Risk Aversion: have we learnt the lesson yet?

Aversion |ə’vər zh ən|

Noun

1. A strong dislike or disinclination: he had a deep-seated aversion to most forms of exercise. 2. Someone or something that arouses such feelings.

 In today’s century, there is a subconscious aversion.  It is based on the premise that human creativity cannot tolerate a reality that must question risk. How will one’s vision play out? What risk is involved in implementing that vision? The human species has always dreamt. And dreamt larger than what reality can achieve. A goal to see a vision concreted in reality has brought much pain and suffering over the many centuries that have seen the same aversion. Perhaps it is not subconscious? Therefore, the hope for realization of a dream is a powerful mechanism that has laid waste to vast civilizations on continents as it can be said to have given the opposite - a truly wonderful outcome. The European Union is the result of a dream that is seeing benefits what was previously thought impossible.

Then on the other hand, it took Hitler a long while to see his vision, mad and unrealistic, of conquering the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa (1940-1943)  - as part of his dream for a “Thousand Year Reich” – a long time to see the invasion as failing, because he did not see the risks that involve such a massive operation or the risks of eventual occupation of such a large land mass. For one thing, slavery is not cheap. He did not see ‘retreat and regroup’ as part of a war strategy necessary for success. ‘Stand and Die’ was a strategy Hitler demanded of his generals; that cost the lives of millions, German and Soviet.

 In today’s century, the risk aversion of ‘Regime Change’ is effectual, in that it has succeeded in exposing horrific miscalculations. Reconstruction efforts are not a task for the military. To invade and subjugate a nation into a political system foreign in all respects is a serious miscalculation that will, even perhaps already has, cost lives and reputations. The neo-con dream of invading Iraq was a serious flaw in thinking, in hoping for a ‘democracy’ reborn there. A serious flaw in not understanding that after thirty years of infrastructural neglect would result in an expensive reconstruction process. War damage was minimal, yet after seeing what infrastructure Iraq had surprised many, as well as the acrimony of sects that had its lid firmly shut tight for decades. The latter was a risk not fully anticipated.

 The vision of regime change, based on moral and biblical language, is a fantasy that has no basis in reality. Except for the argument of a regime changing of tyranny to ‘democracy reborn’.  Constitutional and international law equations factor heavily, motives are questioned, stringent to an acceptable perimeter that, as of this date February 2010, has not yet fully concluded. Regime change is a dangerous game not for the faint hearted. There are limitations of acceptability and the weighing of risk not fully appreciated.

 In today’s century, risk aversion is a ‘utopian construct’ that fails to consider implications. Utopian construct because, when all is considered in dreaming, many would be negated in their pursuit of a grand vision - many have failed to take into consideration implications that impend a noble idea, even if the goal is morally ambiguous.

 The lack of reality check is often what fails a dream. This is what I call ‘risk aversion’. One war historian did make the observation that Hitler had an aversion to this kind of reality because of his narrow vision for a longer-term objective. Hitler’s countermanding his own orders reduced success in taking Stalingrad in 1942 – before autumn, is the clearest example in recent history that risk aversion highlights for us. 

 Risk aversion is the number one problem for 21^st century strategists and politicians. Hubris is its wellspring from which they draw their blood lust for regime change. Always of course “for the ‘national security’ of our country”, they opine. But in actual reality of facts, done in the name of self-interest. Synonymous terms fit this picture of deceit, like the term regime change is ‘security’, ‘potential WMD’, ‘freedom to be a democracy’. Another would be ‘War Corporatism’ as it is the market shifter for rich corporations that are looking to expand ‘globally’. For example, securing of production and trade of oil in the Middle East and Central Asian countries.  Nothing there about politics.

 Foreign policy strategy can no longer avoid risk assessment in the realm of theology, ideological propaganda and/or economic manipulating of global markets to self-interest. Risk aversion is at best a moral ambiguity that must not avoid scrutiny. Much can be said for example, the dangerously loaded term ‘regime change’. And these two are a mutually agreeable, hubristic partnership that can only lead to self-destruction. A destructiveness, which ultimately will pull down many with them. What risks are there in ‘regime change’?

 Risk aversion is a reminder that we fail as a species. And where we fail is, to recognize this serious flaw in time, in order that the good and noble to advance successfully for posterity. There must be a certainty in the statement that we become blind from the glare of our own ambitions. Conceited motives and attitudes are a danger zone mix. Risk aversion is denial of reality in politics and social change. The averting of attention away from a reality about invasion of a country like Iraq for example should render some sense into us. I do wonder if we have all learnt the lesson?