You imply that less intelligent people are more able to delegate make use of advice for others. Is there any evidence for this? For example, Truman -- who you identify as an above average president of below average intelligence -- famously ignored the advice of the Los Alamos scientists on how long it would take Russia to build an atomic bomb. The scientists said "soon", Truman decided that would not happen for a long time and wasn't worth preparing for. He was obviously very wrong.

I am afraid that the part about relying on one's unconscious was quite a stretch. If some expert witness were to come to Mister Posner's court and give a convincing exposé of his guts feeling, I do hope Mister Posner would advise the jury to discard the information.

Moreover, Henry Kissinger, whom has been silently omitted, was both able and brilliant, and I am quite certain he never presented a suggestion to either Nixon or Ford backing it by saying that it came from "below the conscious level." Given, he was an academic, but I would have him as secretary way before anyone with terrain experience and some guts feelings.

I am afraid that the part about relying on one's unconscious was quite a stretch. If some expert witness were to come to Mister Posner's court and give a convincing exposé of his guts feeling, I do hope Mister Posner would advise the jury to discard the information.

Moreover, Henry Kissinger, whom has been silently omitted, was both able and brilliant, and I am quite certain he never presented a suggestion to either Nixon or Ford backing it by saying that it came from "below the conscious level." Granted, he was an academic, but I would have him as secretary way before anyone with terrain experience and some guts feelings.

Some of these comments remind me of a line from somewhere, "How little you see and understand Grasshopper". Or as Shakespeare was won't to put it, "There is more in earth and air, sea and sky, than is ever dreamt in your philosophy Horatio!" To turn ones back on intuition and the sub-concious is to turn ones back on probably more than fifty percent of our true intellectual capacity. There is something to be said for the old lizard portion of our brains.

If one were to study all of the "Great Leaders" of the world, the one commonality shared by all would be, a "VISION" that transcends time and space, logic and reason. A very, very rare commodity indeed. So, we're all going to have to learn to live with mediocrity and failure masquerading as brilliance. Ahh..., Reality!

I agree that Clinton wasn't a successful president, but I would go further - why does Posner imply that Bush's national security team has failed? You might get that impression from the mainstream media, but Posner is a blogger and should know better. As a legal scholar and judge, he should be ashamed if he doesn't read Instapundit. As an American, he should be ashamed for not supporting the troops.

It may be true, as a general matter, that managerial excellence has less to do with cognitive brilliance in the leader and more to do with his skill at marshalling the expertise of subordinates. But I find it hard to see our failures in Vietnam and Iraq rooted in such weakness--or in a set of circumstances so "profoundly uncertain" that they defy analytical intelligence.

On the contrary, failure in these examples seem more directly related to a stubborn inability (either at the personal or institutional level) to recognize a copious flow of information indicating that the underlying assumptions of the policy were (and are) simply wrong. Doesn't intellectual flexibility play some role in the quality of leadership?

James, Identifying a foreign policy gaffe, has nothing to do with loyality or "the support of the troops" clich'e. BTW, I've already got one nephew in Central Baghdad and another completeing Boot Camp at Parris Island who will probably be posted to Anbar Province. So don't even bother with the "support the troops" clich'e. One question, "How come you're not there or training to go?" Just one thought to leave you with, recognizing a "bushwhack" (no pun intended) before it happens, is more often than not an act of intuition than a reasoned analysis.

To say that Bush and Cheney have failed, you would have to know what their actual goals were. It would be more accurate to say that Bush and Cheney have not not accomplished the goals of the American people - but that may simply be because the goals of Bush and Cheney are different than the goals of the American people.

文秘网 糖尿病 心脑血管 工作总结 单位工作总结 个人工作总结 半年工作总结 教师工作总结 教学工作总结 财务工作总结 班主任工作总结 党支部工作总结 办公室工作总结 2007年度工作总结 党员工作总结 党员民主评议 民主评议 述职报告 个人述职报告 年度述职报告 年终述职报告 教师述职报告 小学教师述职报告 校长述职报告 财务述职报告 述职述廉报告 办公室主任述职报告 领导述职报告 领导班子述职报告 学习心得体会 党员学习心得体会 入党心得体会 培训心得体会 工作心得体会 学习党章心得体会 作风建设心得体会 作风建设年心得体会 八荣八耻心得体会 学习八荣八耻心得体会 科学发展观心得体会 构建和谐社会心得体会 新义务教育法心得体会 反腐倡廉心得体会 党课学习心得体会 党课学习心得体会 反腐倡廉心得体会 实习报告 会计实习报告 财务会计实习报告 毕业实习报告 计算机实习报告 银行实习报告 教育实习报告 自我鉴定 个人鉴定 政府工作报告 班主任工作计划 个人工作计划 财务工作计划 党支部工作计划 市场调研报告 新农村建设调研报告 优秀党务工作者材料 优秀党员先进事迹材料 入党申请书 安全演讲稿 演讲稿 庆七一演讲稿 七一演讲稿

Funny that Posner neglects to directly mention perhaps the most interesting and obvious modern case regarding the interplay of intelligence with leadership: George W. Bush. Posner only mentions the Iraq security team.
I know of no intellectual field in which Bush has succeeded, and he is generally regarded as a failure as a leader/President. As governor of Texas, however, Bush was a success. Why the discrepancy? Please, no flippant remarks about Bush's higher relative IQ vis-a-vis Texans as compared to the nation as a whole.

It is much too early to say that George W. Bush and his team have generally failed, either in Iraq or as President.

President Lincoln was reviled and hated by most in the south and by many in the north while in office (and was, of course hated so badly that he was assassinated); President Truman's approval ratings were very low during his presidency, and only the last several years have he and President Eisenhower come to be recognized as successful, if not great, presidents.

First of all, despite what a few fringe commenters might think, George W. Bush and the Iraq War have been monumental failures.

But more importantly, addressing Becker and Posner's posts, the real failure of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and all the Neo-Conservatives in Bush's Administration was that they were so unbelievably BIASED. They had decided to invade Iraq as early as 1998, with their Project for A New American Century letter to President Clinton, and it is well-documented that they had affirmatively decided on invading Iraq immediately after 9/11. So is it any wonder that they cooked the intelligence so it fit their pro-war narrative? This is the same problem the Kennedy-Johnson team had under McNamarra. They were so convinced that war and continued war were the right solutions that they ignored all evidence or analysis to the contrary.

Wes, The goals were simple and clear. We're going to go in there, overthrow Saddam and his terrorist buddies and take the weapons of mass destruction away, create an Iraqi Democracy that will allow democratic principles to flow throughout the Middle East and transform it. As for strategy/tactics, not needed, we're going to play it ear. Any questions?

The reason for the failure of the Bush national security team in spite of the intelligence and experience of the members is because they fell into groupthink. There was a party line that had to be followed, and even moderately dissenting opinions, e.g., Powell, were not valued. In that sort of a scenario, intelligence doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, to put it another way, intelligence doesn't suppress arrogance and intransigence, both of which can nullify whatever advantage intelligence can confer.

N.E. Hatfield writes:
Wes, The goals were simple and clear.

I can't tell if this post is sarcasm but I feel like discussing it anyway.

I would agree that the goals stated by Bush and Cheney were presented in a simple-minded way. Taken together, though, the goals were confusing and contradictory.

We're going to go in there, overthrow Saddam...

That goal was achieved and was probably a goal that Bush and Cheney actually had.

...and his terrorist buddies...

Well, Bin Laden and company were thought to be on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and the country with the most ties to the 9/11 hijackers was Saudi Arabia. It would be very hard to argue that Bush and Cheney were motivated to invade Iraq in order to capture terrorists linked to 9/11 - or linked to any other attacks on the USA, for that matter.

...and take the weapons of mass destruction away,...

If Bush and Cheney had actually thought that Saddam had an arsenal of nuclear weapons then they would have been extraordinarily foolish to invade. Invasion would have created a situation where the remnants of Saddam's government had nothing to lose, a powerful desire for retaliation and, by hypothesis, an arsenal of nuclear weapons in their posession. What Bush and Cheney probably thought was that Saddam possessed enough unconvention weapons to provide a justification for the invasion under international law but not enough unconventional weapons to actually be dangerous to the USA.

...create an Iraqi Democracy...

Well, Bush and Cheney probably wanted something that looked superficially like an Iraqi democracy but, if you look at their other goals, it becomes clear that they absolutely did not (and do not) want Iraq to be governed by a genuine democracy. In particular, they want an Iraqi government that allows them to have permanent military bases and launch attacks on neighboring countries, they want full support for Israel and they want US corporations to control Iraq's oil. These are not goals that are compatible with a genuine Iraqi democracy.

...that will allow democratic principles to flow throughout the Middle East and transform it.

If democracy by osmosis works so well then why isn't Cuba democratic? More to the point, if Bush and Cheney actually believed the whole "oppressive dictatorships promote Islamic radicalism that leads to terrorist attacks on the USA" thing, then they would have invaded Saudi Arabia. It is highly unlikely that Bush and Cheney intended the invasion of Iraq to lead to an infusion of "western" ideals into the region.

As for strategy/tactics, not needed, we're going to play it ear.

As many have pointed out, if the current strategy was not working to achieve Bush and Cheney's actual goals then Bush and Cheney would have changed their strategy.

As far as I can tell, the current strategy achieves most of Bush and Cheney's goals. US oil companies, with close ties to Bush and Cheney, have access to Iraqi oil. Military contractors, with close ties to Bush and Cheney (e.g. Haliburton), are getting huge amounts of business. The situation in Iraq makes it difficult to argue against maintaining permanent military bases. Bush and Cheney have huge levels of influence in the Iraqi government (it's even situated on a US military base - imagine if the US government was situated on a Chinese military base). Bush and Cheney can probably even get away with launching the occasional attack on countries neighboring Iraq - for "interfering" in Iraq.

On the whole, I'd say Bush and Cheney are actually achieving most of their goals. The only problem would be if the American people were to realize that Bush and Cheney don't have the same goals that the American people have.

Thank you for eight thoughtful, information packed, interesting paragraphs on leadership and a Harvard president who apparently is no longer there....how difficult it would be to switch from Treasury in Washington, DC to Harvard! What a leap in cultures ...perhaps the man never got a chance....once again Posner's eight paragraphs have given us more to ponder than Becker's five -- both are marvelous...thanks again---Posner is accurate in his summation of how the top dog would have difficulty relating to junior 'know the lay of the bone' dog -- love his writing....weekly Vegas fan PS check out Anthony Hopkins' first screenplay ...SLIPSTREAM and LA VIEN ROSE (story about French singer Edith Piaf)(when will we have a movie about POSNER????)

I'd like some information about the metric used to distinguish "successful" from "unsuccessful" presidents. After all, the entire argument about the absence of any necessary relation between intellectual ability and success as president assumes that the categorizations of presidents is correct. It's not obvious to me, for example, that Washington was a more successful president than Jefferson.
Clearly, Washington had certain advantages as president, including what was surely the most able cabinet ever assembled, including Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Hamilton. Washington also benefitted immensely from the lack of any organized political opposition. It's also worth noting that the presidency changed significantly, as an institution, between Washington's administration and Jefferson's. See Ackerman, The Failure of the Founding Fathers.

Yes i agree but the landscape has changed since!

I think it also goes into the personal. Brilliant minds are not superior at dealing with their personal lives either. How many intelligent lawyers/doctors/scientist/adademics have stupidly argued their less intelligent (or less trained) spouses into a corner instead of paying attention to the real issue at hand.

Just as clever lawyers can make intelligent arguments to promote faulty legal claims -- and the smartest judges see through it -- so do some hyper-intelligent government officials use their smarts to argue down their intuitive colleagues and critics. Clearly we do need the super-smart: for our society and our great lives, we owe the brilliant in the sciences, medicine, finance,the arts, law and other fields. And our leaders do need enough smarts to manage those under them, to understand and evaluate the information.

Posner's post makes sense to me. In cognitive science, there is a distinction made between "declarative knowledge"--which is factual knowledge that you can put into words and analyze--and "procedural knowledge", which is knowledge of how to do things. Since these two different kinds of knowledge are, generally speaking, handled by different parts of the brain, it is quite possible to have declarative knowledge of something but little or no procedural knowledge, and vice versa.

Sometimes this can be counterintuitive. For example, most people have a very good procedural knowledge of how to tie a shoe, but a hazy declarative knowledge of it. It is not uncommon for a person to actually have to tie a shoe and watch what his own hands do in order to "learn" the declarative steps from his hands. And yet, this knowledge of tying a shoe started out as declarative knowledge before it was mastered as procedural knowledge (and forgotten declaratively). This can be seen just by watching any small child murmur about rabbits going through holes as he awkwardly goes through the steps of tying his shoe.

There are a whole bunch of similar examples--baseball players making split-second decisions when fielding a ball, drivers on the road weaving in and out of traffic, etc. When you do something over and over--even something very involved and complex--for a very long time, it gets subsumed into your procedural knowledge, and you just have a "knack" for it that can't necessarily be put into words for a manager or superior officer to analyze.

The same is true for leaders of nations, and I think our traditional term for a leader's "knack" for making good decisions is "wisdom". If wisdom is indeed something like an ability or skill or uncanny knack, then it would make sense that it would not necessarily correlate with having lots of declarative knowledge or being able to produce new declarative knowledge out of existing declarative knowledge (e.g., analysis).

Given how serious things are these days, though, it might be good to start trying to figure out what widsom does correlate with..

So many things jump out here. First of all no mention of the value of honesty. Remember Washington's cherry tree. The current administration obviously is sadly lacking on this score. Another is the failure to realize that mental capacity wanes. Cheney's multiple heart attacks and Bush's earlier substance abuse have dulled their senses. There has been also been an emotional disconnect - the compassionate conservatives have been shown to be reckless masochists. Bush's delays after the tsunami and hurricane Katrina stand next to Abugraib, Guantanamo and the renditions. Finally, the disdain, belittlement and censcoring of scientific research may
set back humanity for centuries. WAKE UP

Dan, In terms of your need for a "metric" in order to comprehend, please try the following continuum:

Franklin Roosevelt-successful
Abe Lincoln-somewhat successful
"Junior"-fill in the blank

David Morris hits the nail on the head.

I think the real difference Posner is speaking of is the difference between wisdom and intelligence. Part of being wise is understanding the limits of your own knowledge and capabilities of comperhension. Unfortunately, many very intelligent people do not confront these limits and never truly grapple with just how ignorant they are.

Second, like Dan Cole, I don't think it's so easy to determine who was and was not a great president. We tend to revere those presidents who get us into wars that we eventually win, but discount the achievements of presidents who take steps to preserve the peace. I think most of what determines being a successful president is sheer luck. For example, James K. Polk fabricated a reason to go to war with Mexico knowing that the American army was quite small and weak. Because we were lucky enough to win that war, he is now considered on of our best presidents. Had he lost the war, we would be hearing constant comparisons of him to Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush.

I'd be willing to bet that neither wisdom or intelligence correlates with any measure of success as strongly as simple chance.

What's the easiest thing to do? To create conundrums by not defining the terms of a problem. As soon as Posner completed the enormously laborious task of defining intelligence and leadership, he would have no problem to solve.

See Howard Gardner (Harvard U), very popular in public education communities, who has written extensively about multiple intelligences, e.g., auditory, nature, music, visual, tactile, physical.....

But overall the correlation between intelligence and effectiveness in the Presidency may actually be negative.

No. See:



Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives



This recent paper by Dean Keith Simonton directly contradicts Dr. Posner's claims. The correlation between US presidential performance and an estimate of IQ was .35.[*] This is the same as the correlation between IQ and leadership performance in general (.27).

Posner argues convincingly that non-cognitive talents may be of greater importance in determining success at top-level government leadership positions than analytical brilliance and other cognitive skills.

In contrast to Dr. Becker, Simonton writes:

In fact, out of more than two dozen individual-difference variables examined, intelligence was the only one to display consistently positive correlations with all available measures of presidential greatness (Simonton, 1992; cf. McCann, 1992). Indeed, it constitutes the only direct individual-difference correlate of performance once situational factors are taken into account (Simonton, 1991b, 1992; see also Simonton, 1986a, 1996).

If they are too much more intelligent, they will have difficulty assessing the capacities and limitations of their underlings and they will be tempted to substitute their intelligence for their underlings' knowledge.

If this were true, it would show up in the general studies between leadership and IQ. It doesn't - a smarter boss is a better boss.

[*] Actually the correlation is even stronger. When Simonton uses a composite measure, which takes in intellectually relevant personality traits, such as openness to experience, the correlation is .56.

What about good judgement? Not quite the same thing as wisdom. Especially the ability to choose the right people. What strikes me about the difference between Reagan and the current president is that the former seemed to choose well. The latter...not.

I worked in a government ministry in a capital city, and chief executives do not 'make decisions' so much as choose which advisor's advice to follow.

First, for some comic relief watch this YouTube clip where Bill Maher does a routine related to this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sNJhphi7U

Second, I think Posner has the right idea but is off base. To be a successful leader/president, one must have intelligence, adequate social skills, AND emotional intelligence (EQ). To argue which is more important is like arguing about whether the engine or the tires are more important parts of a car. Without both parts working together, the car will not move.

For example, Donald Rumsfeld seems like an intelligent man to me. But according to retired generals who have worked with him (and whom I believe), he is also tremendously arrogant and refuses to admit making any sort of mistake, nor will he allow anyone else to suggest an idea that is better than one of his. I think Colin Powell may have been referring to this in an interview I read where he said something along the lines of "I don't like politics because I'm used to being in the military. For example, if the plan was to march straight ahead and we were ambushed from the side, we would simply change our plans. I'm not used to being in that sort of situation and hearing people say 'Well, although we're being attacked from the side, we'll be perceived as weak and incompetant if we change our plan, so we have to pretend that the ambush from the side isn't happening and just keep marching straight.'"
In any event, no matter how intelligent someone is, if his ego is so fragile that he cannot admit to making any sort of oversight or that someone else had a better idea, he cannot be a successful leader in the long run (he must be able to "flip-flop"). I think this is one of the main reasons why Rumsfeld and the vast majority of the members of the Bush Administration have been such catastrophic failures. I do not think it is because they were too intelligent.

(Halliburton's stock price has more than quadrupled and the energy industry, with which this Administration has been closely tied, has been making record profits. So if a large part of their REAL goal was to make money for themselves and their friends, I am sure that, at the end of the day, they will have the last laugh.)

As for Larry Summers, it sounds like he is a textbook example of someone who should have been a successful leader but had inadequate social skills. For example, of the parts of his highly politically incorrect speech that I have heard, everything he said was true. However, despite being correct (i.e., intelligent), it seems that he carried out his message in such a way that his poor social skills overshadowed the sound logic on which his idea was based.

Oh come on, all appointed government jobs, CEO positions, and University presidencies are distributed per cronyism/nepotism, when the cronies are smart, no one notices the cronyism.

You can call them "brilliant laterals" if you want, that's a grand marketing label for what regular people would call a crony.

There are brilliant people throughout the civil service, in senior production level jobs at companies, and on university faculties, they stay there NOT because of lack of brilliance, but because they are morally unwilling to adopt the prime tactics of a successful crony, which include:

1) Taking sole credit for the work and ideas of subordinates
2) Betraying what is right for what is loyal
3) Negative political action against peers

Intelligence is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to maintaining a career as a crony. This administration has proven as much. But if it makes you all feel better about your chances in life to think that smart = successful, I shouldn't take that away. As for myself, I will take what success I can achieve without betraying values for ends.

We will only be surprised if we assume that intelligence is a single trait, like when we divided our grade school classes into the "smart kids" and the "dumb" kids. Long before Gardiner's "multiple intelligences" we knew that people are "intelligent" about different things. I have strong analytical skills (high SAT score type), but I have all my life had trouble mastering a fraction of what my mother knew about the natural world (plants, birds, rocks, stars). I do a great job when I can master all the information, but struggle to make good decisions when there is not enough information available. I miss important interpersonal signals and political dimensions issues. I am pretty smart -- and pretty dumb. I don't look for leaders who are necessarily the "smartest" people out there, but for people who are reasonably thoughtful and have strong skills in and records of leadership. We make a serious mistake when we assume that smarts of one sort imply intelligence or smarts of another.

I saw the Bill Maher video and found it amusing. The interesting thing is that it seems to ignore the fact that Bush, Gonzalez, etc. are elite educated.

Yes, it is inexcusable that a person with little but a political tie is appointed to such a position. However, tt is also possible she was selected BECAUSE of her credentials. I could be wrong but isnt it a political asset to have ready scapegoats hanging around? What better scape goat than a lowly educated political appointee with little power?

Personally, I am from Texas (born and raised) and live in New York City. I go to law school at night and work during the day. I worked in the corporate world as an engineer and was somewhat successful by my measure. The corporate experience combined with New York has certainly been an interesting experience.

From this experience my gut feel (intuition, subconscious, etc.) is that arrogance negates any potential gains that may be realized from intelligence. I have worked with brilliant engineers that simply were not able to get the job done because they ignored important data being provided by 'suspect' sources. Similarly with attorneys.

In these circumstances, it seems that there is essentially a starvation of information caused by the arrogance combined with absence of specific human capital in lateral transfers. This is, if you ignore the specific human capital from your underlings then how is your high IQ going tbe be effective absent of data provided by specific human capital?

So what does the arrogant manager do? He makes stuff up. I dont know how many meetings that I have sat in where bad news is conveyed and the manager clearly just 'spins' it and blames some underling, usually the one bringing the bad news. But then again, all of this is mere 'unconscious' information that is impossible to quantify.

I think maybe the answer to Maher's question regarding the poor regard for the term of elite in politics is that it may be seen to lack merit outside of the political framework. That is, the customer of, say, Microsoft could care less about whether Manager X has an IQ of 170 and his underling has an IQ of 150. The customer only cares about whether his Word allows him to produce the same amount for less money (the brand preference manufactured by the marketing departments aside). The same may be said for Washington.

So, I would say that being focused on human IQ and acquired skills is probably a little narrow in scope. It seems that there are variables that probably have a greater weight on success from what I am reading in the comments. Perhaps focus should be paid on other human capital like Becker appears to suggest.

I think in history we can look at people like Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Hamnibal, etc. who advanced on the combination of merit along with politics as lessons. Correct me if I am wrong, isn't it widely regarded that their arrogance ultimately their downfall?

Then you look at successful leaders like Churchill, Lincoln, Eisnehower, etc... do you see evidence of willingness to collaborate with underlings? Also note that these 'leaders' rise in times of crisis where the ability to get the overall job done is paramount over political or perception of IQ.

This is not rocket science. The only reason why it is debatable is that it requires the current 'elite' to question the validity of their positions. Of course they are going to avoid putting forth arguments that undermine their legitimacy. After all, putting forth an argument that arrogance combined with lack of specific human capital is deadly would tend to undermine the career advances the 'elite' may make not to mention rendering ineffective many political tools (e.g., a ready scapegoat).

Lincoln -

It is somewhat amazing that Lincoln is considered one of the best if not best president in our history. But the facts show that more Americans died as a direct result of his rule than any other president's before or since.

From an historical perspective, maybe Bush was/is too peaceful. He actually expected Iraqies to be able to govern themselves and tried to minimize civilian casualties. What he should have done, to be considered a good president, is ordered massive decimations of civilian populations and forced complete surrender and obedience to the American government. See the way we treated the American South during the Civil War and Germany and Japan during World War 2 as examples of good American presidential leadership.

High-IQ people tend to suffer in adolescence -- get tagged as nerds, withdraw. They turn to intellectual pursuits at the expense of devloping their social skills. They thus are less likely to become great leaders because leadership above all is a social skill.

Jimmy Carter is more intelligent than...[doesn't matter who]...can an antisemite ever be considered intelligent? I don't think so.

[Bush] actually expected Iraqies to be able to govern themselves...

First, it's not clear what Bush expected - what you are referring to was an expectation of many US citizens (who weren't really paying attention). Second, Iraq will have a government no matter what. The natural tendency, though, is toward an Iranian style theocracy. What you really mean by "govern themselves" is having a pro-western democracy.

The problem is that "pro-western" and "democracy" are mutually exclusive. Democracy is government by the people - but the people (of Iraq) are not pro-western. You can have one or the other but not both.

Some of the Republicans who were paying attention (e.g. James Baker) were hoping for a puppet government that looked like a democracy - a "non-Jeffersonian democracy".

Not surprisingly, a lot of the Iraqis are sufficiently unhappy with their USA imposed "non-Jeffersonian democracy" that they're willing to fight and die to get rid of it. Whether Bush has more or less Iraqis killed isn't going to change that.

Changing perspective a bit, if China invaded and occupied the USA and set up a "democratic" government that operated out of a Chinese military base and depended on the Chinese government for just about everything, a lot of people in the USA wouldn't like that too much either.

James,

Posner is a judge of the United States. The troops are here to support him, not vice versa.

Maybe you ought to support the troops and ask that we end our unwinnable asian land war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Cheney damn near bankrupted Halliburton through his purchase of Dresser Industries. The parallels with Iraq are failure to do proper reasearch, actions based on wishful thinking, and being bailed out by friends in high places. He has been very successfull at maintaining political power. He was a failure as a businessman.

He is a strong leader who took bold actions and did not use his intelligence. Perhaps the question is wrong -- do we really need strong, dynamic leaders?

Yes it does help a little in some cases!

One of the qualities that I have not seen discussed here is the ability to relate to other people. Well, that is not entirely true (since EQ was mentioned) but how intelligence does separate people. For example, I will assume that (to throw out a number) only the top 15% of people of intelligence will read this blog. This already separate us from the other 85% of people.

The people we are generally talking about here are probably in the top 5% of intelligence (well, some might argue about President Bush, but thats besides the point). It seems like to me that these high intelligence people will not have the experience that us lowly mortals have. Therefore, having too high of an intelligence might interfere with the ability to govern well.

After rereading my previous post, I think that my grammar speaks ill of my intelligence. Mental note: proofread.

Second, Iraq will have a government no matter what.

That seems like a leap of faith if you ask me. Iraq will not necessarily have "a" government no matter what. They will most likely have two or more competing governments and civil war. And even the government(s) they have now are incapable of actual governance. It takes more than just passing laws and debate. Someone has to actually enforce law and order, clean up the streets, make sure schools, hospitals, roads, utilities, etc... are running smoothly.

The Muslim world just gets crazy with political power for some reason. How often does the West have suicide bombers compared to the Middle East? Not that we're helping all that much. We really should have pushed harder to separate religion from politics in Iraq instead of assuming the population was behind wanting Islam mentioned in their constitution. But that was because our administration listened to "experts" instead of asking itself "What would Stalin do?"

What Bush should have done if he wanted to forcibly Westernize Iraq is take over the Oil fields first and use that money for the occupation rather than just give it to the Iraqis. Carpet bomb any city that refused to completely surrender to American rule. Destroy all holy buildings that could be used as rallying points to form an opposition. Have one non-religious pro-capitalist person write the Constitution instead of a committee. Forcibly remove anyone from power who was unwilling to implement our views. Change the schools to teach English and Western values. And basically put the country under direct military rule for at least a generation. Then start letting them govern themselves bit by bit once they could be "trusted".

Nelson, you seem to be endorsing facism.(In its most classical Mussolini/Hitler sense)

Is it really the case that the lessons of WWII only lasted for 60 years? Wow...

Iraq will not necessarily have "a" government no matter what.

I meant "government" in a very broad sense. Perhaps I should have said "system of government(s)"

They will most likely have two or more competing governments and civil war.

Sort of, my impression is that, if (when) the Iraqis are left to themselves, the most likely outcome is a fragmentation of Iraq into about three separate countries. I suspect that ethnic cleansing will eliminate civil war and establish authoritarian governments in each of the separate countries. There may, however, be military conflicts between the newly formed countries (possibly in retaliation for the ethnic cleansing).

Someone has to actually enforce law and order,...

Saddam Hussein is an obvious counter example to the idea that it is impossible to enforce law and order in Iraq in any general sense. In fact, the real long term danger in Iraq is too much "enforcement" (e.g. excessively totalitarian government(s)).

But that was because our administration listened to "experts" instead of asking itself "What would Stalin do?"

Actually, I would argue exactly the opposite. I would argue the the USA's occupation of Germany after WWII succeeded precisely because the USA did things differently than Stalin. Admittedly, Stalin and his successors were able to maintain an occupation of Eastern Europe for quite a while - but eventually that situation collapsed and now many Eastern European don't really like (the remnants) of the former Soviet Union all that much.

What Bush should have done if he wanted to forcibly Westernize Iraq...

This is the real key here. Why would Bush want to forcibly westernize Iraq? There was never any possibility that Iraq could defeat the USA militarily and the risk of terrorism from Iraq is much greater under US occupation than if Iraq is just left to languish under a totalitarian government.

...is take over the Oil fields first and use that money for the occupation...

Well, here's the problem, even under ideal circumstances there would not be enough oil money to pay for everything. Even Saudi Arabia only makes about $100 billion a year on oil profits - which would be just barely enough to pay for the direct US military expenses with the occupation at it's present level. If the occupation was increased, as you propose, or if money was needed for reconstruction from something like a carpet bombing, which you also propose, then the US taxpayer would (eventually) take it in the wallet in a very big way.

... And basically put the country under direct military rule for at least a generation.

Again, why are you doing this? Who is supposed to benefit? Is it really so important to have a McDonald's on every street corner and a WalMart in every neighborhood that it's worth a generation of brutal (borderline genocidal, as you propose it) military rule?

Iraq is a tiny little country of only 25 million or so people. Suppose that as much as 10% actually want the McDonalds / Walmart experience. That's still only 2.5 million people. The USA has over 300 million people and could easily absorb 2.5 million people without even noticing. For that matter, it could absorb the entire population without even noticing.

If it's really that important that people have access to the "American" experience then open the US "border" with Iraq. Let people in Iraq who want to be American come to America and let everyone else in Iraq live their lives the way they want to live them (a falafel stand on every corner and a mosque in every neighborhood - or whatever it is they think will give their lives a small glimmer of meaning and purpose).

Interesting topic of discussion. I disagree with many (most?) of Judge Posner's assumptions and conclusions on this topic. But what interests me most is his fascination with IQ and education, which he terms "general human capital," and which - it seems to me - he confuses with "brilliance."

Anyone who has supervised employees knows that IQ and education get you only so far. An immensely talented individual will not succeed if he does not work hard, does not think critically, or is not rigorous in his analysis. An immensely talented individual can also fail if she allows her judgment to be clouded by politics or ideology. Moreover, an IQ of 170 does not necessarily imply a good moral sense or a respect for institutional goals. In fact, some highly intelligent individuals believe that the normal rules of conduct do not apply to them. Their hubris can be their downfall.

The most accomplished persons in most fields have the native intelligence (though not necessarily degrees from the best schools - especially if their upbringing was modest). A talented individual who applies himself will almost certainly succeed. But as Thomas Edison famously said, genius is 99% perspiration. Most employers would prefer a reasonably bright, dedicated, fair-minded, and hard-working employee to one who is highly intelligent but undisciplined, erratic, or excessively ideological. As the employers of our public officials, We the People should have the same preference. But unfortunately, we often do not.

Finally, I submit that "brilliance" refers to a person's body of work, not to his native talent. A bright person who has not succeeded in his life's work does not deserve the "brilliant" label, even if he made straight A's in school and memorized the collected works of Shakespeare.

Corey, You could go one better. Try Hadrian, Judea, the diaspora and the creation of "Syria-Palastine" (or something like that). The Romans really knew how to take of political-military problems. As for Pompey, he cleared the Mediterranian of pirates. Perhpas, we could take a few lessons. But, I doubt it would do our standing in the world any good.

The discussion of presidents and intelligence leads to a major point of Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals. At the risk of not doing her theme justice, she says that Lincoln did well by gathering around him persons whose experiences and emotional inclinations were different, so that he could have the benefit of a wider intelligence than he alone could provide. Certainly Lincoln was highly intelligent on his own; and certainly he made significant mistakes. But is he an example of a leader optimally combining both the analytic and experiental skills that were available? Had Summers been able and willing to lean on others in the Harvard community who had rival positions, might he not have had a more successful tenure?

An other interesting point is the relevance of this discussion to the American jury. Some of the comments posted in April about the tort system were critical of juries, and there are indeed valid criticisms (for example, concerning their ability to handle complex cases). But a great positive aspect of the jury is that it widens the knowledge pool; it widens the intelligence that can be brought to bear on a matter. And it can fliter out biases. It is, of course, democratic, and we like that. But does it combine enough of the raw intelligence that is required in many cases? Is the knowlege pool wide but too shallow? How often will the jury have one or more "leaders" who can distill the collective wisdom and work for the best result?

From what I have read, most judges believe that juries do a good job. In a survey taken in 2000 by the Dallas Morning News, 97% of judges participating (state and federal)said that they agreed with jury verdicts most of the time, and 90% said that jurors had considerable understanding of the legal issues involved. (I can dig up the web site for anyone interested.)This implies a good level of intelligence (even though it is possible that the respondent judges mostly wanted to think that their jury instructions were clear and understandable).

The question is: Based on the analyses and arguments presented here, what conclusion can be drawn concerning the future role of the American jury?

Thanks for this blog. It's terrific. I learned of it too late to benefit a book that I just published, but shall return here often.

Again, why are you doing this?I'm not doing this. I'm just saying what is required of a "good" president. The North broke the will of the South and it took a long time to rebuild. The Allies broke the will of the Germans. The United States, with the help of nuclear weapons, broke the will of Japan. We have not broken the will of anyone in the Mid East, so it is too soon to rebuild anything. Now personally I'd settle for being a mediocre president and would have lifted sanctions against Iraq and never invaded them to begin with. But you don't make the top 10 list without military victory. And you don't achieve military victory without breaking the will of your enemies.

Nelson, Do you know what's involved with breaking a Nation's or enemy's will to resist? You've got to be willing to "jump down their throats with both feet and make it hurt so bad that they have no choice but to capitulate" just to stop the "pain" so to speak. As Sherman put it, "War is hell and there is no way that it can be civilized." or as Caesar put it, "Veni, Vedi, Vici." If you're not willing to go to the lengths necessary, you'd best stay out of it.

I think there is misunderstanding between intelligence and the cold calculated use of power to achieve ends. Perhaps a question of "means and ends"? Perhaps all American civil servants and political leaders should be required to be fluent in Machiavelli's "Discourses' and the "Prince".
Then we might end up with some "real leaders".

Nelson, Do you know what's involved with breaking a Nation's or enemy's will to resist? You've got to be willing to "jump down their throats with both feet and make it hurt so bad that they have no choice but to capitulate" just to stop the "pain" so to speak. As Sherman put it, "War is hell and there is no way that it can be civilized." or as Caesar put it, "Veni, Vedi, Vici." If you're not willing to go to the lengths necessary, you'd best stay out of it.

I think there is misunderstanding between intelligence and the cold calculated use of power to achieve ends. Perhaps a question of "means and ends"? Perhaps all American civil servants and political leaders should be required to be fluent in Machiavelli's "Discourses' and the "Prince".
Then we might end up with some "real leaders".

Nelson, Do you know what's involved with breaking a Nation's or enemy's will to resist? You've got to be willing to "jump down their throats with both feet and make it hurt so bad that they have no choice but to capitulate" just to stop the "pain" so to speak. As Sherman put it, "War is hell and there is no way that it can be civilized." or as Caesar put it, "Veni, Vedi, Vici." If you're not willing to go to the lengths necessary, you'd best stay out of it.

I think there is misunderstanding between intelligence and the cold calculated use of power to achieve ends. Perhaps a question of "means and ends"? Perhaps all American civil servants and political leaders should be required to be fluent in Machiavelli's "Discourses' and the "Prince".
Then we might end up with some "real leaders".

n.e.hat -

Yeah, I agree. That was kind of my point. I was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt back when the war started because I was hoping things would turn out better, but the chaos in Iraq shows history's lessons are still valid today. Don't go to war unless you plan to do a lot of harm to a lot of people and property. Also, I was alluding to the fact that historians put perhaps too much emphasis on military victories when they create their lists of good leaders.

I'm just saying what is required of a "good" president.

It's not enough to win a war, it also matters who you win against. There's a big difference between beating up the high school bully that everyone hates and beating up the prom queen that everyone likes.

For example, the USA successfully invaded and occupied the Philippines but do most people even remember which US president presided over most of the war? It was McKinley, in case you're wondering - not really remembered as one of the USA's greatest presidents.

The North broke the will of the South and it took a long time to rebuild.

The people who think Lincoln was a hero also think that the Confederates were a bunch a racist rednecks with delusions of grandeur whose main goal was to perpetuate the horrific practice of slavery.

The Allies broke the will of the Germans.

And lot of people thought the Germans deserved a whole lot worse than what they got.

The United States, with the help of nuclear weapons, broke the will of Japan.

And a lot of people in the USA weren't too happy with the Japanese over that little incident called "Pearl Harbor".

The bottom line is that if a US president wants to be remembered for greatness, he's got to win a war against a group that is very dangerous and very unpopular.

Unfortunately for Bush, he didn't get to be president at a time when such a group exists. Sure, he can talk about how scary 20 guys with box cutters are and he can even invade a dippy little country of 25 million people that's minding it's own business except that the people look sort of like the 20 guys with box cutters. At the end of the day though, beating up on some random high school weakling doesn't garner the same popularity as standing up to the high school bully.

Easy.

Think of the successful leaders. You must include Reagan.

They were right on the essentials of the current dynamic. They also could articulate these simple facts.

Now think of the oh so smart Carter and Clinton. (Carter I am not so sure of, also Hoover). They dabbled in trivialities....complexities with no great effect on the fundamental dynamics. They misfocused their alleged intelligence on the minutia of the moment, not on the fundamentals.

Thus, perhaps by the better measure, Reagan had it right and Carter/Clinton were too, well perhaps just too too.

Easy.

Think of the successful leaders. You must include Reagan.

They were right on the essentials of the current dynamic. They also could articulate these simple facts.

Now think of the oh so smart Carter and Clinton. (Carter I am not so sure of, also Hoover). They dabbled in trivialities....complexities with no great effect on the fundamental dynamics. They misfocused their alleged intelligence on the minutia of the moment, not on the fundamentals.

Thus, perhaps by the better measure, Reagan had it right and Carter/Clinton were too, well perhaps just too too.

Easy.

Think of the successful leaders. You must include Reagan.

They were right on the essentials of the current dynamic. They also could articulate these simple facts.

Now think of the oh so smart Carter and Clinton. (Carter I am not so sure of, also Hoover). They dabbled in trivialities....complexities with no great effect on the fundamental dynamics. They misfocused their alleged intelligence on the minutia of the moment, not on the fundamentals.

Thus, perhaps by the better measure, Reagan had it right and Carter/Clinton were too, well perhaps just too too.

BTW, a good source for whittling down to the true characteristics dynamics is to learn from experience, i.e. to test hypotheses against yet to be experienced events....to learn.

This is in part why Communists are so so smart and so so dumb. Same with many other Socialists.

Yes i agree things must change

It is interesting that Judge Posner concluded that Larry Summers failed (at Harvard) due to the Harvard faculty of arts and science, but refrained from pointing out that the Bush team failed (in Iraq,) incompetence and mistakes not withstanding, mostly because they were undermined by their political enemies here at home!

My gut tells me that intelligence is an important trait for leadership positions (i.e. president of the united states).