<meta name='google-adsense-platform-account' content='ca-host-pub-1556223355139109'/> <meta name='google-adsense-platform-domain' content='blogspot.com'/> <!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head><body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/12357947?origin\x3dhttp://speakingofleadersblog.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Challenging the Myths of Iraq

Forty-three years ago today, on June 11, 1962, President John F. Kennedy addressed the graduating class of the Yale University. In his speech he said:

For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

At this moment in our country’s history, it is appropriate—indeed, necessary—to reflect on the wisdom of his words. Recently, the secret “Downing Street memo” has proven what many Americans long suspected and what a few former Bush administration insiders (Dick Clarke and Paul O’Neill) have been publicly saying: President Bush—contrary to pronouncements to the American public suggesting otherwise—“had made up his mind to take military action” against Iraq as early as July 2002 and then worked to make sure “the intelligence and facts were being fixed” around this controversial policy.

The president’s “deliberate, contrived and dishonest” comments about his desire to wage war deserve to be treated as “a great enemy of truth” by both Congress and the American public. However, it is not enough to simply hold President Bush accountable for his blatant disregard for the truth. We, as citizens, must also take to heart the second part of President Kennedy’s prescient advice and challenge the many myths that still shroud our policy in Iraq because they are just as insidious—if not more so—than the president’s deliberate lies.

Two myths are especially troubling. The first is that we sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein to establish a democracy in Iraq. The second is that this war is making the world and America a safer place.

To the first myth, I will accept that America is now struggling to establish a democracy in Iraq (and would go even further and acknowledge that we have a responsibility to help the Iraqi people achieve a viable form of self government); but it is sheer hypocrisy to retroactively state that it was our intention all along to establish a democracy. No amount of public posturing, patriotic speech-making or partisan spinning can free us from the fact that we invaded Iraq on the false grounds that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction.

We now know that he did not. Let us have the courage to admit it. Contrary to the opinion of some, our willingness to take a critical look at ourselves and our motives does not make us weaker, it makes us stronger.

Also, the fact that we have fought just and honorable wars in the past and “made the world safe for democracy” does not mean that this war can be made to fit within those same noble notions. As Kennedy reminds us, too “often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears.” The current war in Iraq is not comparable to World War II and it is disingenuous for supporters to suggest otherwise.

The second myth is even more dangerous and will undoubtedly cause a deal of “discomfort” among many supporters of the war who refuse to be shaken from the “comfort of their opinion” and it is the myth that this war is making the world and America more secure.

It is not.

Every time we kill an innocent man, woman or child or falsely imprison one, we gravely wound our future security by fostering an environment that breeds new enemies. And every dollar we spend prosecuting the war in Iraq is another dollar not invested in creating a brighter, more secure future for our own citizens.

Just imagine if instead of spending $200 billion to fight this unnecessary war, Bush had invested a fraction of that money to develop home-grown alternative fuels and instituted a bold energy policy to wean ourselves off of our costly addiction to foreign oil and help extricate ourselves from having to maintain such a large military presence in the Middle East.

Alternatively, imagine for a comparable investment how much more secure our ports, cities, nuclear power plants and food supplies would be from the very real dangers of a possible chemical or biological terrorist attack. Or, better still, imagine how much stronger we would be if the same amount of time, money and human capital we are now spending in Iraq were dedicated to improving our own education, health care and our transportation systems.

To paraphrase another wonderful quote from President Kennedy, it is time for all of us to start asking “what we can do for our country.” And as he reminded us more than four decades ago in his speech at Yale, one simple way we can do that is by challenging our own “comfort of opinion”—as well as those of leaders—and start engaging in the “discomfort of thought” about our current policy in Iraq.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

The Courage to Chart New Courses

Two hundred years ago tomorrow (June 2, 2005) as Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery made their way up the Missouri River, they came “to the entrance of a very considerable river.” According to all their intelligence, the river wasn’t supposed to be there. In a great understatement, Lewis noted in his journal that this fact “astonishes us a little.”

He then added “[a]n interesting question was now to be determined; which of these was the Missouri.” It was more than an interesting question. It was a question fraught with danger and it had to be correctly answered if the Corps of Discovery were to successfully cross the Rocky Mountains and reach the Pacific before winter set in. A wrong decision would have jeopardized the entire expedition.

Lewis and Clark quickly dispatched two small parties down each river in an attempt to discern which was the true Missouri. The groups returned with inconclusive evidence. Every member of the Corps—with the exceptions of the two captains who remained open-minded—felt the north fork was the Missouri. Their reasoning was simple. Up to that point the Missouri had been slow, brown and muddy and because the waters of the north fork matched these characteristics, they assumed it was the continuation of the same river.

The group’s thinking was the equivalent of someone today saying that the future is going to look like the past and therefore the surest path to success is to continue along the most similar-looking route.

After traveling down the separate forks themselves, Lewis and Clark concluded otherwise. At some point in the future they reasoned, the river must run faster, colder and clearer because of melting snows from the mountains. As such, they declared the south fork to be the true Missouri.

Their controversial decision was met with wide-spread opposition. In fact, the expedition’s most skilled boatmen and best navigator “declared it as his opinion that the [north] fork was the true genuine Missouri and could be no other.”

To Lewis and Clark’s immense credit, they stuck to their conviction and, after discussing their rationale with their team, ordered everyone down the south fork. It proved to be the right decision.

On the bicentennial of this event, it is fitting to recall the episode not just because of its historical significance to the mission’s success, but because of its relevance for today’s leaders.

As modern advances in information technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology continue their relentless—almost exponential—advances and the forces of globalization continue unabated, even the most established businesses will be presented with an increasing number of new “forks” that challenge old assumptions and represent new paradigms.

Many knowledgeable people will dismiss the notion that the future will be radically different today and confidently declared it can “be no other” way. But, like Lewis and Clark, it is the job of today’s leaders to think differently about the future, challenge conventional wisdom, and have the courage to move their organizations in bold new directions.

Jack Uldrich is the author of Into the Unknown: Leadership Lessons from Lewis and Clark’s Daring Westward Expedition (AMACOM, 2004) and The Next Big Thing is Really: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business (Random House, 2003)