The Policy of Preemption and Its Consequences: Iraq and Beyond

In this article we apply research in the field of judgment and decision making to the policy of preemption. We use Brunswik's lens model to frame the policy of preemption as the integration of multiple fallible indicators under conditions of uncertainty. We use the Taylor-Russell diagram to demonstrate how the policy of preemption increases judgment uncertainty and error. The continuation of a policy of preemption will inevitably lead to an increase in false positives (mistaken military engagements), an increase in tension and dispute among U.S. allies (and foes) over these engagements, and a growing world perception that the United States is an aggressor nation. Post-9/11 policymakers and the public are explicitly focused on reducing false negatives at the implicit cost of increasing false positives. Greater appreciation of the inverse relationship between false positives and false negatives is needed to understand the consequences of the policy of preemption.

[1]  R. Pielke,et al.  Prediction : science, decision making, and the future of nature , 2000 .

[2]  E. Brunswik,et al.  The Conceptual Framework of Psychology , 1954 .

[3]  J. Frey The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks upon the United States , 2004 .

[4]  Kenneth R. Hammond,et al.  Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice , 2000 .

[5]  J. Kagan,et al.  Rational choice in an uncertain world , 1988 .

[6]  T. R. Stewart,et al.  The essential brunswik: Beginnings, explications, applications. , 2001 .

[7]  K. R. Hammond Human judgment and social policy , 1980 .

[8]  Richards J. Heuer,et al.  Psychology of Intelligence Analysis , 1999 .

[9]  Leonard Adelman,et al.  Using Brunswikian theory and a longitudinal design to study how hierarchical teams adapt to increasing levels of time pressure. , 2003, Acta psychologica.

[10]  Robert P. Mahan,et al.  Cognitive adaptation and its consequences: a test of cognitive continuum theory , 2000 .

[11]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[12]  Michael Herman,et al.  Intelligence power in peace and war , 1996 .

[13]  W. Clinton State of the Union Address , 2003 .

[14]  D. Murphey,et al.  Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror , 2004 .

[15]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. , 1995 .

[16]  D. Winter,et al.  Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century , 2000 .

[17]  T. Kean,et al.  The 9/11 Commission Report , 2008 .

[18]  H. Taylor,et al.  The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection: discussion and tables. , 1939 .

[19]  Marc D. Street Groupthink , 1997 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[21]  N. Sanders,et al.  Journal of behavioral decision making: "The need for contextual and technical knowledge in judgmental forecasting", 5 (1992) 39-52 , 1992 .

[22]  Thomas R. Stewart,et al.  Uncertainty, Judgment, and Error in Prediction , 2000 .