As has probably been noticed: I am NOT a war blogger. This is not because I don't have any opinions, but because I feel just as confused as most other people probably are, and I prefer to keep to topics that I can convince myself I know something about. However a mail I received from my son in the UK today has prompted the following from the 'out of the mouths of babes and children department'. My son, who is a medic currently studying administration of health systems is puzzled. He thinks he understands all of the arguments, but can't convince himself that either individually or collectively they explain why there is a war. Today he sent me the following which he found in his course study notes:
"too many facts can be undesirable in a vision. For example, consider the visions of Reagan and Clinton. Reagan called for military strength in the form of first-strike capabilities and the capability to prevent a first strike by others to "keep America great", paid for by 'getting government off the backs of people'.
People were eased into the cost of vague military programmes by the promise of cuts in government spending. In contrast, Clinton articulated health care reform as 'universal coverage'. This added level of specificity allowed the critics to make estimates of cost, feasibility, and what they stood to gain or lose, prompting a debate about the merits of the vision before its details could be sorted out. Reagans vision was vague in details, which kept critics at bay as these details were worked out. These examples suggest that visions with too much detail will be prematurely evaluated, which is apt to lead to failure."
You know, I think he may be right. But as he also points out, recognising this still doesn't tell you whether the war is right or wrong. It's just informative about the political process and what decision strategies may be deployed.
No comments:
Post a Comment