On the Cover of Rolling Stone

Long, long ago, in a culture far, far away, coverage in Rolling Stone magazine was a coveted symbol of having arrived – at least for budding musicians. Dr Hook’s 1973 hit record portrayed in colorful fashion the glories bestowed upon any musician to attain that milestone. But that was then, this is now. Today one former top military commander is likely regretting his coverage in Rolling Stone.

I’m not sure it’s a good thing for our long-term welfare when a pop-culture, pseudo-news magazine has the ability to directly impact foreign policy – especially military operations. I can envision that capability trending to very scary conclusions. Personally I wish Rolling Stone had stuck with being the flagship media source for the world music scene instead of trying to become the beacon of light for far-left ideology. I guess I’d feel the same if UFO Magazine beamed-down Ben Bernanke from his Federal Reserve position by revealing a bar-room conversation where he considered the possibility that aliens were siphoning off our Treasury funds. To me it’s unsettling that an entity with no expertise in (and highly biased opinions on) critical world affairs can impact them so dramatically. Yet, this week Rolling Stone accomplished what Al Qaeda could not - eliminating the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Few people are thrilled by this outcome (other than the stakeholders at Rolling Stone who reap the financial benefits) because we all realize it’s a black eye for the United States, and even jeopardizes the lives of soldiers in that theatre. But who’s to blame? Michael Hastings, the reporter, was successfully making a name for himself with a shocking article that was a blockbuster for his editors. Rolling Stone is trying to remain viable in a print industry that is struggling for its existence and this piece generated enormous publicity for them. President Obama couldn’t let this pass without undermining long-standing code that military commanders respect the political direction set by their civilian leaders; and, as a politician he undoubtedly calculated the political impact of his decision. Finally, it’s understandable that General McChrystal’s frustration with trying to implement a political strategy (nation-building) using military force would come to the surface in what he believed were confidential moments. So it’s hard to blame any of the individual players.

Many powerful figures throughout history with long records of achievement have been toppled in a few short moments when personal thoughts escaped into the public domain. So General McChrystal is not alone in the consequences for what may have seemed a harmless lapse in prudence. For a while many others will learn from this incident and be more wary of what they say to whom. But eventually another prominent leader will fall victim to the same fate. The most interesting blame question here is this: Most of us have muttered unfavorable comments about our own authority figures, or those with whom we work. But if those comments did not fall into the wrong ears we incurred no consequence. So the blame arises from being exposed, not from the underlying values or beliefs held. What benefit derives from a culture wherein getting caught for expressing understandable and ordinary thoughts can ruin you, while proficiently concealing your thoughts allows you to be a hero? I’d love to read your comments. (But be careful who else sees them!)

Their Finest Hour

Seventy years ago today England faced a spreading calamity that threatened to wash up on its shores and destroy not only the livelihood of coastal residents, but the existence of British sovereignty itself. No, it wasn’t an oil spill, but the rapid expansion of the Nazi Empire. Big mistakes had been made that contributed to this threat. A month earlier as Hitler moved against Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France the Allies possesed superior forces in place to defend against the attack. But the German “blitzkrieg” of swift movement and coordinated communications caught the Allied commanders off guard. Rapidly pushed back to the coast near Dunkirk, 338,000 British and French troops only escaped annihilation through a miraculous evacuation across the channel. On June 17 France sued for peace, which allowed Hitler to shift his focus to Britain. An uproar echoed throughout the country, “Who was to blame for this blunder that now exposed England to potential doom?”

Prime Minister Winston Churchill could easily have blamed the French for bumbled strategic decisions. He could have blamed his own military planners for not anticipating Germany’s actions. He could have blamed previous administrations for not preventing the rise of the Nazi machine. Instead, on June 18, 1940 he appeared before the House of Commons and appealed for suspension of blame and a re-directed focus on moving forward. His speech was perhaps one of the most stirring examples of a leader setting aside blame, laying out the current predicament, and calling for unity in the face of a dark and ominous threat with uncertain outcomes. After a brief synopsis of how the predicament had evolved, Churchill said,

Now I put all this aside. I put it on the shelf, from which the historians, when they have time, will select their documents to tell their stories. We have to think of the future and not of the past. This also applies in a small way to our own affairs at home. There are many who would hold an inquest in the House of Commons on the conduct of the Governments--and of Parliaments, for they are in it, too--during the years which led up to this catastrophe. They seek to indict those who were responsible for the guidance of our affairs. This also would be a foolish and pernicious process. There are too many in it. Let each man search his conscience and search his speeches. I frequently search mine. Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.

After outlining the risks faced and assessing the resources available to counter a potential German invasion Churchill went on to allay any blame directed towards France.
However matters may go in France or with the French Government . . . we in this Island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have been suffering, we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye, and freedom shall be restored to all.

Instead of trying to assure citizens that everything was under control Churchill said,
. . . if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was their finest hour.”

I made the mistake of watching some of yesterday’s Congressional hearing (or blame-fest) of BP’s CEO. There was no sign of the kind of leadership portrayed by Churchill seventy years ago today. Only bleats of victimization by fearful sheep, and pot-shots of opportunism by those hoping to win favor in the media. The blame game continues. You can find the full text of Churchill’s speech where I did, at:

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/churchill-hour.htm

Oil in the Gulf - 2

Another Fine Mess was a 1930 film by Laurel and Hardy. It also aptly describes the Gulf oil spill which has turned into a comedy of blame. Even President Obama played a starring role with his “ass-kicking” rhetoric suggesting that BP President Tony Hayward should be fired. Time magazine unveiled its “Dirty Dozen” culprits to blame for the oil spill. Not surprisingly the list included people from BP, Haliburton, Transocean, Minerals Management Service, along with Obama, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the American Driver.

But perhaps we should all take a deep breath and suspend finger pointing for a moment so we might actually learn a few things. Clearly nobody on the planet was prepared for this spill – not BP, not the government, not Gulf shore communities. Why should they be prepared – nobody expected this. So it is not surprising that those trying to battle this disaster are struggling. No proven technology or strategy existed to deal with this situation. There are probably a number of people who anticipated the possibility, but how does a minority voice warning of calamity convince a large oil producing and consuming system to take heed? We have a huge oil-thirsty nation demanding cheap fuel, pushing global producers to find and process oil as quickly and inexpensively as they can, while at the same time providing shareholders with an acceptable return on their investment. None of this is bad. But that is who we are.

If you think a comprehensive spill response system should have been ready to go, who should have developed and paid for this multi-billion dollar contingency that nobody expected to need? BP? If so, then Chevron, Exxon-Mobile, and Shell should all have paid for duplicate systems. Do you really think that shareholders would have sacrificed their returns for a few quarters to develop a system that no one expected to need? Should an oil industry cooperative have been formed to do this? Should the Gulf coast states with the most at risk have been responsible? How about the federal government? The reality is that we don’t spend much time, energy, and money preparing for events we don’t think have a high likelihood of occurring. And yet, unlikely stuff happens.

There have been thoughtful discussions about risk that have led to decisions. Some believed that drilling close to the coastline was too risky and that we should drill way out on the “deepwater horizon.” Others who thought deepwater drilling was too risky were overruled. Some people believe that any offshore drilling is too risky so we should import our oil from the Middle East. Others believe that depending on foreign sources creates too many risks and that we need to tap our own sources. Some believe we should wean ourselves from oil dependence, others are not willing to give up our behemoth SUVs. All of these decisions create risks. And it is the “collective we” who make these decisions.

BP is accountable for this leak, but are they really the enemy as CNN contends? Aren’t they the ones we are relying on to stop this leak? And after all, who is BP? BP is not some obscure demon, but a few thousand regular people trying to produce oil products. And the shareholders are not simply rich capitalists living in opulence. Look inside your 401(k) or pension and see how many of you actually own shares of BP. If you think BP is the enemy I suggest you consider the quote from the cartoon strip Pogo, “We have seen the enemy and they is us.”

Oil in the Gulf

Lesson:
Blame is about “who dunnit.” Causes are about “what happened.” As problems get more complex they no longer lend themselves to simple black & white explanations. “What happened” may expand beyond our mental capacity to comprehend. And if the consequences are tragic the pressure to nail it on a culprit increases. That way we can rest easy knowing justice has been served. But often hundreds or thousands of people had at least a cameo role in the plot.

Application:
The images of dolphin carcasses and dying pelicans coming out of the gulf coast are infuriating, and our gut reaction is finding who’s to blame. (Yesterday a commentator on CNN actually said, “BP is the enemy.”) But if you want to blame someone for the gulf oil spill you can pick from a wide-ranging menu. Let me offer people who:

• manufactured the shut-off valve that was out of commission
• allowed the well to operate knowing that the valve was out of commission
• built the platform that wasn’t supposed to sink
• believed that any oil platform was unsinkable
• issued permits for platform operation
• were involved in the initial explosion
• poured so much water on the platform as to cause it to sink
• designed rigid piping from the well-head to the surface instead of flex tubing
• designed each of the failed attempts to stop the leak
• executed each of the failed attempts to stop the leak
• should have anticipated this type of disaster
• should have spent the money on preemptive solutions for this kind of hazard
• pushed for restricting oil drilling to deep water environments
• drive cars that use oil
• dug the first oil well in 1859 and switched us all off of whale oil
• are members of BP, Transocean, or Halliburton management
• are BP, Transocean, or Halliburton shareholders
• work for the Departments of Interior, Homeland Security, Energy, Coast Guard
• are members of Congress
• are named Barack Obama
• are named George Bush

Everyone on this list (and more) played at least a supporting role in the disaster. The interesting thing about complex events is that they involve many interconnected links. Often, if you remove one of those links the entire event fails to materialize. So, perhaps if someone on the assembly line where the errant shut-off valve was produced had rejected a certain spring or bushing and installed a different one there wouldn’t be any leak. Or perhaps if foam was used instead of water in fighting the fire, the rig might not have sunk. Or perhaps if we had all taken up the challenge to reduce our dependence on oil after the shortages in the 1970s this rig might never have been built. This tragic event is the result of many, complex, interconnected pieces. Pinning the blame on someone may feel good. And maybe more significantly, blaming someone takes us off the hook for our role in this mess. But sending someone to the gallows does nothing to improve our understanding of the problem, find a solution, or prevent a reoccurrence.

Conflict Near Gaza

In my last post I stated: “It is our own willingness to be caught up in these kinds of blame that provide the political, financial, and human support necessary to wage war.” I didn’t realize that within 48 hours an incident near the Gaza strip would ignite an intense example of such emotionally-charged finger-pointing, or that so much of the world would get caught up in the blame. Over the weekend the Israeli navy intercepted a flotilla of boats attempting to run a naval blockade and deliver aid to Palestinian residents of Gaza. On one of the boats an Israeli boarding party was attacked while rappelling from helicopters and responded by opening fire. Nine people on the boat were killed. In the following 24 hours the Turkish president condemned the incident as a bloody massacre and violent protests broke out across Europe and the Middle East.

This incident is full of errors and situational mistakes on both sides. It was the ninth time this aid organization tried to forcefully run Israel’s naval blockade. Israeli intelligence misjudged the cargo. The aid organization ignored warnings it would be intercepted and refused to route the cargo through an Israeli port for inspection. Members on one of the six boats attacked the Israeli boarding party. Israeli forces were not prepared for physical resistance to their boarding efforts, so ended up using lethal force instead of riot-suppression tactics like tear gas. Moreover, this particular incident is only one small act in a much larger, and much more complex story with root causes going back nearly a half-century. Consider this brief background:
· 1967 - Israel seizes control of the Gaza area as part of the Middle East War. For the following 27 years continual conflict waged between the Palestinian residents and Jewish settlers.
· 1994 – Israel officially recognizes the Palestinian Authority and withdraws its military from the population centers but continues to control the borders.
· 2000 – An uprising of Palestinian residents in Gaza begins launching rockets into Israel. Israel responds with military strikes.
· 2005 – Israel evacuates all Jewish settlements in Gaza and withdraws all troops.
· 2007 – Hamas seizes control from the Fatah ruling party. Israel closes its borders and imposes a blockade of Gaza to prevent the build-up of arms by Hamas. However, the blockade also creates severe economic hardship on the residents of Gaza.
· 2008 – Israel allows six boats of aid into Gaza but suspects that shipments also contain weapons. In December Israel invades Gaza in an attempt to halt years of rocket fire. But the conflict further impoverishes Gaza’s population.
· 2009 – Israeli navy captures one boat headed to Gaza and blocks two additional flotillas.

The accumulated emotions of the Palestinians and Israelis living within this scenario understandably drive them to blame each other for every new incident. But nobody is really to blame. And there is no innocent victim. Over the past 50 years an enormous number of individual decisions and actions taken by individual people have brought us to the present moment. Each of those individuals thought they were doing the right thing to support their cause at the time. But many of those actions aggravated the larger problem. Solving the conflict will require thoughtful solutions that provide for the economic welfare of Gaza residents while also providing for Israel’s security against cross-border rocket and terrorist attacks. It will also require dissipation of the hatred built up between both parties.

Those of us watching from the outside have a moral obligation to mitigate blame and to call for calm, rational thinking focused on a viable agreement over Gaza. Incendiary protests or inflammatory patronization of one side while blaming the other only hardens positions and drives further escalation of the conflict. To that extent we become partially responsible for the aggression. Blame is a powerful emotional reaction when things go wrong. It stokes our sense of righteousness. It allows us to vent our frustrations on the chosen scapegoat. But it doesn’t solve problems.