Madman Theory and Bush

[Louis VI the Fat]

"I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, 'for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry -- and he has his hand on the nuclear button' -- and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace." H. R. Haldeman, The Ends of Power

I recently read about Nixon's and Kissinger's 'madman theory'.

During the cold war, nuclear strategic doctrine was riven by a fundamental contradiction. Governments thought it sensible to threaten nuclear war--the better to "deter" a foe from doing something unwanted--yet it obviously made no sense actually to wage nuclear war, for this led to the famous "mutual assured destruction." But if carrying out the threats was senseless, then how could it be frightening? What use were they? Wouldn't the foe, supposing that no country would be demented enough to "assure" its own destruction, disbelieve the threats and do what it pleased in spite of them?

The high strategists of nuclear defense scratched their heads and came up with answers. One was to take technical and other steps that deliberately put your nation on what the strategist Thomas Schelling called a "slippery slope." That is, if you visibly arranged to make yourself a little bit out of control, the foe would no longer be able to imagine that you might desist from nuclear war in a last-minute fit of sanity. They'd think that you might plunge into the abyss in spite of yourself. And so they would fear you, as hoped.

North Korea's Kim Jong Il seems to have reinvented it. And is Bush Trying Out the Madman Theory too?

Playing 'Madman theory' is either incredibly stupid or bloody brilliant. I seriously can't make up my mind.

But the great thing about 'madman theory' is that it could explain Bush' behaviour so perfectly well.
To play it convincingly, you have to be a fantastic strategist of great intelligence. Or you must be a genuine complete nutter.
Though I'm confused as to whether that leaves the right, the left, or both correct in their assesment of him.

So is Bush playing it? And is playing it the right course to take when dealing with Iran and other threats?

[Crazed Rabbit]

In dealing with Iran, it's going to do a lot more than European peace talks were Schroeder wants to take force completely off the table. More than that, I can't tell. An interesting theory, though.

Crazed Rabbit

[Del Arroyo]

If we could've gone into Iraq and gotten RESULTS, then sure, you could've said we're using the madman theory and it's working. But all its done is tie up all our projectable force and display our impotence to all the world. North Korea's and Iran's boldness are direct results of the Iraq invasion.

DA

[KafirChobee]

Louis, as usual when you take the time to make a statement or quiery a debate you do it with a splash. Curious concept that ...; Madman theory. I suppose it could have been revisonized into the Cuban Missile Crisis with Kennedy, or the Berlin Wall thing with Reagan (only took 5 years after all), or todays crisis that Bush as exemplified by pressing the issue of womens rights in the middle-east (while at the same time supporting those that oppose them in his home nation - i.e. freedom of choice).

I like it! The madman theory; actually I believe it is only a principle - but, lets not cut hairs. It explains alot without excluding the other factors of a decision. It is, in fact, perfect for explaining the outlandish things that men with power do - without having to question their faults or ignorance of the reality of an area before reacting to it. Just because they care - as in, their own self promotion.

Thank you, Louis, once again you out shine us meer mortals. But, I agree - it is a great explanation for some of our presidents' actions and those of others in power on this world that had the Napoleon complex.

[PanzerJaeger]

Bush would have to act a lot "madder" to be convincing I would think.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Or perhaps that's were the real trick is; pretending to be able to launch WWIII and being completely rational while doing it-like Machevelli's Prince. Perhaps they are scared he would invade not rashly, but in cold blood.

Crazed Rabbit

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

KC

you make it sound like women in the middleeast have the same rights as western women except for access to late term abortion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow no mention of Reagan here. It certainly worked for him.

[Crazed Rabbit]

you make it sound like women in the middleeast have the same rights as western women except for access to late term abortion.

Whoa, there! You're letting facts get in the way of a good ole diatribe against Bush. That seems to happen a lot nowadays.

Crazed Rabbit

[Paul Peru]

But the great thing about 'madman theory' is that it could explain Bush' behaviour so perfectly well.
To play it convincingly, you have to be a fantastic strategist of great intelligence. Or you must be a genuine complete nutter.
Though I'm confused as to whether that leaves the right, the left, or both correct in their assesment of him.

So is Bush playing it? And is playing it the right course to take when dealing with Iran and other threats?

Well, actually going ahead with the whole Iraq-thingy was quite excessive if it was just to prove that he's a nutter

[Bartix]

My theory on Bush is "Stubborn child theory"

[Spetulhu]

Well, actually going ahead with the whole Iraq-thingy was quite excessive if it was just to prove that he's a nutter

Exactly. The Madman Theory looked good during the build-up, with Saddam running scared. A lot of paperwork and his missile project suddenly turned up, didn't they? But the Madman didn't back off, since he had the invasion "planned" from the beginning no matter what Saddam did.

[Azi Tohak]

But the Madman didn't back off, since he had the invasion "planned" from the beginning no matter what Saddam did.

But no one ever plans an invasion until the day before right? Hasn't this already been debunked?

Anyway, of course the US military had plans drawn up. I am sure a multitude of plans exist for wars involving most nations.

Azi

[Spetulhu]

But no one ever plans an invasion until the day before right? Hasn't this already been debunked?

Debunked in what way?

I commented on the Madman Theory, not invasions in general. Someone using that tactic would have used the buildup as a lever for getting something. GW was about to invade from the start, he wasn't playing the madman card.

[Red Harvest]

But no one ever plans an invasion until the day before right? Hasn't this already been debunked?

Anyway, of course the US military had plans drawn up. I am sure a multitude of plans exist for wars involving most nations.

Azi

No, it was very clear to me at the time that we were going to war, barring some real effort by Saddam to open up and soften the tone. Season, mobilization, and other factors are part of such planning and it appeared that these were already well established. It was transparent to me that the date had been set, and that the deadline for action in the U.N. was then backed out accordingly. I cancelled my family vacation to France and Switzerland when I realized how it was all going to fall out timing wise.

The last chance to avoid invasion was lost when the France/Russia/Germany blocked moves to put through resolutions with teeth. Essentially, after that, the only thing that could have stopped it would have been Saddam stepping down. Bush was not using brinksmanship, and the vast majority of the U.S. public (myself included) were ready to finish the job in Iraq. After 9/11 our patience was exhausted, while much of Europe and Saddam were mistaken in the belief it was business as usual type brinksmanship. It was a serious miscalculation on all their parts because we were very serious. Saddam seems to have believed he would be shielded by the aforementioned nations. When he realized that the game was up he started trying to comply, but by then it was far too late.

The WMD justification didn't set all that well with me once I saw the "evidence" (nor with my conservative friends, we were concerned that the WMD case was based on assumptions, rather than evidence.) Still, I supported going in, because Saddam was a threat that couldn't be ignored forever, and Germany, Russia and France were working with others to lift the restrictions. For that reason the timing seemed appropriate. I also didn't think Dubya could screw up the post invasion aspect quite so badly. Right now I wouldn't trust him to run a McDonald's, but I didn't feel that way then.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thanks for the replies.


'Madman principle', by extension, imo apllies not only to nuclear warfare, but to conventional warfare as well. It means the threatening or performing of acts that are against your rational interest.

I.e. invading Iraq.

Well one of the positive side-effects of the invasion of Iraq is that it got quite a few people in Libya and Syria scared shitless. They had to back down in the past two years.

So I'm still wondering. Was there also an element of deliberate randomness behind the invasion of Iraq? Is there a larger strategy behind Bush's sabble-ratling or not?
I'm not talking about a right or wrong strategy, I'm just curious if there is any.

Harlan Ullman, writes: "Intimidation and compliance are the outputs we seek to obtain. The intent here is to impose a regime of shock and awe through delivery of instant and nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large. Through very selective, utterly brutal, ruthless, and rapid application of force to intimidate, the aim is to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary. . . . The adversary becomes impotent and entirely vulnerable."

I believe this is the kind of threat that Bush is now directing toward Iran.

If you can't beat them or even find them, at least instill fear in them. Let them know that you're as capable of random violence as they are. Show them that America knows how to behave irrationaly and wage assymetrical warfare too - and then some.

I remember arguing here that Bush should've been clear about Iran from the beginning. Let them know beyond a doubt that you will invade them if they do but will not invade them if they don't develop nuclear weapons. Then let them choose their course.

Now I'm not so sure anymore. Maybe I misunderestimated Bush and he's using a tried and trusted technique to deal with Iran's nuclear threat. Or maybe he really is clueless. Oh well. Louis certainly is clueless...

And in case there is a systematic reasoning behind Bush' madness, is it a right reasoning? If we apply some vulgarised game theory, then:
Rational versus Rational: a draw.
Rational versus Madman: madman wins.
Madman versus Madman: both lose.

Which doesn't bode well...

[Goofball]

Whoa, there! You're letting facts get in the way of a good ole diatribe against Bush. That seems to happen a lot nowadays.

Crazed Rabbit

Sorry, but what "diatribe" are you talking about? It was a valid point: Bush is making big noise about supporting womens' rights elsewhere, but trying to limit them in his own country.

You righties really need to stop hiding behind the old "you're just bashing Bush because you don't like him and therefore your arguments are completely invalid" defence.

I find it a little scary how many Bush supporters begin bristling with sarcasm and/or animosity the moment anybody even suggests that W might not be perfect.

Newsflash: Nobody is perfect, especially politicians.

The funny thing is, I know you guys know Bush isn't perfect, because every now and then I do a bit of lurking in the Conservative Club, and you folks seem to have no problem pointing out Bush's shortfalls in the privacy of your own "home."

So what is it? Is it one of those "I know my girlfriend is ugly, but if anybody else says so I'll open up a can of whup-ass on them" kind of deals?

[KafirChobee]

Goofball, you made me laugh for a very long time. Good post, thx.

I can see how Nixon's madman theory might have worked for him. He did get the NVa to the table (took along time as I recall to determine the size and geometry of the table - think they finally settled on something of a round one). But, were they not simply playing a delay game? After all they knew he wouldn't be president for ever - and they knew the war was becoming increasingly unpopular. So, if he was playing the madman, they were playing the spoiled child to see just how far they could press each non-issue (e.g. table), so that they could later seem to be complitulating or seem reasonable to the true issues at hand. Namely finding a way to reach a peaceful solution that would ensure the existance of the Republic of Vietnam - and get the US troops outta there. The latter being their true objective - the former ours. It's impossible to predict what may have occurred had Nixon not left before the conclusion of his second term, probably that the war would have ended much as it did in 1977 or 78'. It would simply have delayed the final outcome. That, or had another hawk (doubtful) been elected it could have gone on a bit longer - as long as it was the South VN sons dying and not our own.

If Bush is using the madman scenario for his purpose (diplomacy) - he might want to let us all in on what his purpose or goals are. Hopefully, he has let our few remaining allies in on it.

One can only hope.

[Bartix]

He did get the NVa to the table (took along time as I recall to determine the size and geometry of the table - think they finally settled on something of a round one).

That's what they eventually decide for wheel as well.
(but what color?)

An other example of "Stubborn child theory": discussing table geometry
(I loose face always but smilie panel has more)

Any way:
I think some one is misoverestimating Bush.
But may be some other person is running "mad puppet" show, by pulling President strings and legs?