After all, it’s all about me anyway, isn’t it?

The is the first episode of The Smug Baldy Speaks. Here, I talk very briefly about evolution as theory and fact. I also give a quick website recommendation for one of my favorites: SEB.

I hope to do this on a regular basis, and I promise that if I keep podcasting, I WILL get better at it.

Take a listen, and OBEY.

Just write your letter and it will be hand-delivered immediately following the exodus of the pure from the Earth. But you must be thinking to yourself, “How can the letters be delivered after the Rapture?” The answer is simple. The creators of this site are Atheists. That’s right, we don’t believe in God. How else would we be able to deliver your correspondence after the Rapture?

This site is pretty tongue in cheek, but I must admit, I thought it was pretty funny, until I saw the “Told You So” cards in the online store. Now I’m worried that my mom will want one.

• I find your lack of pants disturbing.
• You are unwise to lower your pants.
• The Force is strong in my pants.
• Chewie and me got into a lot of pants more heavily guarded than this.
• I cannot teach him. The boy has no pants.
• Your pants, you will not need them.
• You came in those pants? You’re braver than I thought.
• In his pants you will find a new definition of pain and suffering
• I think you just can’t bear to let a gorgeous guy like me out of your pants.
• Governer Tarkin. I should have expected to find you holding Vader’s pants.
• I’ve just made a deal that will keep the Empire out of our pants forever
• Pull up! All pants pull up!
• I sense the conflict within you. Let go of your pants!
• These aren’t the pants you’re looking for.
• Alderan is peaceful, we have no pants!
• A disturbance in the pants. I have not felt this since near my old master…
• He has no time for smugglers who drop their pants first sign of Imperials
• Looks like someone’s beginning to take an interest in your pants.
• The pants will be down in moments, sir, you can begin your landing
• Lock the door. And hope they don’t have pants.
• That blast came from the pants! That thing’s operational!
• Your pants can deceive you, don’t trust them
• “I want them alive. No pants.” -Vader
• Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your pants.
• I am altering the pants. Pray that I don’t alter them any further
• Away with your pants, I mean you no harm!
• Great, Chewie, great. Always thinking with your pants.
• The Pants are what gives a Jedi his power
• I’m taking Captain Solo … and his pants
• “Don’t do that, my pants are dirty.” “My pants are dirty, too.”
• Search your pants, you know it to be true.

You can see the entire list here

Much of the criticism of this uptick (about a 20% increase in American troops, most of whom will be deployed to Baghdad) rests on the thinking that the time for a military solution in Iraq has passed, and that any plan that will solve the civil war in Iraq must be a political one.

I wonder if there isn’t something else going on. I think it’s very likely that the thinking in this White House is driven by something known as an Illusion of Control, and that it’s strategy has fallen prey to a classic management trap: The Sunk Cost Dilemma.

Illusion of Control is probably best described here:

The theory of the illusion of control (IOC) was first defined by Ellen Langer (1975) as an expectancy of a personal success probability that exceeds the objective probability of the outcome. This type of overconfidence is likely when an event that is at least partially determined by chance is characterized by factors that normally lead to enhanced outcomes under skill-based situations, such as choice, stimulus or response familiarity, competition, and passive or active involvement (Langer, 1975). These skill-related cues thus give rise to individuals’ perceived control over an outcome, which in turn leads to an unrealistic subjective probability of success.

It doesn’t take much of an intellectual stretch to see how this might have applied to the war planning of this White House: Planners had great expectations of a quick military victory – and this led to an unrealistic perception of control in an environment that became increasingly violent and chaotic over time. Such misperceptions of control could clearly support the now discredited notion that, by simply staying the course, we would have greater success – and ultimate victiry in Iraq.

One thing that this White House needs to be honest about is exactly what we do and do not have control over in Iraq. We do have control over our troops, and largely over where they’re sytationed and what they do. We do not have control over the Iraqi government, its forces, and its policies. We do not have control over the insurgency, or the various factions and their death squads. In addition – we do not have control over the perception of American military policy and motivations at home, in Iraq, or anywhere else.

Another thing this White House appears to be doing is falling into a Sunk Cost Dilemma with regard to the Iraq War. Indeed, it’s not uncommon to hear proponents of the war within the administration cite the costs already spent in terms of American lives and dollars as a justification for continued investment – and now – escalation. The sunk cost dilemma – also known as simply throwing good money after bad – is a known project management issue. It often occurs in large organizations that have already made substantial investments in a particular project, and will continue to invest in the same project – even though these investments may not be paying out. Apparently, in some large organizations, some projects seem to take on a life of their own, and there is no easy way out of the trap.

One site outlines these factors to consider when faced with such a situation, and it’s interesting that these were not generated in response to the Iraq War:

• Be careful and realistic when assessing projects and organisational capacities to run large projects. Try to avoid over-optimism. Set up a list of “project risks” and decide, if you are prepared to accept these risks. Use your entire tool set to analyse those heavy investments and set up a worst case scenario. Define a PSR (point of safe return). Look also only at incremental costs and revenues.
• Prepare the organisation to stop and to kill strategic projects early when they are not able to meet milestones.
• Employ a gated funding strategy: Set up certain small milestones, which have to be met. If the project overrun these milestones, stop it.