The Perils of Dogmatism and Delegated Decision-Making, Iraq War As An Example

[Mesopotamian]

I’ve been thinking a lot about dogmatism lately and how it impacts decision-making processes. When we talk about dogmatism, we're often referring to a rigid adherence to one's beliefs, but there's another crucial aspect: delegating decisions to others, sometimes more competent, but often not, because those initially in charge lack the wisdom or knowledge to manage the situation effectively.

Dogmatism means sticking to an opinion influenced by one's limited understanding and refusing to engage with the complexity of a situation. This refusal often results in the easy way out: passing the responsibility of decision-making to others. But let's not forget why this delegation happens in the first place—those who were supposed to lead didn't have enough insight or the right information to make sound decisions themselves.

A Historical Example: Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi War

Take Saddam Hussein's actions leading up to the Iraqi War as an example. His dogmatic stance and refusal to acknowledge the geopolitical complexities surrounding Iraq and its vast oil reserves led to catastrophic consequences. He isolated himself from the international community, resisted understanding the full scope of the situation, and ultimately made poor decisions based on his limited perspective.

When the international coalition decided to intervene, it wasn't just a matter of external forces imposing their will; it was also a direct result of Hussein's inability to navigate the complexities of his own position. His rigid approach left him disconnected from reality, and he delegated the resolution of his problems to external forces—forces that ultimately had their own interests and agendas.

Hussein believed his people would rally to his defense, ignoring their exhaustion from years of conflict and economic hardship. His dogmatism led to the delegation of the future of Iraq to international powers, which resulted in a swift military intervention and the eventual collapse of his regime.

The Core Issue: Lack of Wisdom and Knowledge

Dogmatism, at its core, often stems from a lack of wisdom and understanding. Leaders and individuals who are dogmatic are not just stubborn; they are often unaware of their own limitations. They resist learning and growing, preferring to stick to what they know—even if it's insufficient. When such leaders face complex situations, their inability to adapt and make informed decisions forces them to rely on others to clean up their mess.

In many cases, the people who end up making the decisions might be more competent, but that's not always guaranteed. Sometimes, those who take over are just as ill-equipped, if not more so, leading to even worse outcomes. This cycle perpetuates poor decision-making and can have devastating effects on entire nations and communities.

Reality Goes On: Assigning Blame

It's important to understand that reality progresses regardless of our actions or inactions. Often, we focus on blaming those who intervene, sometimes labeling them as criminals, while rarely holding accountable those who failed to manage the situation well from the beginning. Saddam Hussein's regime is a case in point. While the coalition forces' actions are frequently scrutinized and criticized, the initial mismanagement and dogmatism of Hussein himself are less often the focal point of blame.

By not addressing the root causes and the initial poor decision-making, we fail to learn from these historical events. It's crucial to recognize the responsibility of those in charge from the start and understand that their dogmatism can lead to situations where external intervention becomes inevitable.

 Managing Our Lives with Wisdom

This brings me to a broader and more personal point: we need to start managing our lives with wisdom. Understanding human psychology and power dynamics is essential, not just for global leaders but for each of us in our daily lives. It's astonishing how much time people can spend discussing world events that are happening thousands of miles away while failing to address and fix issues within their own family circles.

Gaining insight into the people we live with and building a closer circle of understanding and effective communication is vital. We often overlook the importance of managing personal relationships with the same diligence and insight that we might apply to understanding larger, global issues. By improving our understanding of human psychology and power dynamics, we can create healthier, more functional relationships and communities.

Taking Responsibility for Our Situations

If we find ourselves in a difficult situation, it often means we haven't made good decisions in the past. More likely than not, we’ve delegated our decisions to others, who may not have our best interests at heart. Others won't care about us as much as we care about ourselves, and their decisions might not benefit us in the long run. Recognizing this can help us take back control and make wiser, more informed decisions for our futures.

[gambler]

I don't think Saddam's problem stemmed from being a dogmatic person. He was a psychopath who wanted to be worshipped as a God. Is there any chance you might be mistaking incompetence and detachment for dogma? While it could be seen as him being rigid, it's probably that he was just incompetent due to being outdated and detached from reality in part because of his delusions of grandeur. He was more a delusional person rather than a dogmatic person. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:32 AM by gambler

[Mesopotamian]

@gambler

I see that you're trying to make a distinction between being dogmatic and being delusional, but I feel the two comes together, and how it works is that you could be a dogmatic person to start with, then people start lying to your face because they fear you or they have an interest that you can achieve for them right? and then you start believing what they say and become delusional.

what do you think?

[gambler]

1 hour ago, Mesopotamian said:

@gambler

I see that you're trying to make a distinction between being dogmatic and being delusional, but I feel the two comes together, and how it works is that you could be a dogmatic person to start with, then people start lying to your face because they fear you or they have an interest that you can achieve for them right? and then you start believing what they say and become delusional.

what do you think?

True, a person stuck in dogma is delusional. I guess when I think of dogma, I think of deeply held principles that can be, but not always, associated with anxiety if challenged. I don't know that if Saddam was truly challenged that he would feel anxiety from the thought that his assumptions are in fact false. I think rather than operating from a set of principles, he was just operating from a false belief of his own greatness or skills. I don't know. This is how I interpret language and use of words. Maybe I'm wrong. And I could also be wrong about Saddam too. 

Edited Wednesday at 08:08 AM by gambler

[Danioover9000]

@gambler

17 hours ago, gambler said:

I don't think Saddam's problem stemmed from being a dogmatic person. He was a psychopath who wanted to be worshipped as a God. Is there any chance you might be mistaking incompetence and detachment for dogma? While it could be seen as him being rigid, it's probably that he was just incompetent due to being outdated and detached from reality in part because of his delusions of grandeur. He was more a delusional person rather than a dogmatic person. 

   No, Saddam was the right leader for Iraq at that time. Main reason why the Iraq war even started was because 9/11 was blamed mostly onto him, and A.I.P.A.C members were pressuring Bush to go at Saddam in Israel's interests.

   Not only that, but the new military doctrine was also being implemented, the shock and awe, which is mostly different from previous doctrine. Had the USA followed the previous doctrine they would've managed the fallout far more easier than when they abandoned traditional military strategy for fancy high tech fast invade, kill the snake at the head, and...oh shit we don't have enough military personnel to impose martial law, so we'll just let the locals sort themselves out with their new 'democracy' government', made by America, forced by America!

   You can say a lot of negative things about Saddam, but he's actually a strong leader, fit for his time. That's the kind of leader Iraq then needed most, not some flimsy American patented democrat poppet at the ruler's office. Iraq war was IMO a cluster fuck of mistakes that never should've happened like it did!