![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've written surprisingly little about the war and my opinion of what happened there. In fact I am constantly surprised, given the strenght of my political views, how rarely I espouse them here. I guess it's only rarely that I feel like starting a political debate, although I like to join in if there's one going on.
Anyway, we (me, my boss and my bosses' boss*) were talking about it in the car on the way home from Milton Keynes and I think I might have remembered what I said that Niall thought was perceptive.
I do believe that Tony Blair believed what he said about Iraq. What he said might have been un-true but there was no intent to decieve. And that's where the problem lies. Tony wanted to attack Iraq. I can only think that George filled his head with ideas of himself as the valiant knight, the brave liberator who helped to usher in a new era of Middle East democracy. God knows, things in Iraq weren't great. So, they look at the evidence and to be frank it's not there. But Tony wants it to be. And so he convinces himself that it is. That the word of one unreliable person with their own reasons for putting Saddam out of the way is enough to prove that Saddam is ready to shoot nukes at us right now. And this is not just the benefit of hind-sight. Apart from the fact that the enquiries have show the evidence wasn't there, it wasn't that long ago. I remember when I was standing in the street protesting because even I could see that the evidence wasn't there.
It's something you see all the time in decision making. You know the decision you want to arrive at and then you pick out the facts that support what you want and any that don't you ignore or decide are false or whatever. And you convince yourself. They might have been using Reason 2.0 (or possibly even an earlier version), as described by Douglas Adams in Dirk Gentlys Holistic Detective Agency.
The thing is, that is something that I find extremely worrying in a Prime Minister - certainly much more so than lying. After all, all politicians lie all the time. Unfortunatly, what we've seen is that Tony's judgement can't be relied upon. Who knows when this will happen again. What is he going to want to believe next? Are we throwing away perfectly good options for running our services because Tony believes in the path we're on? It's a fatal flaw.
* Calling grammer nazis: What is the correct form here? Everything I try (bosses boss, boss' boss, bosses' boss) looks wrong.
Anyway, we (me, my boss and my bosses' boss*) were talking about it in the car on the way home from Milton Keynes and I think I might have remembered what I said that Niall thought was perceptive.
I do believe that Tony Blair believed what he said about Iraq. What he said might have been un-true but there was no intent to decieve. And that's where the problem lies. Tony wanted to attack Iraq. I can only think that George filled his head with ideas of himself as the valiant knight, the brave liberator who helped to usher in a new era of Middle East democracy. God knows, things in Iraq weren't great. So, they look at the evidence and to be frank it's not there. But Tony wants it to be. And so he convinces himself that it is. That the word of one unreliable person with their own reasons for putting Saddam out of the way is enough to prove that Saddam is ready to shoot nukes at us right now. And this is not just the benefit of hind-sight. Apart from the fact that the enquiries have show the evidence wasn't there, it wasn't that long ago. I remember when I was standing in the street protesting because even I could see that the evidence wasn't there.
It's something you see all the time in decision making. You know the decision you want to arrive at and then you pick out the facts that support what you want and any that don't you ignore or decide are false or whatever. And you convince yourself. They might have been using Reason 2.0 (or possibly even an earlier version), as described by Douglas Adams in Dirk Gentlys Holistic Detective Agency.
The thing is, that is something that I find extremely worrying in a Prime Minister - certainly much more so than lying. After all, all politicians lie all the time. Unfortunatly, what we've seen is that Tony's judgement can't be relied upon. Who knows when this will happen again. What is he going to want to believe next? Are we throwing away perfectly good options for running our services because Tony believes in the path we're on? It's a fatal flaw.
* Calling grammer nazis: What is the correct form here? Everything I try (bosses boss, boss' boss, bosses' boss) looks wrong.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: July 30th, 2004 09:25 am (UTC)From:This is incredibly common in research, too. Scary, isn't it.
no subject
Date: July 30th, 2004 09:31 am (UTC)From:Boss's boss is correct here. "Bosses boss" is all wrong (many bosses one boss), "bosses' boss" implies you have many bosses who have one boss, and boss' boss is arguably correct (perhaps in British English?) but the apostrophe s is generally used unless it's a plural s (i.e. bosses' boss is correct if you mean many bosses, but it's boss's boss if you mean your singular boss has a boss).
And boss is starting to look made up, so I'm going to stop typing it!
no subject
Date: July 30th, 2004 09:44 am (UTC)From:try calling grammar nazis, as then they might reply.
I quite agree
Date: July 30th, 2004 09:48 am (UTC)From:I know there was the inquiry and all that, but that doesn't give enough context to what people are muttering and yelling in the streets and pubs.
----
To the issue of having a desired outcome and then searching the world for the information that supports it - I feel this is common practice. That is 'guidance' and even 'leadership.' This is where we get into the grey area of strategic goals vs. open inquiry. Working in government as I do, I have to admit to some ambivalence about this matter, since these tools have their uses for the public good.
Perhaps the problem is the confusing conflation of these two worlds, and thereby using inappropriate tools for the goals of an no-expectation inquiry. Moreover, considering the insanely difficult task of making the latter work with a belligerent Saddam, I think Hans Blix deserves even more praise and recognition.
Re: I quite agree
Date: July 30th, 2004 02:42 pm (UTC)From:I do agree that Hans Bliks is about the only person who comes out of the whole thing with honour.
no subject
Date: July 30th, 2004 09:59 am (UTC)From:Yep. That was it. :-/
no subject
Date: July 30th, 2004 11:33 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: July 30th, 2004 02:45 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: July 30th, 2004 03:06 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: July 31st, 2004 01:13 am (UTC)From:Maybe I've been watching/listening to too much Dead Ringers, but there's something fanatical about his eyes - too much sincerity, maybe? I suspect that New Labour policy at the moment is decided less by ideology than by Tony - certainly there's no clear line of thought behind it (mutters about how a government can simultaneously demand 6% increases in local government service provision and insist that council tax rises should be kept around the 3% mark).
For the record, I've always distrusted charismatic leaders...