The fact that we are mired in yet another war we don’t seem capable of winning (in Iraq) is not lost on the writers and readers here. There are numerous diaries and front page stories every day about Iraq, either in terms of how many people died today, or which big-name military expert is calling for a withdrawal, or which foreign country is laughing at us over our quagmire, or how Bush rephrased his intent to never, ever withdraw from Iraq.
What is often overlooked is what exactly is causing our losses. Pigheaded, stubborn, delusional "planning" had something to do with it, yes, but if you were to first apply a problem solving model to the situation in Iraq, and then apply the same model to other wars we are fighting and losing (the wars on Terror and Drugs), maybe we as a country could learn something from the disaster in Iraq.
Problem Solving
There are numerous versions of the problem solving model, but they are all essentially the same.
- Problem Identification- self-explanatory. The problem should be identified in a way that is clear, complete, and concise.
- Problem Analysis- once a problem has been appropriately identified, it is analyzed, looking for probable causes and effects, for the purpose of forming a plan to solve the problem. The plan must include measurable goals and a definition of success, so the implementers know when the problem has been solved.
- Plan Implementation- this is when the bulk of the problem solving work is done. Once a problem has been identified and analyzed and a plan for solving the problem has been developed, the plan is put into action.
- Plan Evaluation- after the plan is implemented, it is crucial to continue to monitor the problem to ensure that the plan being implemented is effective, or if it needs a little tweaking, or a complete overhaul.
With a little imagination we can probably see how the war in Iraq was planned, in terms of the problem solving model.
Initially the problem was identified as...Saddam Hussein. The problem analysis that took place was finding evidence that linked Hussein to terrorism (which is really a bad way of analyzing a problem). The plan that was implemented was to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power. A simple evaluation would reveal that the problem as identified was solved when Saddam Hussein was removed from power and W. gave his often-ridiculed "Mission Accomplished" appearance.
This is when things get a little fuzzy.
After Hussein was removed from power, a second problem was identified- civil unrest (attacks by insurgents against Iraqi citizens). This is an interesting way to identify the problem, because it draws a distinction between "insurgents" and "citizens," even though most of the insurgents were Iraqi citizens. The plan developed seems to have been to stop the violence by killing the insurgents, which is easy enough to measure by counting corpses. Again, this is a strange way of trying to solve a problem of Iraqis being killed. Nonetheless, the plan was implemented without very much analysis into the causes and effects of the problem. The last step seems to be the one most ignored (as is usually the case). The plan of killing insurgents to keep them from killing Iraqis has never been revised in the past three years.
So what can we learn from the mistake that is The War in Iraq?
- If a problem is not correctly identified, it cannot be solved.
- If a plan is not thoroughly analyzed before it is implemented, it will not work.
- If a plan does not have measurable goals and a clear definition of success, it cannot be evaluated.
- If a plan has been shown not to work, and it is not revised, it will never work.
Now lets apply this to two other "wars" we are currently engaged in.
The War on Terror
The problem in The War on Terror seems to have been defined as "Radical Islamofascist Terrorists/Evildoers want to kill Americans." There does not seem to be an operational definition of what a Radical Islamofascist Terrorist is. The plan implemented here seems to be identical to the plan implemented in the latter stage of the War in Iraq- kill the bad guys until we win. Unfortunately, we never adequately determined who the "bad guys" are. It is still possible to measure "progress" by counting corpses, but it is impossible to define success. Just like in the Iraq War, this plan has not been revised, even though countless advisors and other figures have voiced their concerns that we are not doing as good a job as we could.
The War on Drugs
It may be a stretch to put The War on Drugs into the same category of operations as The War on Terror and The War in Iraq. For the purposes of this discussion, it works fine. It still involves a problem that needs to be solved, to some extent.
I cannot claim to know exactly how the problem in this "War" was identified. I am stuck between "There are too many drugs on the streets" and "There are too many drug users on the streets." It really doesn’t seem to matter, though, because the way the problem is being solved addresses both problems. The plan to fight The War on Drugs is to restrict or criminalize drugs and arrest those in possession or distribution of the drugs. It is even easier to measure progress in this war; you can check court records, or you can visit jails to see all the drug users/distributors that have been caught and convicted. However, just like in the other two wars, there was never a definition of what success is so we know when the war on drugs has been won.
I don’t think that’s the biggest problem with the War on Drugs, though.
Let’s revisit what we should have learned from the War in Iraq. Every example of bad problem solving skills demonstrated in Iraq can also be found in the War on Drugs.
- If a problem is not correctly identified, it cannot be solved.
To me this is the biggest failure in the War on Drugs. No matter how the problem has been identified, either as too many drugs or too many drug users, it has been identified incorrectly. The problem should be identified as: people die due to drug use, specifically due to the use of nicotine/tobacco, alcohol, methamphetamines, cocaine/crack, and heroin.
- If a plan is not thoroughly analyzed before it is implemented, it will not work.
Analysis of this problem should include what causes people to use these drugs and what effects there are of the use of these drugs.
- If a plan does not have measurable goals and a clear definition of success, it cannot be evaluated.
The plan should include education, prevention, and rehabilitation for the use of potentially fatal drugs. Success can be identified by fewer deaths and hospitalizations due to chronic drug abuse and/or overdose.
- If a plan has been shown not to work, and it is not revised, it will never work.
It’s hard to say that the War on Drugs is working or not, because success has never been defined. Clearly there are still drugs and people using drugs, and arguably there are more of both on the streets today than there were many decades ago when the War on Drugs started. Based on that evidence it would seem that the plan currently being implemented is not effective and needs to be changed. Hopefully it won’t take a few more decades before the plan is revisited.
To make a long story short, exactly none of the problems we face will ever be solved if those in charge of solving them use strategies other than effective problem solving. Trying the same tactic over and over, failing every time, only to try the same tactic again is a sure way to make sure the failure will continue. This does not just apply to the above three wars; apply it to oil consumption, health care, welfare, education, whatever. Maybe some day someone with a little more leverage than I’ve got can figure this out.