alone is justification that while the leader is the one who made the final decision, cabinet members, advisors, and other lesser positions take part in the process as well.
The general causes of groupthink are the urge to conform/social pressure (from either fear or the need to consent) and/or a biased leader. The symptoms of groupthink may range from poor judgment concerning information that is contrary to the general view of the group and illusions of invulnerability (Fitzgerald). One famous example of groupthink is the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. This attack occurred late in 1941 during World War II and provoked the United States into joining the War, something the country/government was previously set against. Before the actual attack, the United States Government was weary of the increasingly poor relations between Japan and America.[1]. In response, the government anticipated an attack, but expected a different outcome due to poor strategic analysis (Wohlstetter). However, the military heads of each “hotspot” were expected to be prepared for an attack. The failed policy in this situation occurred when the officers at Pearl Harbor failed to take the warning seriously. One direct example of the officers’ failure to weigh the situation is when a submarine scope was spotted and sunk (which alerted the Navy to the first wave of attacks), the officers did not take this offense seriously (Department of Defense). The general consensus was that the Japanese would not attack Pearl Harbor for fear of it causing a war (which it did) and that even if the Japanese did launch an attack, it would be a very small scale assault . The consequence of the lack of concern from the officers was grave, resulting in the loss of over 2,000 American lives (The Pearl Harbor Attack). In hindsight, if the Americans had not been caught off guard and had been successful during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States may not have ever entered into war which would have potentially changed the course of both country’s histories.
The other side of this coin (choosing this option) is the “prospect theory” aspect. Prospect Theory is the idea that people will choose a certain “win” over a chancy (50%) win with a potential loss, unless the question is posed in a different manner resulting in a loss of what was gained. This behavior is classified as risk-averse behavior. The other type of behavior is called risk-seeking behavior, which is when a person or group chooses an option which has a higher gain, but also a higher potential of loss. An example of risk seeking behavior is found by analyzing the acts of Muammar Gaddafi, who was the ruler of Libya since overthrowing the previous ruler in 1969 (Viscusi). After the demonstration of peaceful protests against Gaddafi’s regime, the situation escalated and intensified as a result of military force unleashed on the protestors by Gaddafi. After a period of this conflict, Gaddafi eventually “lost face” in the eyes of his country due to the drastic measures he took out onto the protestors (this is the situational loss that eventually leads to risk seeking behavior). As a result, Gaddafi continually unleashed excessive force onto the protestors and even went as far as to execute his own soldiers who refused to take part in the violence (Maltasar). Specifically, Gaddafi’s excessive force on the people of Libya was an attempt for him to reclaim land that was taken by the protestors. He did not take careful measures that would have been considered diplomatic because he thought he had nothing to lose (only something to gain).
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=14347
"The Pearl Harbor Attack, 7 December 1941." Naval History and Heritage Command. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. <http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm>.
Viscusi, Gregory. "Qaddafi Is No Mubarak as Regime Overthrow May Trigger a `Descent to Chaos' - Bloomberg." Bloomberg - Business & Financial News, Breaking News Headlines. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-23/qaddafi-is-no-mubarak-overthrow-may-mean-descent-to-chaos-.html>.
Department of Defense. 50th Anniversary of World War II Commemorative Committee. Pearl Harbor: 50th Anniversary Commemorative Chronicle, "A Grateful Nation Remembers" 1941-1991. Washington: The Committee, 1991.
No comments:
Post a Comment