By Mimikatz
Ron Suskind's new book, "The One Percent Doctrine", refers to Dick Cheney's belief that if an event has a one percent probability of happening, it should be treated as a certainty and our response should be tailored accordingly. The insight comes when Cheney and others are confronted with evidence, in October, 2001, of a meeting around a campfire among Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and two Pakistani nuclear scientists. What are they discussing? Panic ensues.
"If there's a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response," Cheney said. He paused to assess his declaration. "It's not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence," he aded. "It's about our response."
This "doctrine" then governs America's response to numerous threats and situations. But as Tristero at Digby's blog points out, it was in evidence before 9/11, in Cheney's belief that if there was a "one percent chance" that Saddam had a program to acquire nuclear weapons, then we had to act as if that was a certainty and take him out. Even before 9/11, as to Saddam it was never about "our analysis, or finding a preponderance of the evidence," but about our response.
Tristero also points out the obvious corollary to the Cheney doctrine--if you are always focused on the remote but devastating possibility, you are not focused in the more probable and perhaps equally devastating events, such as, in the summer of 2001, "Bin Laden determined to strike in United States" or, "Hurricane forecast to attack New Orleans." Or port security.
The salient characteristic of this purported "doctrine" is that it concentrates entirely on the response, and not on "analysis" or "evidence," both things Suskind shows over and over Cheney and Bush, for different reasons, utterly disdain. Consequently, when it comes to the case for war, it was never about the evidence. In fact, according to Suskind Bush went to the UN as a favor to Tony Blair. Cheney and Rumsfeld did not want to bother. That is why there was such a haphazard, thrown together quality about the presentation--they never expected to have to be making such a case. Scooter Libby explained to Powell that, Suskind says, "his presentation was not meant to be an explanation, a balanced disquisition, so much as 'an argument a lawyer might give in a courtroom.' Of course, without the benefit of opposing counsel."
The Cheney doctrine is thus obviously and significantly flawed. In fact, it may be deeply pathological.
One of the things that is clear about Cheney is that he is deeply pessimistic, concerned about American power, and, in common parlance, a control freak. He also has disasterous judgment. In addition, he is convinced that only he sees the world for what it is, unflinchingly, and thus only he has the ability to make the hard decisions necessary to ensure our survival. He and Rumsfeld both share a preference for strong executive power as unfettered as possible, and they played to Bush's self-image to assert that control.
The tendency to focus on certain threats and ignore those which do not as easily advance the desire for centralized control to meet external enemies is apparent in the execution of the Cheney doctine. The refusal to adjust on the basis of new information is also apparent, one of the hallmarks of the authoritarian personality, the subject of John Dean's new book and this post. For example, it is increasingly clear in the book that torture does not produce reliable intelligence, quite the contrary, but that traditional methods of cajolement and induced familarity do. Yet there is no effort to replace one with the other. Rather, Cheney and his ilk come to believe that torture will soften up prisoners for more traditional questioning. The more control slips away, the more desperate such a person becomes to reassert control.
It is apparent throughout that Tenet and/or his deputies were primary contributors to the book, which ends after the 2004 election, when they have been replaced by Porter Goss and the Gosslings, and intelligence networks and personal relationships Tenet fostered are completely breaking down. Their stories would fill a second post.
It seems apparent that today there is a struggle for control of Bush and foreign policy, with Cheney on one side (with the diminishing Rumsfeld) and Rice on the other. Iran is clearly the arena for this struggle. (A view Emptywheel has also articulated here.) There is talk of sending Condi to the Middle East, the kind of role Cheney is obviously ill-suited for in many, many respects. Still, one should never count Cheney out, as he (along with Rumsfeld), is one of the most ruthless and accomplished in-fighters of the past 40 years.
This doesn't strike me as a doctrine so much as a lowering the evidentiary bar in a particular instance, where Cheney really, really wanted to go to war. A result oriented inquiry you might say.
You could make the case that there's a one percent chance of attack on U.S. interests, or nuclear proliferation spread by, any number of countries Cheney is friendly with. Israel or Egypt, for instance.
That no attempt is even made to assess -- let alone act on -- such "threats" makes me think that Cheney is dressing up plain old intellectual dishonesty in the guise of a "doctrine."
Posted by: kaleidescope | July 17, 2006 at 14:53
1% Doctrine has nothing to do with evidence or lowering the bar or danger to the U.S. or anything at all other than looking for fancy words to call the invasion of Iraq, which they had a hard on for forever. It's a simple as that.
The book is fascinating, not for its title and what that might imply if you took it seriously, but rather for the details of how Iraq actually unfolded. We already knew everything that's in the book, we just didn't know all the jots & tittles. Those are well worth knowing so as to recognize them when they come up again.
Not to leave a comment without substance. . .
People have considered what the reasonable way to handle low probability-high consequence events might be. I am familiar with a recent book by Richard Posner, called Catastrophe. I've scanned it, not read it (it's dense and I'm caught up with Dean, Suskind, etc). It seems to suggest a kind of cost-benefit assessment. While the probability is low, the costs can be enormous, as 9/11 illustrated. Thus the product of the two suggest taking reasonable measures to avert the catastrophe.
On another site's comment section, someone pointed out to me not to give Posner too much credit as apparently the history of this approach is long and venerable.
So, as usual, Shooter did not have to invent a "new doctrine," as there is plenty of good analysis to go on. But True Believers disdain reason, so it would never be.
Posted by: eCAHNomics | July 17, 2006 at 15:13
Well, the collapse of the dikes in New Orleans had a hell of a lot more than a 1% probability of happening, and the Cheney administration didn't give a rat's ass about it.
Posted by: global yokel | July 17, 2006 at 15:21
The fact that they ignored high probability-high intensity events like New Orleans substantiates what I and others have said--the "doctrine" looks at external threats and at the goal of maximizing executive power. Natural disasters may be an occasion for executive power, but they aren't about external threats, so they somehow don't count.
Suskind does describe Cheney et al. in a panic at various points after 9/11, including the moment when Cheney comes up with the 1% idea. It seems to me more like a control freak latching on to a piece of floating debris so that he can refocus on what it is that he wants to do--invade Iraq to stabilize the ME and make oil safe for America. But he has a staggeringly bad track record of poor judgments, as described in the Josh Marshall article I linked to, and confirmed by virtually everything that has happened in the 3 1/2 years since he wrote it. Cheney's disdain of analysis and facts is no doubt the primnary reason, because he is constantly acting from bad facts--he really doesn't see the world clearly, not at all. He sees it darkly, through the prism of his own pessimism.
Posted by: Mimikatz | July 17, 2006 at 15:54
Here is another passage from the book, apropos of the debate about the "newsworthiness" of Bush's unscripted comments at the G-8 lunch:
Thisis by way of explaning why Tenet let Rice pin the blame on him for the 16 words in the State of the Union, after he had briefed her fully in a middle-of-the-night call she placed to him from Africa.Posted by: Mimikatz | July 17, 2006 at 16:07
What is the logic behind the 1% doctrine?
The logic is that ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER can be taken and then justified by the "one percent chance" that the actions could have been necessary, when they later turn out to be in error.
Invading Iraq is an ideal case in point.
It is the ultimate extension of the concept of it being easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for (and receive) permission beforehand.
Posted by: ArtShu | July 18, 2006 at 23:59
Foreign pharmacy is the perfect resource for people to get their drugs without any hassles or awkwardness. We work hard to make sure you save money every time you shop with us. At our online store, you pay less and get more.
Alergies drugs online:
Anti Depressants drugs online:
Anti-convulsants drugs online:
Order Tamiflu foreign pharmacy
Order Arava foreign pharmacy
Order Singulair foreign pharmacy
Asthma drugs online
Cancer drugs online
Order Nolvadex foreign pharmacy
Order Imitrex foreign pharmacy
Order Lasix foreign pharmacy
Order Synthroid foreign pharmacy
Antibiotics drugs online
Blood pressure drugs online
Cholesterol drugs online
Diabetes drugs online:
Gastrointernal drugs online:
Heartburn drugs online:
Order Aciphex foreign pharmacy
Order Nexium foreign pharmacy
Order Prevacid foreign pharmacy
Order Prilosec foreign pharmacy
Hypertension drugs online:
Muscle relaxant drugs online:
Pain relief drugs online:
Skin Care drugs online:
Stop Smoking drugs online:
Weight loss drugs online:
Womens health drugs online:
Mens health drugs online:
Herbal natural drugs online:
Buying prescription and natural drugs online has never been easier!
Posted by: Foreign pharmacy | September 13, 2007 at 07:42
password for myfreepaysite
Posted by: Victor | September 28, 2007 at 09:48
Free prescription FedEx overnight shipping pills
Posted by: Atarax pills skin care pills overnight shipping free prescription | November 07, 2007 at 14:44
Free prescription FedEx overnight shipping pills
Posted by: Clarinex pills allergies pills overnight shipping free prescription | November 14, 2007 at 23:22
Free prescription FedEx overnight shipping pills
Posted by: Clarinex pills allergies pills overnight shipping free prescription | November 15, 2007 at 13:23
tramdaol
Posted by: Bob | November 21, 2007 at 14:02
celerbex
fioricrt
xcenical
ambiden
celebr5ex
ambienb
dcelebrex
fiorice6
fio5icet
xenicfal
ambkien
Posted by: Unison | December 02, 2007 at 19:29
http://inttostr.5gbfree.com/?q=myfreepaysite&id=77514&f=4 myfreepaysite
http://pipo.joolo.com/?q=myfreepaysite&id=77514&f=4 myfreepaysite
Posted by: Oktavian | December 07, 2007 at 06:10
130678
Posted by: Qwest | January 23, 2008 at 19:29
Money and benefits have to be [url=http://www.incestparty.t35.com]incest[/url] competitive, of course,
but the deciding factor for many employees is morale [url=http://www.www.incestparty.t35.com/incest_video]incest video[/url]
incest video incest
Posted by: Michael | February 12, 2008 at 10:14
Hi all. Cool site zawermash Google
Thank.
Posted by: paby | February 14, 2008 at 02:55