When a collective of individuals come together to reach a consensus at all costs, according to Irving Janis, groupthink occurs. The striving for group unanimity overlooks and undermines the ability or motivation to realistically seek out alternative means of action. Examples of groupthink in recent history include such incidences as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986, the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1962, and the Vietnam War in 1964. A more recent occurrence of groupthink started (officially) in 2000 when the Bush Administration began initialling efforts to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.
The first indication that groupthink is happening is the illusion of invulnerability. This is when a public, or private (amongst core members) presentation is made in which a plan appears to be foolproof. It appears nothing cannot go wrong in the methods needed to be taken, and that it is clear that victory is certain. Such a technique was spread throughout the public by the administration by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who promised the invading American troops would be “welcome[d]... with chocolates and flowers.” (Wolfowitz 2003) When the Pentagon came out with the war plan titled “Shock and Awe”, little was left to the imagination as to how easily this war would be won. Harlan Ullman, a “defense intellectualist” coined that phrase along with “rapid dominance” to refer to ways of winning a war. These methods of winning the war were adopted by Colin Powell (a former student of Ullman’s) & the Pentagon as a means to easily overtake Iraq. As they presented to the public through the complicit televised and newspapers, the war was going to be an easy, fast, and strong victory for America, and for “freedom”.
Another characteristic of groupthink is an unquestioned belief in the group’s morality. One doesn’t have to look very far nor deep to find that in the administration. When Bush spoke in his 2002 State of the Union address and labeled Iraq, North Korea, and Iran, “an axis of evil” (Bush, 2002), he wasn’t just referring to the opposite of good. Bush’s own Christian faith leads him to believe they are evil in a deeper, theological sense. The strong fundamentalism of this administration can easily be can be seen in the bills proposed and the laws signed by the president. Presented as an “evil-doer”, Saddam Hussein was working not for God & for goodness, but a darker side of pure evil. On a less philosophical level, but perhaps even more intense, any outspoken opposition to the war was simply labeled as “soft on terror.” When George Bush claimed “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Bush 2002), this went far beyond the idea of nationalism, and he accused and had the power to declare any dissenters as possible enemy combatants.
As the steps of groupthink proceed, the members become more and more closed-minded. The rationalization of actions is the next characteristic in groupthink. Whether it was based on faulty, forged, or unconfirmable information, the Bush administration continued over the course of months to speak out against Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s intense seeking, development, or hiding of various weapons of mass destruction. As each story which came out was eventually discredited (Niger’s yellow cake of uranium, hidden weapons in a rose garden) the administration scoffed at the idea that they were in the wrong. The story presented was that Hussein wasn’t being honest, wasn’t allowing inspections to proceed, (at this point at least three inspectors have come out against the notion that WMDs exist in Iraq. One of them, Scott Ritter, spoke out as early as the Clinton years.) that he was hiding something that would be found once troops came in. Still to this date, George Bush claims he’s waiting to see what is found regarding WMDs in the country.
A stereotyped view of your opponent is another way groupthink works within an organization. Saddam Hussein was presented to the public as an evil dictator of oppressed people who, once he was removed from power, would welcome the troops and the freedom of democracy. Using the loaded language of “terrorist”, the administration proclaimed Hussein was associated with terrorist organizations and possibly with allowing training camps to exist in Iraq. Even though this was never discovered, the talk quickly switched over to say that “he could have provided resources to terrorist if we didn’t invade.”
Conformity pressure occurs as a way to keep all members within the group in order. A clear example of the need to conform comes from the recent release of books by Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, and Bob Woodward. All cite examples of administrations strict policy on keeping a tightly run business. From in-house tactics which include preparing early in the day with certain talking points and phrases to keep the media (as lacking as they are) flat and homogenized. When attempting to sell the war, certain phrases were said by all major players in the administration & were reinforced through the media’s complicitness by lacking investigative journalistic qualities and playing the role of the White House mouthpiece. Internationally, the pressure to confirm came clearly when the opposition to the war came from several powerful nations. When France spoke out against not allowing more inspector time in Iraq, America went on a smear campaign against them and their “culture” (french fries retitled freedom fries on Air Force One,) The American people were told by Donald Rumsfeld that France and Germany were both a “problem” and then referred to them as “old Europe”, as opposed to the new Europe which supported US actions(Rumsfeld 2003). This pressure continued and developed into punishment when, post invasion, contracts to rebuild Iraq were offered only to those who helped in destroying the country.
Self-censorship, the quieting of dissent or disagreement as a means of creating an illusion of unanimity are two more parts of both groupthink and the Bush administration’s attempt to keep their eyes on the missiles and their minds on the oil. Reading Ken Auletta’s “Fortress Bush”, an excellent New Yorker article about the administration’s firm censorship from the press, it becomes clear that by keeping a strong distance from the press, the Bush administration keeps leaks, gossip, and even truth from escaping. Doing this makes them not only the most secretive administration of all time, but also creates the impression of unanimity. When officials leave, does truth reveal itself, as seem in both Clarke and O’Neill’s books.
The last characteristic of groupthink is the development of mindguards, protective members who keep contradictory information out of sight. The televised media, especially Fox News, can be called mindguards as they don’t broadcast any dissenting views or destructive information counterproductive to the war. Richard Clarke’s now famous memo from August 6th, 2001, which was labeled a “historical document” which proclaimed a terror attack was due to happen involving hijacking and terrorism, was kept out of the public eye until recently, and is still dismissed as nothing which could have prevented the attacks. This similar type of mindset carried over into the dealings with Iraq, both prior, and during the war. Information which proved that the Bush administration’s accusations were incorrect became ignored. Even post September eleventh, when both Donald Rumsfeld & Condoleezza Rice attempted to dig up connections between the attack and Iraq, it was evident that the administration had goals of war by any means necessary. When the media sits still during all of this and doesn’t challenge any of the tactics or false proclamations coming out of Washington, they too set a buffer up so that the rest of us are no longer given any ideas as to what is going on.
Under a frenzy of nationalism, we were sold a war (2 wars in fact) and allowed them to occur, even as the “proof” & “evidence” dissolved over time. The powers of this example of groupthink which started back in the Project for a New American Century in the 90’s, came to power in 2000 and were relentless in accomplishing their mission. Now, as we look and hear reports from the battlefield, (with a more critical ear than ever), we must question where we are being taken, where others are being led, and more importantly, why it had to happen this way. The Bush administration was set on invading Iraq, removing their leader, and providing “democracy” to the people. By not thinking that when Hussien was removed, there would be troubles with troop’s aggressiveness, corporate invasion of land and resources, and a strong resistance to an illegal occupation, the administration displayed the most recent and most deadly example of groupthink.
Sources:
Dodge, Toby 11/13/03. “Inventing Iraq: A Failed Experiment in Nation Building” http://www.lawac.org/speech/dodge%202004.htm
Chernus, Ira. 1/27/03. “Shock & Awe: Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?” http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0127-08.htm
Bush, George. 2002. “State of the union speech”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html
Auletta, Ken. 2003. “Fortress Bush”
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040119fa_fact2
Goodman, Amy. 2004. The Exceptions to the Rulers-Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, & the Media That Love Them. Hyperion Books: New York
Posted by craig at May 5, 2004 01:40 PM