Fragilecologies Archives
3 September 2003
The expression “once burned, twice shy” is based on the belief (if not the hope) that a mistake made the first time may be unavoidable and is understandable. It is assumed that, once the adverse impacts of that bad choice have been felt, it is less likely that a similar choice will be made in the future in a similar situation. This assumption suggests that lessons identified from the first unpleasant experience will be used if similar situations arise in the future.
However, deeper thinking about the “twice shy” part of the adage makes me wonder if it is true only generally and is only sometimes true in specific situations. It is more about what ought to be the response. Yes, lessons are likely to be identified from a first bad experience, but whether those lessons are learned and then used as a guide to action in future situations remains unclear.
Let’s say one is burned a second time. The person takes a second chance in the belief that the same fate will not befall him or her when doing the same thing as before. That too may be understandable, given another belief (perhaps false) that “lightning does not strike in the same place twice.” If they are proven wrong and they are burned a second time for a similar action, one might then revise the adage to “twice burned, thrice shy.” One would certainly hope so, but where is the study that supports such a belief? I do not know if such a study exists. Let’s look at these adages in the context of recent US foreign policy actions.
American President George W. Bush decided to put together a coalition to bring down the Taliban regime in Afghanistan after the deadly attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. The regime had been harboring the masterminds of 9/11. Coalition forces were successful to some extent: the Taliban was deposed and their leadership scattered, Al Qaida’s home base was apparently uprooted, and the beginnings of a democratic regime were initiated. Kabul and Khandahar were pacified.
Coalition forces have been unsuccessful, however, in disarming the regional warlords, unsuccessful in pacifying the country except for a few pockets of relative calm, terrorist attacks continue to take place in Kabul and Khandahar, and Taliban forces, referred to as “remnants” seem to have regrouped in the northwest territory of Pakistan and the neighboring mountains of Afghanistan. And so forth. To me, this represents the “once burned” situation. I mean this in the sense that many of the Bush objectives for a democratic future for Afghanistan have not been achieved, nor are they likely to be achieved in the future. Meanwhile, our troops are there, out on a proverbial tree limb, and it is costing taxpayers their hard-earned dollars.
Soon after, the President and his advisers, along with British Prime Minister Blair, decided that Saddam Hussein, for long the ruthless, despotic leader of Iraq, had successfully hidden his weapons of mass destruction from United Nations inspectors. They moved to bring down Saddam and his two infamous sons using their military force. They tried to assemble a large international coalition, but in essence they failed to do so, with some minor exceptions. Europe, Russia, and most of the rest of the world opposed such a military venture. Demonstrations against the impending war appeared just about everywhere around the globe, including in the United States and Great Britain.
Such anti-war sentiment notwithstanding, Bush and Blair put together a military force to depose Saddam. They succeeded in toppling his regime, capturing many of his government and political supporters, and killing his notorious sons. They failed, however, to fully understand the quagmire into which they had placed their troops. After just a matter of weeks, the troops were no longer seen a liberators, but as conquerors. After several months, no exit strategy is apparent. The “peace” in Iraq has proven to be costly in American lives and in the billions of dollars needed to rebuild the country’s infrastructure. The pacification of various parts of the country has not occurred. Public safety is nonexistent. This has occurred despite the Secretary of Defense’s assurance that the American plan is on target, that the costs (in lives of troops and Iraqis) are worth the potential benefit (of a democratic and free Iraqi society), that the Iraq situation is not a quagmire, and that the situation is not a case of urban guerilla warfare.
It looks like the coalition may have won the battle (toppling the Saddam regime), but it seems to be losing the war (pacification and democratization of Iraq). To me, this represents the “twice burned” situation for President Bush and his advisers. Lessons learned from the first venture (Afghanistan) were apparently not applied when it came to embarking on the second military venture (Iraq).
The problem is that the Bush administration does not appear to listen to outsiders, including the general public and, more importantly, the attentive public. It is not listening to its allies or to the criticism of others. For some reason, it wants to go it alone, along with Britain, in Iraq. Now the administration talks about wanting to bring in the United Nations and soldiers from other countries to assist in reconstructing the country. But to do so, the UN wants decision-making powers about that reconstruction. Bush says no. I’m not sure what Blair says.
In fact, Iraq is the third difficult protracted conflict situation the US forces have been involved in: Vietnam was really the first. Perhaps there is one lesson the Bush administration should consider. It is an idea suggested by the opposition to the war in Vietnam: declare victory and leave. The difference in the Iraq situation is that the United Nations and other non-governmental organization would enter the country to fill the void left by departing American and British troops.
In retrospect, once burned is understandable. Twice burned may also be understandable and forgivable. But thrice burned … it is not yet clear how turning a Presidential blind eye to lessons learned in similar situations will be judged by history. Badly, I would think.
“Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?”
Pete Seeger, 1961