Post-Sale Followup Services

Last night, I found myself describing the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq in the kind of business language that penetrates me sufficiently deeply that it turns up in a dream. Most dreams I forget. But this one stayed. The different metaphors used in business illuminate war. Moreover, many who support the current United States Bush Administration are businessmen rather than soldiers; they think as businessmen.

As for me, I am not a businessman and know little; what I remember from my dream are two phrases: post-sale followup services and repeat sales.

As I write this in August 2004, the United States is in what its Joint Chiefs of Staff define as phase 4 of a Joint Campaign, transition:

The transition phase, phase 4, is characterized by stability operations, usually focused on restoring law and order and creating conditions for self-sustaining peace at the conclusion of the operation.

Presume, metaphorically, that the US invasion of Iraq is a `sale'. We use this rather bloodless metaphor both because the prime goal of a business is to sell and because a major goal of the Bush Administration was to invade and occupy Iraq.

Using the same language of business, the prime post-sale followup service that the United States should have provided is order and law. Without order, life is chaotic and people die. Law follows order; you cannot have law without order (which is why I reverse the phrase's usual rhetorical sequence). Law enables people to predict what will happen, so they are less likely to die. (Law is not necessarily just.)

This post-sale failure means the United States will have difficulty in making a repeat sale (to use another phrase). The US government will have a difficult time persuading its citizens that its military should invade another country. In turn, this will make it harder for the United States to `sell' other `products', such as cooperation with the United States.

... markets are conversations. ... [the word works] as a synonym (try substituting conversation for market everywhere the latter appears and you'll see what I mean); and ... every other metaphor — with the notable exception of markets are environments — insult[s] the true nature of markets ....

The United States is in a conversation with Moslems and others. In part the conversation is coerced; and in part not.

The prime goal for people in the United States is to feel safer in October 2041 than they did in October 2001. If they do not, from their point of view, the `conversation' was useless — the war was lost. (Clearly, like many business conversations, this conversation has an intent that is different from one for passing the time. Perhaps better words are `discussion' or `deliberation'.)

Intimidation may succeed in a short run (depending on the century, a `short run' may last for generations, as it did with the Roman Empire). However, in the long run, intimidation fails. The Roman Empire declined and fell. Consequently, for the US to gain victory in the long run, it must convince people who live in foreign countries to condemn those in their countries who will act against the US. It must `make a sale' that profits it; or at the very least, it must enable a conversation which may, or may not, be comfortable to it, but which is safer than fighting.