Class Reflection D. 1

Barry M. Lawrence

5-4-10

DC Trip day 1 Reflection

Today our guest speaker was Retired Marine Colonel John Garrett. His main focus was on thinking and the thought process that goes into making informed decisions in government, both as a policy maker and as a participating citizen of a democracy. In most cases, one must think of the three to five vital focuses (economics, politics, education, security, etc.) of the state in question, judging if there is a genuine threat to one or more of these vitals, and finally judging if securing or re-securing that vital is worth the risk of one American life. IF one comes to the conclusion that the vital IS worth the risk of one American life, THEN can one begin the decision process regarding what, if any, action is to be taken regarding this issue.

Before one even begins to make an informed decision regarding a policy, one must make sure he is well informed about the vital areas in question. In other words, you cannot make a decision to protect the country on behalf of its economic agenda, if you do not have at least a diverse knowledge of its workings. While this may seem obvious on paper, many Americans fall into the trap of being very under-informed, or informed but only from one or two sources. So before any detailed analysis begins, one must be well informed on the topics in question. This is becoming increasingly difficult for the average American who watches their one news source before leaving the house in the morning, listening to half (at best) of one source’s bias opinion. It is almost ironic that in this day and age where we have virtually unlimited access to information, especially mainstream news media, that we stick to our favorite source and don’t seem to question it. When dealing with what is necessary to make an informed policy decision, this will simply not do. This particularly worries me when there is a several thousand-page bill in the works, that no one has seemed to have read in its entirety. This leads to unreliable news sources, uninformed citizens, and possibly misrepresentation in the vote turnout.

With regards to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when one applies our above theory on policy decision-making, we find that there may have indeed been a genuine American interest in the invasion. However, we can be fairly certain, with the advantages related to hindsight, that the reasons presented to the American people (WMD’s), there was no tangible or sustainable evidence that any sane person would be able to base an argument on that would lead to the invasion. Another problem that we can learn from in the Iraqi invasion was the lack of end-game tactics, or going in with no clear objective regarding what to do AFTER the invasion took place. The ground was a complete disaster, and due to many other problems, such as contractor related waste and corruption, Iraq’s full democratic establishment was delayed, if not compromised altogether.

With these past examples in mind, hopefully the generations of the future will be able to make more informed decisions regarding international policy making.