BAD ANALOGICAL REASONING AND POST-WAR OPERATIONS IN IRAQ AFTER 2003 Charles-Philippe David, University of Quebec at Montreal (david.charles-
[email protected]) Karine Prémont, University of Sherbrooke (
[email protected]) The past is an enormous grab bag with a prize for everybody. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., 1974. Stanley Hoffmann has suggested that the use of historical analogies by U.S. foreign policy-makers is part and parcel of the American national style (Hoffmann, 1968). Similarly, Yuen Foong Khong notes that heads of state have always “turned to the past in dealing with the present” (Khong, 1992: 3). While some observers believe that historical analogies “are mostly utilized merely as post-hoc justifications for policy choices determined by ideology and partisanship and are therefore not independent variables in the policy process” (Taylor and Rourke, 1995: 460), others argue that they do exert a significant influence and perform specific functions within the decision-making process, particularly during the option selection and evaluation phase (Vertzberger, 1986; Khong, 1992). Among other things, they provide guideposts for interpreting new situations (Hemmer, 2000: 5) and keys to understanding the cognitive processes of decision-makers (Houghton, 1996: 549), helping them find solutions more quickly in urgent, politically murky circumstances (Hemmer, 2000: 2). U.S. foreign policy has been marked by two momentous events (Gilovich, 1981: 802) – Munich and the Vietnam War – but it would appear that only the Second World War was used as a frame of reference for the intervention in Iraq that began in 2003 (Welch Larson, 2010: 318). More specifically, studies have shown that the planning and implementation of Iraqi reconstruction after 2003 was informed by the analogy with German reconstruction (Hoogland Noon, 2004; Houghton, 2008; Locas, 2008; David, 2010; Angstrom, 2011; MacDonald, 2012), a finding that is confirmed by the memoirs of the main architects of the war in Iraq.