Open Source War
Steven Den Beste presents an interesting argument for the view that Saddam has likely been killed or seriously wounded by our initial “decapitation” strikes against Baghdad.
What is interesting is the reason why any such decapitation would be so unusually helpful to American troops: Arab leaders tend to horde authority at the top of the chain of command, in contrast to American generals who adopt (in my words) a more “open source” approach to decision-making and the delegation of authority.
Describing the American approach as “open source” may be a somewhat misleading, since it implies something which is likely not true, that foot soldiers have access to the same strategic and intelligence resources as their commanders.
On the other hand, it highlights an important difference between Arab and western cultures: their different approaches to authority, and the fact that American (along with British and Israeli) servicemen interact at a higher level of mutual respect and trust. In this case, soldiers’ and generals’ intelligence is typically treated as a valuable asset, rather than a potential liability.
What I find especially fascinating here is the way in which individualism—respect for individual autonomy and independent thinking—once again proves superior to the alternative, even in a traditionally authoritarian context like the military.
UPDATE: The Pentagon has just confirmed that Saddam was, apparently, wounded in the initial strike. They must not have been getting the answers they wanted when they began negotiating with the Republican Guard, because they’re also confirming that the “Shock and Awe” phase of Iraq’s liberation has begun.
