Healthy Influence – Persuasion Blog

America is in the midst of a Great Debate on what policy we should follow in Afghanistan.  Not surprisingly, opinions form a long line from all-in to all-out with all points in between.  The topic dominates public discussion and will continue until President Obama makes his decision and announces it.  Persuasion theory is useful for understanding Obama’s tactics here.

I think he’s already made his decision and is deliberately generating this long, noisy, and contentious public discussion for persuasion purposes.  He is following this path for two reasons.  First, he is going to decide against the opinions of the majority of his party, especially among his base.  Second, he wants to lead from within the mandate of deeply held beliefs from most Americans rather than lead from the front as Mr. Bush did.

Consider first the hypothesis that Obama has already decided to continue the Long War and that decision will cause conflict with his base.  Everything I read or hear from Obama is consistent with the general conduct of the Long War begun under the Bush Administration.  While there are important differences between what and how Bush operated and what and how Obama now operates, Obama is fighting the Long War and is doing almost nothing substantial to change the what and how.

Contemplate yesterday’s briefing by General David Petraeus.  The General reviewed the activities of US Central Command, the command unit that leads our effort in the Long War.  As the General discussed the past and present in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen he detailed specific US actions from 2002 to 2009.  Nothing in his review demonstrated policy changes in the Long War once Obama took office.

If Obama really wanted to make a substantial change in the Long War he would begin by making minor alterations.  He would disconnect from allies by changing headquarter relationships.  He would remove our troops from their aircraft carriers floating off the Somalia coast, for example.  He has done none of these small, precursor moves.  Further, he has not made noisy public demonstrations of meetings with or appointments of anti-war allies.

Obama is using this long public discussion to allow his allies to express their opinion and more importantly to allow his allies to hear all the competing opinions, options, and observations.  I think this long discussion is changing the opinion in some of Mr. Obama’s base, allowing him more room to maneuver with his own base.

Now consider my second hypothesis that Obama wants to lead from within the people rather than from the front.  Regardless of anyone’s evaluation of Mr. Bush, it is clear that most Americans saw him as a driving force behind our actions.  He actively made the case for war and actively led it.  While he may have done this out of a sense of duty or obligation, it had the effect of making it His War, not Our War.  He owned it.  He took responsibility for it.  He viewed it as his obligation.  In doing so, he reduced the opportunities and need for the American public to take as active a role.

Obama wants to make the Long War, Our War, not His War.  He’s doing that through this long public discussion.  I think he probably encouraged or at least was not discouraged at the leak of General McChrystal’s report which clearly details a continuation of the Long War.  If you think about it, since we’ve begun a public awareness and discussion of the Long War, there has been virtually no information sourced to the White House that directly argues for a sharp break from past policy.  At best or worst depending upon your own position, the White House has argued for different methods of continuing the Long War, but not for ending it.

In persuasion terms, Mr. Obama wants us to take responsibility for the War, to make internal attributions for it, to believe that our noisy public discussion on it assigns some measure of causality for America’s continuing prosecution of the Long War to our beliefs and actions.  It is Our War.  Mr. Obama is operating differently from Mr. Bush whose authentic and sincere sense of duty and responsibility made it, His War.  In persuasion terms, Obama is using Attribution Theory (The Why? Because Play).  He wants American citizens to make internal attributions (It is Our War) rather than external attributions (It is Bush/Obama’s War).

Once it becomes Our War, the ground of action shifts dramatically.  We move to the best ways and means and argue over how many troopers on the ground and how to involve the State Department and other civilian government units and how we best partner with allies and how we confront those who resist our Long War.  We make our disagreements over how to win, not whether to fight.

If you read my Persuasion Guide, attribution theory works more effectively under my Rule: More is the enemy of Less.  Don’t make a scene.  Don’t make noisy demonstrations.  Don’t argue.  Instead put your desired position out in front of people (a leaked report, perhaps), let them find it, let them discuss it, think about it, and act consistently with it.  Now, step forward and ask, “Why are we fighting the Long War?”  Then, quickly, smoothly, and quietly assert, “It must be that American citizens want it.”  Shut up and act as the leader moving with the mandate of the people.

This analysis does not mean that everyone will support the Long War.  It means that Mr. Obama will follow roughly the same policy as Mr. Bush, but look entirely different doing it.  He will have more support from Democrats and Republicans even if some people within each party vehemently disagree.  Such an outcome would not only help Mr. Obama’s reelection prospects, but also help the Democrat party in the 2010 elections.  And, it would also help govern the country into the future.