Why is less decisiveness bad?

[Darth Wong]

To allow them to hold onto their power would have been political suicide.

Apparently you haven't been keeping up on the happenings in Afghanistan lately.

Oh pul-ease. Are you honestly saying we should have let the Taliban (who harbored and sheltered al-Quada, and refused to hand them over despite the ulimatum given to them) retain their control of Afghanistan? Regardless of the bullshit that is happening in Afghanistan right now ("vote for Karzai or we'll burn your house down!"), there is no two ways about it: the Taliban had to go...

Obviously, the true meaning of his statement escaped you. The Taliban did not go. They are slowly re-asserting control over large areas of the country, and a lot of them just changed allegiances for the sake of convenience during the initial invasion.

[Stofsk]

Obviously, the true meaning of his statement escaped you. The Taliban did not go. They are slowly re-asserting control over large areas of the country, and a lot of them just changed allegiances for the sake of convenience during the initial invasion.

Really? Goddamn it. Why the fuck did we bother going into it if nothing would effectively change?

Has Kerry said anything about Afghanistan and plans to deal with it should he be elected? Or is it under the radar for the general public? (I know that it is down here)

[Ma Deuce]

The problem is that... well they didn't go, they're still there, and our non-existent long-term strategy for Afghanistan is allowing them to steadily move back in.

I know the Taliban are still there and are quietly regaining power, but how does that change the fact that there really wasn't any way to effectivly end Afghanistan's status as al-Quada's base of operations without deposing Mullah Omar's government and occupying the country?

[Mange]

Perhaps I shouldn't make this post since the debacle the other day, but I thought I could add some constructive input. I have a minor in Political science, but I'm a shy debater and who sometimes has difficulties expressing what I mean.

Essentially, there's nothing wrong to change position in important issues, it has to do with the realities of politics, it doesn't have to be a sign of indecisiveness as this has to do with both the political decision-making process and the leadership style.

The political decision-making process consists of three sides, the intellectual, social and automatic. I will explain these briefly and comment on how this is relevant at the end of the post, but important to note is that the different sides are of course seen with different importance dependent of which school of theory you adhere to. In this discussion, the intellectual side is the most important, but I felt I should include the other two as well.
The intellectual side includes how the politician understands the data for decision-making, how he deals with that information and identification of which alternatives that are available. The social side includes how the politician interacts with others, for example advisors and other politicians, but it also deals with how the politician makes his decisions based on the attitudes of the higher entity (I'm sorry if that's the wrong word) such as a political party. The automatic side means that the politician often makes his decision without recognizing his own role and the future consequences of the decision.

As I wrote earlier, the leadership style is also important. To establish contrasts in leadership styles is the most basic thing to do (not to mention the easiest way to explain as it won't take too long). One established contrast is separating mobilising from expressive leadership. A mobilising leader concentrates on decision-making that actively responses to separate interests while an expressive leader concentrates of maintaining status quo in the decision making by a.o. satisfying a core group.

So, how is this relevant? Let's look at the decision-making process I started with in general, or the intellectual side in particular as this is the most important one in this context (how a politician understands and deals with the data for decision-making). In the changing realities of politics, new information might later emerge that changes the premises of the earlier decision that was taken. If we look at a concrete example, the Bush side has made a big number on Kerry's change in attitude about the invasion of Iraq. But new premises arose after the war when no WMDs were found and when it was discovered that some of the intelligence that was given to the Congress (intelligence that also formed part of the basic data for the decision to invade Iraq) was hyped-up and contained "imprecise language", the premises was changed and invalidated the basis for the earlier decision. As a Swede, and of course not fully versed in domestic issues, I will refrain from those issues, but I hope this is useful as a guide to penetrate the issues in which Kerry has seemingly changed his position and see how and if the premises has changed.

When it comes to leadership style it's a bit more complicated. As a Presidential candidate, Kerry's goal is of course to win the Presidency and he need both to satisfy the Democratic voters, first-time voters and to win over Republicans, thus it's a bit difficult for me to comment on that. Those who are the most qualified to identify that aspect are of course the residents of Massachusetts. Bush on the other hand, works hard to maintain status quo as he focuses on the conservative elements and the Christian Fundamentalists. Of course, he's also playing hard on the terrorist threat that could sway some Democratic voters.

Then there are other factors, such as rational decision making, the public not having all information etc. but I felt the post would become too long and to boring to read so I stop at this and takes cover. I hope I've illuminated some important factors as to why a politician doesn't need to be indecisive even though it can appear that way and that premises changes over time. Decisiveness is often a facade.

[Agrajag]

Oh pul-ease. Are you honestly saying we should have let the Taliban (who harbored and sheltered al-Quada, and refused to hand them over despite the ulimatum given to them) retain their control of Afghanistan? Regardless of the bullshit that is happening in Afghanistan right now ("vote for Karzai or we'll burn your house down!"), there is no two ways about it: the Taliban had to go...

Pablo said it. Bush blew it. He did what was called for and we all supported him but he wasn't getting the results he wanted both strategically and politically so he decided to go for the target that would give him both without thinking it through, which is clear to everyone and even admitted to by them. Now, Afghanistan is quickly returning to what it was before we ever went in so we've essentially wasted all those lives and money all to place a new "mayor" in Kabul. Iraq isn't looking too much better either.

[Agrajag]

Another way to look at it is that all this wonderful decisiveness resulted in a situation virtually no one would have accepted as the result if Bush had said this is how it would all turn out.

[Bugsby]

I've said it at least once before: since when is changing positions on the war in Iraq a bad thing? Kerry supported the war in Iraq when he, along with the rest of congress, received a report from the CIA saying "Sadaam has WMD and will use them against us." When you hear something like that, you would have to be a fool not to at least allow for funding for the war. This is what Kerry did.

Now, after all that has transpired, Kerry no longer supports the war. He was misled, like everyone else who supported the war, by the bad inteligence. The difference is that when Kerry sees the new data, he stands up and says "We screwed up, we have no business in Iraq." Bush, on the other hand, sticks to the decision he made back when only poor intelligence was available and insists that he is right.

As to what Kerry plans to do in Iraq? This is my favorite passage from the debate:

Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you fix it.

Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it.

Now that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency. Soldiers know over there that this isn't being done right yet. I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror.

But I have a plan to do it. He doesn't.

He doesn't like the war in Iraq. But we broke it, so we're gonna fix it. Or at least that's what he says.


I guess the thread is kind of getting highjacked here, so, back on topic: There is nothing inherently good with decisiveness. Once a large body of evidence is compiled that points to taking a certain course of action, that action should be taken. But if there is little evidence and a leader acts out of a need to do SOMETHING, this leader's decisiveness will be more harmful then good. Bush's administration is a great example of this.

[Butterbean569]

I think that the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that being decisive, while at the same time thinking things through, can be the difference between a good outcome and a nuclear holocaust. If Kennedy had just let those ships get to Cuba, it would have been big trouble. We would have been hard pressed to get them off the island, and any attempt to do so may have been seen by the USSR as an act of war.

Be that as it may, 99.999% of the decisions a President makes doesn't require an uber quick response. If faced with both extremes, I would pick very decisive over "stick your thumb up your ass and wait"...but in more realistic terms, I would pick someone that's a little bit more cautious.

[weemadando]

I think that the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that being decisive, while at the same time thinking things through, can be the difference between a good outcome and a nuclear holocaust. If Kennedy had just let those ships get to Cuba, it would have been big trouble. We would have been hard pressed to get them off the island, and any attempt to do so may have been seen by the USSR as an act of war.

Be that as it may, 99.999% of the decisions a President makes doesn't require an uber quick response. If faced with both extremes, I would pick very decisive over "stick your thumb up your ass and wait"...but in more realistic terms, I would pick someone that's a little bit more cautious.

Yes but at the same time Khruschev walked away with a pretty decent outcome for the Soviets (establishment of back-channels, removal of missiles in Turkey and the fact that they no longer were wasting as much money on Cuba), not to mention a pretty big propaganda score in the form of the US initiating an act of war. Khruschev and the USSR played the part of the reasonable and calm nation in the worlds eyes quiet well when faced with such "imperialist aggression". Sure it was them who stirred it up in the first place, but in the end it ended up very much being a no-win for both sides, a hell of a lot better than it could have been.

Its a similar situation in Iraq, the US is technically winning. Its going to end up being a big no win situation for all involved and then there's the rather prevalent public opinion back-lash against the war.

Decisiveness has its downsides, personally I'd take a little more time, certainly not stick my thumb up my arse, but even Kennedy took nearly a week to formulate a decision based on the intel. One week with the military screaming in his ears that they're gonna be nuked any second. Thats not decisiveness, thats effective decision making.

[Agrajag]

Exactly the point. The entire week, under severe conditions and having your top military people all telling you that an attack has to happen immediately, and Kennedy still took the path that led to the right decision. Had Bush done the same thing, as Edwards said last night, he'd have found out that the intel was wrong. Of course that makes a huge assumption that he didn't already know that which I personally think he did know based on the O'Neill and Clarke books.

[HemlockGrey]

I think that the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that being decisive, while at the same time thinking things through, can be the difference between a good outcome and a nuclear holocaust. If Kennedy had just let those ships get to Cuba, it would have been big trouble. We would have been hard pressed to get them off the island, and any attempt to do so may have been seen by the USSR as an act of war.

The thing being, though, that Kennedy tempered action with prudence. He didnt go before the UN and say "Russia, bail out NOW or SAC will not turn back", unlike Bush.