Cognitive Dissonance in Action Under the Obama Presidency - Essay Example

Cognitive Dissonance in Action Under the Obama Presidency of Cognitive Dissonance In Action Under the Obama Presidency Cognitive dissonance can be summarized as a mental state of refusal to take a particular direction on a matter because of previous position taken on the same matter. It can also imply taking an action seen as a deviation from a previously held position so that what a person held previously as a firm belief is seen to be contradicted (Cooper, 2007). In other terms, cognitive dissonance, as a branch of social psychology, assesses inconsistencies within a person’s ideas, values and beliefs (McLeod, 2008). It is a force that pressures a person to be consistent in a particular direction because of a previously stated public position. The element of public comes in as the dissonance usually arises due to concerns about what others will think of the person’s position (Myers, 2012). Other people can only react to or question a person’s position only if they are privy to certain commitments by the same person on matters that such a person is seen to deviate from or likely to deviate from. This paper shall analyse Obama’s decision to withdraw troops from Iraq and the dilemma of cognitive dissonance he is faced with under the threat of ISIS. When Obama was elected into the oval office in the year 2008, Americans had much hope just as much as the world. Many pacifists had hopes that the Obama administration would usher in an era of Pax-Americana, which he tried except for the drone wars. Prior to the 2008 polls, President Bush Junior had taken US forces into Iraq to fight what he believed were chemical weapons in Iraq. Much of the world took the fact that Bush went against the UN resolution not to attack negatively. Therefore, the Obama’s campaign trail of 2008 was anchored on a promise to withdraw American troops and bring them back home. At the same time, the Iraqi government under Al-Maliki had also failed to sign in an extension for American troops in Iraq. Consequently, the US began withdrawing troops in phases. The last convoy of US troops left Iraq in 2011. They were received at a military base in Kuwait. Finally, Obama fulfilled his promise to the US citizens that he would have no troops on the ground. Now it remains for the Guantanamo bay to be closed. However, conservatists feel that Obama did very little to have residual troops in Iraq (Bishop, 2014). Less than eight years down the line, the Obama administration and indeed Obama himself, is faced with what is obviously a cognitive dissonance on the right action to take against ISIS problem in Iraq. He is at cross roads as far as decision-making is concerned. ISIS became a problem in Iraq when the Al-Maliki government secluded the Sunni Muslims from leadership positions in the government. The US forces had previously trained much of the Sunni population in its war against terror groups in Iraq. Not being absorbed into the mainstream Iraqi forces and government jobs was a cause of disagreement that saw the group rise into one of the fiercest forces the 21st century Middle East states have ever known. They have killed left, right and centre within and outside Iraq. Faced with the responsibility of intervention, Obama can be seen to be torn between maintaining his promise to the American people that there shall be “no boots on the ground” as he favoured withdrawal (Wolfgang, 2014). He is seen as suffering a cognitive dissonance of decision making where he may fear that should be authorize troops on the ground, then he would be going against his own policies, values and ideas under which he campaigned in 2008. Many political analysts have observed that the best solution for the ISIL crisis should be boots on the ground. However, Obama finds that as a real dilemma as he campaigned with vigour that he would withdraw American troops from Iraq. Taking them back to the same battlefield is will be seen as a contradiction against his own policies. It is highly likely that the dilemma between the decision to withdraw and to take troops back is a cognitive dissonance reality that the Obama administration and the Commander in Chief are faced with. Writing in defence of Obama, Brownlee (2014) says that history has also showed that longer stays of US troops on occupied lands do not always translate to stability, as is the case with Japan, German and South Korea. Military Chiefs have expressed openly that a more fruitful strategy would just be boots on the ground. Asked about the same, Obama hinted that he would increase the number of military advisors to Iraq. He has also campaigned for a number of Arab nations to support Iraq with the battle against ISIL as the US and other coalition partners conduct air raids. Ever since the US lead coalition air raids began, there has been very little evidence of success. When compared with George Bush’s policy in 1991 when Iraq attacked Kuwait, there was a swift action in which US troops were sent to reinforce Kuwaiti forces on the ground. The strategy worked very well. US generals know that so well. In fact, some of them fought in that war as junior officers. The question that not many people have confronted the president with is the fact that sometimes actions perceived as cognitive dissonance may just yield positive outcome. These are no ordinary times, and extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary decision. It is high time the president stopped considering what others would say about his policies. Of course sending troops to Iraq would be a very open cognitive dissonance of which the president is very much aware. However, what if that is the only solution. Rather than take a long winding route on the matter of ISIL crisis, a more robust confrontation of the prevailing circumstances would save lives. ISIL forces probably understands Obama’s dilemma of his own cognitive dissonance and they are taking full advantage of it. It is high time Obama faced the matter squarely as he would have done long time ago. It may only be a matter of time before he eventually come to the news bulletin with a state of the nation address and tell them the reality with which he is faced. The fear of being inconsistent should not override reason and logic on the matter. References Bishop, T. (2014). Rewriting History: Conservatives Attack Obama For Withdrawing All Troops From Iraq. Retrieved from http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/10/rewriting- history-conservatives-attack-obama-fo/200380 Brownlee, J. (2014, June 26). Was Obama wrong to withdraw troops from Iraq? The Washington Post. Accessed from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey- cage/wp/2014/06/26/was-obama-wrong-to-withdraw-troops-from-iraq/ Cooper, J.M. (2007). Cognitive Dissonance: 50 Years of a Classic Theory. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd. Davis, S. (2011). Ten Interesting Things About Human Behaviour. Amazon Digital Services. McLeod, S. (2008). Cognitive Dissonance. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html Myers, D. (2012). Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities. Wolfgang, B. (2014, August 11). Obama adjusts Iraq narrative, now blames Bush for troop withdrawal. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/11/obama-adjusts-iraq-narrative-now- blames-george-w-b/?page=all Read More