Lies or group think?

I, along with other folks, have attributed the deceptions coming out of the Bush Administration as deliberate lies. Whether that has to do with policies, the "war on terrorism," reasons for invading Iraq, etc. It seems this administration just can't tell the truth. It also seems that this group is focused on silencing, secrecy and revenge. But is this possibly a function of some different phenomenon entirely? Group think for example? Let me preface this discussion by stating that I am in no way trying to legitimate, or reduce the culpability of this group for their actions.

The reason I suggest this possibility (even though I am not convinced it is true) is an article in the NY Times by Jeff Gerth (10/05/03) - Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil . Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Administration (including the major planners of the invasion and post invasion - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al), had in hand a Pentagon-based task force report about the weakness of Iraq's oil infrastructure. The reported higlighted the reality that Iraq's oil production was diminished, and increased production a long time in coming. However, the response to questions about the cost of reconstruction always stated that much of it would be financed through Iraq's own oil.

This assertion goes along with assertions about the level of threat Hussein posed, weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism - especially al Qaeda, etc. All things which were and are unproven or outright fabrications. We have the complaints out of the Intelligence community and the Pentagon that there was pressure to find the evidence to support the claims; pressures to present information in specific ways. All of this seems so deliberate that one can't help thinking that it is intentional.

But there is something else we know about the inner circle of the Bush Administration. They belong to a highly conservative (and fundamentalist) clique on the whole. Many have interacted at the highest levels in this clique (and in politics) for a very long period of time. They are insular. That means that they largely communicate primarily with each other, assign projects to their appointees and go outside the framework of their agencies (DoD for example) to get the reports they want. They listen primarily to each other and they share a world view and agenda. Some have referred to this structure in the current administration as a secret government.

But if we step back, another possibility emerges. Not a group characterized by liars, but a group engaged in group think. Indeed, we might almost characterize this group (and their extra-governmental associations) as a cult, or secret society. The information with which they make decisions filters through a very narrow lens of belief and intent. Their intense insularity reinforces their perceptions and beliefs about what is real.

Within the framework of this is also a shared perspective of the position and role of the US in the world, how that should be attained and maintained, and the creation of a global theocracy reinforced by the full military and economic hegemony of a their vision of the US.

There is a zealotry that is openly held by various members of this group, and promoted as making them the adjudicators of morality and right. They feel it is their mission to lead the uninformed and unwashed to the "new world." They feel that they are the superiors of all. They have a strict hierarchy which dictates that their actions should unquestioned, and blind obedience is mandatory. Opposition to this view and approach are dealt with harshly. "You are with us or against us" period. No debate, no conversation.

Within this framework, they may feel fully justified in taking actions that are immoral, illegal, and deadly because the fulfullment of "the plan" takes preeminence. We may be seeing an a disasterous example of "the end justifies the means." These are "God's soldiers." In fact, they may see themselves as "God's Generals."

It is a frightening scenario. At least as frightening as a group engaging in a conspiracy to highjack the country, and the world. In this scenario, they truly believe their own rhetoric, AND they are willing to lie and deceive and kill to fulfill the "higher purpose."

The outcomes are obviously similar whether one thinks this is a cabal with a higher purpose, or a cabal with the intent of furthering their own self interest. The problem is that in pushing the "moral authority" of neo-fundamentalist Christianity, they pull upon the values and legitimations of Christianity in the US - God is on our side. This garners a high level of emotional support which translates into both political and popular support for the agenda. If instead, they are a self-interested cabal, that is, at the very least, distasteful to most in the US and undermines moral, political and public support. If they are shown as a self-interested cabal focused on a long term strategy of power and domination, and pandering Christian values support to further their control, that might also boomerang on them.

Why bother to even look at these different issues? Well, how one reaches and influences the different populations supporting the administration changes depending on which perception is held. The groups who agree with the religious higher calling may overlap with, but are different from, the "patriotic" America First folks. And both of those groups may be very different from those who are led along by rhetoric and misdirection in the name of democracy.

Posted by rowan at October 7, 2003 10:49 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |