Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Syndrome
In his book, “The Best and the Brightest,” David Halberstam offers up an incredibly insightful point of view on why we spent so long in Vietnam despite the early warning signs of failure. “When you’re deciding whether to intervene militarily, you can count on the generals to tell you everything that can go awry and stress the negative part of the picture, but once they’re invested, once it’s their job to create a good outcome through military means, it’s going to be all happy talk. They’re not going to report that they’re failing. They will give you the sunnier side of what’s happening.”
I’m confident that most of you will recognize this scenario, having seen it play out across corporate America, sports, entertainment, etc. However, what I believe goes unstated is that failure means something different in the arena of war than it does in business & sports. To acknowledge mistakes & failures in war is to acknowledge errors that may have led to death & unspeakable destruction that has touched countless lives. Human beings are not built to grapple with such guilt. It’s why solutions rarely appear in the immediate aftermath of a mistake, instead taking several years for people to come to terms with what went wrong. Its not a personal failing its a human one, which is why we need to shift the way in which we report & govern decisions related to military strategy.
To make this more real, I want to draw on an example from a 2021 NYT investigative report on US Drone Strikes in the Middle East to clarify this. While the article makes numerous points worth considering, two things are relevant to the topic at hand. Firstly, the rationale behind the guidelines for strikes, which allow for collateral damage, seems less about ensuring rigorous review and more about offering psychological comfort to decision-makers, rationalizing civilian losses for a perceived greater good. Secondly, despite the Pentagon’s detailed data on collateral damage, there was a notable lack of integration of this information into refining operational guidelines and planning future missions. Though shocking, this is hardly surprising.
Put yourself in the Pentagon’s shoes, and consider being in a position where your decision led to unintended deaths. The weight of that guilt and horror could be paralyzing. Now, imagine yourself in the shoes of leaders who made larger-scale decisions, like the setup of internment camps or initiated invasions and regime changes, only to see them spiral into more chaos and death. If you think managing drone strikes gone wrong is tough, imagine facing the aftermath of large-scale military actions gone wrong. It would be much easier to double down on the declared strategy to find a win that would justify the whole endeavor. We saw such a scenario play out in dealing with the aftermath of the internment of the Japanese during WW2.
It was recognized relatively early on that the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a gross violation of human rights & civil liberties. Yet, it took until 1988 for an official apology to be issued by the U.S. government. While I’m sure some readers may see this as a character flaw on behalf of the US, I would argue this is a broader human failing. To recognize such mistakes often requires immense character that is not easily found or rewarded, as can be reviewing the end of Oppenheimer’s career.
For those unfamiliar with the film’s depiction, J. Robert Oppenheimer, after experiencing the devastating impact of nuclear weapons during the Manhattan Project, swiftly and assertively spoke out against further atomic development, foreseeing the dangers of a nuclear arms race. His position provoked harsh consequences, including allegations of being a communist, highlighting the profound challenge of questioning deep-seated convictions and acknowledging possible errors in judgment regarding the dire implications of his warnings. Oppenheimer argued that by enhancing its nuclear arsenal, the U.S. was inadvertently escalating a conflict that could result in millions of deaths rather than preventing them. This notion was problematic for many to accept, especially those who firmly believed their actions were justified as protection against a genuine threat, such as the Soviet Union at the time. Accepting such sobering realities is often met not with understanding and humility but with hostility and retaliation.
While progress has been made, as seen in the European Union’s peaceful era post-centuries of conflict and the cautious approach of the U.S. towards military involvement in Ukraine and Israel, there remains a prevalent issue in our political landscape where accountability for decision-making is often avoided, and leaders are penalized for admitting errors rather than rectifying them. This piece highlights that these challenges are systemic, transcending individual leaders or groups.
In the second part, I will explore strategies to address these systemic issues, fostering a culture that values accountability and improvement over denial and defensiveness.
