View Full Version : Our Incompetent Civilization
Warrior-Mentor
01-07-2010, 14:24
Our Incompetent Civilization
Sometimes we have to choose between evils.
By BRET STEPHENS
Wall Street Journal
When does a civilization become incompetent? I've been mulling the question in a number of contexts over the last year, including our inability to put a stop to Somali piracy, detain a terrorist who can neither be charged nor released, think rationally about climate change, or rebuild Ground Zero in an acceptable time frame.
But the question came to me again in Brussels on Sunday as I watched my children—ages six, four, and four months—get patted down before boarding our U.S.-bound flight. The larger-than-allowed bottle of cough syrup in my carry-on, however, somehow escaped our screener's humorless attentions.
Yes, the screener in this case was Belgian, not American. Yes, terrorists come in any number of skin colors, and they aren't above strapping explosives to their own children. And yes, the Obama administration took a half-step toward sanity by ordering additional screening of passengers from 14 countries, including Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, home of Flight 253 would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
But here's a predictive certainty: Not one non-Muslim from any of these countries (or others such as Egypt or Jordan, which were oddly excluded from the list) will ever become a suicide bomber.
The localized case of Sri Lanka's Tamils aside, suicide bombing is a purely Islamic phenomenon. Note that during the whole of the intifada there was not a single case of a Palestinian Christian blowing himself up, making a nonsense of the view that Israel's checkpoints and curfews and security fences were the main cause of the terror.
So as Homeland Security, TSA and the rest of the government's counterterrorism apparatus struggle to upgrade travel security in a way that doesn't involve freeze-drying passengers in their seats, it's worth noting that we have finally reached the outer bounds of a politically correct approach to airport security. To wit, the U.S. government is now going to profile Muslim passengers, albeit partially, indirectly and via the euphemism of nationality instead of religion. Insofar as actual security is concerned, it would be both more honest and effective if it dropped the remaining pretense.
The obvious rub is that profiling goes against the American grain. We shudder at the memory of previous instances of it, particularly the internment of Japanese-Americans in the 1940s. Rightly so.
But a civilization becomes incompetent not only when it fails to learn the lessons of its past, but also when it becomes crippled by them. Modern Germany, to pick an example, has learned from its Nazi past to eschew chauvinism and militarism. So far, so good. But today's Multikulti Germany, with its negative birth rate, bloated welfare state and pacifist and ecological obsessions is a dismal rejoinder to its own history. It is conceivable that within a century Germans may actually loathe themselves out of existence.
In the U.S., our civilizational incompetence takes various forms. For instance: No country in the world collects more extensive statistical data about its own population than the U.S. And no country is as conflicted about the uses to which that data may or may not be put than the U.S. So what exactly is the point of all this measuring, collating and parsing?
Our deeper incompetence stems from an inability to recognize the proper limits to our own virtues; to forget, as Aristotle cautioned, that even good things "bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage."
Thus we reject profiling on the commendable grounds that human beings ought not to be treated as statistical probabilities. But at some point, the failure to profile puts innocent lives recklessly at risk. We also abhor waterboarding for the eminently decent reason that it borders on torture. But there are worse things than waterboarding—like allowing another 9/11 to unfold because we recoil at the means necessary to prevent it. Similarly, there are worse things than Guantanamo—like releasing terrorists to Yemen so they can murder and maim again (and so we can hope to take them out for good in a "clean" Predator missile strike).
Put simply, we do not acquit ourselves morally by trying to abstain from a choice of evils. We just allow the nearest evil to make the choice for us.
And so it goes. We can be proud of how deeply we mourn the losses of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. But a nation that mourns too deeply ultimately becomes incapable of conducting a war of any description, whether for honor, interest or survival. We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution and the stuff of life itself. We are a country of standards and laws. Yet we are moving perilously in the direction of abolishing notions of discretion and judgment.
One of life's paradoxes is that we are as often undone by our virtues as by our vices. And so it is with civilizations, ours not least.
SOURCE:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574637921764041330.html
This is in fundamental harmony with Tainter's view that societies make themselves so complex that the solution to problems costs more than the problems.
Here's the trouble - from Tainter's studies, Rome refused to reduce complexity, so it ultimately imploded. The article suggests our approaches are incompetent, and I agree - but I see little evidence that we intend to correct that incompetence. Whether we call the issue incompetence or complexity, the real challenge is to correct the condition - and we aren't doing that.
For example, in the airport shutdown:
A man struggling to say goodbye to a female companion took advantage of a guard's absence to sneak past a Newark Liberty International Airport security checkpoint Sunday evening, causing a terminal shutdown the delayed flights across the globe and calling into question just how secure the nation's airports really are.
LINK (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6803794.html)
I can only conclude that a small group armed with nothing but running shoes could effectively shut down the U.S. air transportation system. That is, in my opinion, simply absurd.
In a post elsewhere, Team Sergeant says:
When that first islamic IED goes off in America it will be heard around the world. It's impact will be as devastating as the attack on the World Trade Towers.
LINK (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=306935#post306935)
Judging by the TSA approach, we will suddenly face strip-searches when we go to the mall. The IED will not devastate us - it won't have to. We will destroy ourselves through our incompetent reactions.
Our Incompetent Civilization
Sometimes we have to choose between evils.
By BRET STEPHENS
Wall Street Journal
The localized case of Sri Lanka's Tamils aside, suicide bombing is a purely Islamic phenomenon.
IMO, we should add "journalistic hyperbole" and "poor fact checking by editors" to the rubric.
Source is here (http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/04/01/story925888857.asp).Thursday, April 01, 2004 :
Suicide bomber kills three over retirement benefits
Bolivian police officers carry an injured officer from Bolivia’s Congress after a disgruntled miner detonated explosives strapped to his body inside the building, killing himself and two police officers.
AN angry miner killed himself and two policemen yesterday when he detonated dynamite strapped to his chest inside Bolivia's congress, authorities said.
La Paz police chief Col Guido Arandia said the man whose demand for early retirement benefits underscored the grievances of many low-paid miners in Bolivia stormed into congress around noon local time and went to a part of the building away from the congressional chambers.
The miner detonated his vest laced with at least five sticks of dynamite as security agents tried to negotiate, killing himself and fatally wounding the police officers, Col Arandia said.
Authorities said the dead officers were members of the security police unit at the congress.
President Carlos Mesa said the miner "was a desperate man" whose action "had no political motivations".
He said: "I want to tell the nation that what happened today is an absolutely isolated fact, not related to any situation that should cause concern. The nation should remain calm."
Police had evacuated congress earlier yesterday after receiving reports that disgruntled miners planned to force their way into the building. Police had no immediate report on whether the bomber was acting alone or with others.
The state-run network Canal 7 showed footage of shattered glass carpeting a side street leading to the colonial legislative palace. Heavily-armed police quickly cordoned off the complex in central La Paz and were seen dragging one body into a taxi that sped off.
An hour after the congressional blast, an explosion was heard in La Paz but there were no reports of injuries nor official word whether it was related.But a nation that mourns too deeply ultimately becomes incapable of conducting a war of any description, whether for honor, interest or survival.Mr. Stephens might be well served by taking a look at any of a number of recent works on Nazi Germany. A fair amount of Germany's bellicosity was situated within the widespread rhetoric of mourning the dead of the Great War.
IMO, we should add "journalistic hyperbole" and "poor fact checking by editors" to the rubric.
Compared to the numbers of Muslim suicide bombers, one disgruntled Bolivian miner is statistically insignificant.
Compared to the numbers of Muslim suicide bombers, one disgruntled Bolivian miner is statistically insignificant.With respect, I think the families of the miner's victims would disagree.
Also, if the issue is statistics, I would be interested to see the multivariate regression analysis in support of some of the totalizing characterizations of the enemy.
Dozer523
01-07-2010, 15:46
Compared to the numbers of Muslim suicide bombers, one disgruntled Bolivian miner is statistically insignificant.
perhaps or it might indicate that it is hopelessness rather then religious fervor. Seems most suicide bombers are from pretty hopeless places, pretty illiterate places. Hopelessness exacerbated (been waiting all month to use that word) by the inability to gather and evaluate information from places other then the nut-case screaming in your face and making big promises about what's waiting on the other side.
I'm more and more in with Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea), who when asked at a Congressional hearing, said, "I don't do what I do to fight terror, I do it because I care about kids . . . But working over there, I've learned a few things. I've learned that terror doesn't happen because some group of people somewhere like Pakistan or Afghanistan simply decide to hate us. It happens because children are not offered a bright enough future that they have a reason to choose life over death."
IIRC we learned in the Q course that it isn't misery that leads to revolution it is un-fulfillled expectations.
Surgicalcric
01-07-2010, 15:49
...I would be interested to see the multivariate regression analysis in support of some of the totalizing characterizations of the enemy.
I would be interested in an english version of what you just said... :D
Crip
Dozer523
01-07-2010, 15:49
With respect, I think the families of the miner's victims would disagree.
Also, if the issue is statistics, I would be interested to see the multivariate regression analysis in support of some of the totalizing characterizations of the enemy. I'm not going to have to drop my pants to show you that am I? U shur talk purty, tho.:D
Warrior-Mentor
01-07-2010, 15:58
perhaps or it might indicate that it is hopelessness rather then religious fervor. Seems most suicide bombers are from pretty hopeless places, pretty illiterate places. Hopelessness exacerbated (been waiting all month to use that word) by the inability to gather and evaluate information from places other then the nut-case screaming in your face and making big promises about what's waiting on the other side.
I'm more and more in with Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea), who when asked at a Congressional hearing, said, "I don't do what I do to fight terror, I do it because I care about kids . . . But working over there, I've learned a few things. I've learned that terror doesn't happen because some group of people somewhere like Pakistan or Afghanistan simply decide to hate us. It happens because children are not offered a bright enough future that they have a reason to choose life over death."
IIRC we learned in the Q course that it isn't misery that leads to revolution it is un-fulled expectations.
You are mistaken. Some of the suicide bombers come from poverty and hopelessness, but that's not that cause.
Even the underwear bomber was a child of privilege. So were the Doctors in the UK. And Mohammed Atta. Lest we forget Bin Laden himself.
It's an evil ideology that's driving this. And they'll exploit any angle to advance that ideology.
greenberetTFS
01-07-2010, 16:02
I'm not going to have to drop my pants to show you that am I? U shur talk purty, tho.:D
I'm with Dozer on this one ? :rolleyes: I Think!!!! :p
Big Teddy :munchin
Dozer523
01-07-2010, 16:09
You are mistaken. Some of the suicide bombers come from poverty and hopelessness, but that's not that cause.
Even the underwear bomber was a child of privilege. So were the Doctors in the UK. And Mohammed Atta. Lest we forget Bin Laden himself.
It's an evil ideology that's driving this. And they'll exploit any angle to advance that ideology. Mistaken? me? :p
Hopelessness is not always about where you are from or what you were given -- otherwise we would not see the many rich, celebrities committing suicide or destroying their lives. If as you say this is the manifestation of an ideology then where have the suicide bombers been for the past several hundred years? This is a recent development -- Beirut? Israel?
Teddy, I'm not droppin trou even if you go first!
Warrior-Mentor
01-07-2010, 16:10
I'm not going to have to drop my pants to show you that am I? U shur talk purty, tho.:D
I would be interested to see a credible analysis that debunks the characterizations and nature of the enemy.
Somethings are hard for academics. Especially when the nature of making things more complicated tends to ensure job security. ;)
Step back. See the forest for the trees.
Also, if the issue is statistics, I would be interested to see the multivariate regression analysis in support of some of the totalizing characterizations of the enemy
I would like to evaluate statistics from multivariate regression analysis that adumbrates why the impoverished non-muslim citizens of Bihar fail to engage in suicide bombings :D
I would be interested in an english version of what you just said... :D
CripTyping that post nearly caused a conniption fit. A translation may spark another paroxysm. (The back story: imagine a bunch of social scientist/humanity types suffering through courses on statistics in partial fulfillment of a language requirement. "What did he just say?" "Dunno, I was about to ask you.")
In a nutshell, the analysis would look at a statistically significant number of the cohort in question, examine a number of variables, and determine what is driving what. A discussion of the concept that, coincidentally, will cure (if only temporarily) insomnia, is available here (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/20.Sykes_.Regression.pdf).
My broader point remains the same. In some of the spirited conversations on this BB, facts, evidence, information, and the interpretations thereof are being used to make generalizations about 1.2 billion people. Library shelves groan from the weight of books and periodicals on instances where totalizing generalizations of this nature proved unsustainable intellectually, historiographically, philosophically, statistically, politically, or strategically.I would be interested to see a credible analysis that debunks the characterizations and nature of the enemy.With respect, while no single work settles once and for all every point of dispute, I believe there are already a number of books that do cast doubt on the notion of a monolithic Muslim world that is hell bent on jihad.*
Moreover, because there is the tendency to compare Islamic jihadism to Nazism and GWOT to the Second World War, I will point out that a great many contemporaneous assessments of Nazism and World War II have been shown to be inaccurate as more historical evidence comes to light. Verily, John Keegan, who has forgotten more about World War II than most will ever know, put it best in 1995. "The history of the Second World War has not yet been written. Perhaps in the next century it will be."**Somethings are hard for academics. Especially when the nature of making things more complicated tends to ensure job security. ;)
Step back. See the forest for the trees.Bluntly, most things are hard for academics. To paraphrase Kissinger, the reason why conflict in the Ivory Tower is so petty is because the stakes are so small. And hell hath no fury like a professor who cannot park where he wants, when he wants.:rolleyes: Even so, I think it should be remembered that, right or wrong, historians get the last word.
There are many reasons why I participate in some of the debates on this BB centering around GWOT. Chief among them is that in many quarters of the academic world, patriots like you are not going to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes time to write the history of this war. Some will seize any and every opportunity to cast doubt on the integrity of your intent. (This is why I am of the strongly held view that certain members of the armed services should keep journals, collect their personal papers, and participate in oral history projects. Even if these resources remain classified for decades, eventually the facts as known at the time will speak for themselves. Just my $0.02.)
It is my view that somewhere out there is a strategic argument for GWOT that not only reconciles the most of the intellectual differences you and I have, but also resonates among those who do not believe that GWOT is a war of necessity.
So to me, it isn't a question of seeing the individual trees or seeing the whole forest but of seeing the individual trees and the whole forest simultaneously. YMMV.
__________________________________________________ _______
* Neil MacFarquhar's The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday: Unexpected Encounters in the Changing Middle East (2009) comes to mind, as does Christina Asquith's Sisters in War: A Story of Love, Family, and Survival in the New Iraq (2009).
** John Keegan, The Battle for History: Re-Fighting World War II (ISBN 10 0679767436) p. 30.
In a nutshell, the analysis would look at a statistically significant number of the cohort in question, examine a number of variables, and determine what is driving what.
Factor analysis might be better. :p
Seriously, I seem to recall that Jatx did something like that on an official project of some sort. Unfortunately, each variable contributed only a small part to the overall outcome. So even if you "fix" several items, you still wouldn't solve much of the problem.
A person who pervades the domain of intellectual speculation and diffuses himself through the channels of moral activity. He is omnific, omniform, omnipercipient, omniscience, omnipotent. He it was who invented letters, printing, the railroad, the steamboat, the telegraph, the platitude and the circle of the sciences. He created patriotism and taught the nations war — founded theology, philosophy, law, medicine and Chicago. He established monarchical and republican government. He is from everlasting to everlasting — such as creation's dawn beheld he fooleth now. In the morning of time he sang upon primitive hills, and in the noonday of existence headed the procession of being. His grandmotherly hand was warmly tucked-in the set sun of civilization, and in the twilight he prepares Man's evening meal of milk-and-morality and turns down the covers of the universal grave. And after the rest of us shall have retired for the night of eternal oblivion he will sit up to write a history of human civilization.*
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Ambrose Bierce*
Surgicalcric
01-07-2010, 20:06
Typing that post nearly caused a conniption fit. A translation may spark another paroxysm. .
I understood it Sigaba. I was just poking a lil fun at ya over your wording choice(s).
Crip
It ain't over until it's over...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA
And so it will go...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
It ain't over until it's over...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E2fAWM6rA
And so it will go...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Hmm. Let's suppose someone gives Nmap $1 billion USD, taxes paid, no strings attached. Would I be happier?
Heck, yes!
So, money really would make me happy! :D
craigepo
01-07-2010, 21:08
"In a nutshell, the analysis would look at a statistically significant number of the cohort in question, examine a number of variables, and determine what is driving what...With respect, while no single work settles once and for all every point of dispute, I believe there are already a number of books that do cast doubt on the notion of a monolithic Muslim world that is hell bent on jihad...It is my view that somewhere out there is a strategic argument for GWOT that not only reconciles the most of the intellectual differences you and I have, but also resonates among those who do not believe that GWOT is a war of necessity."
You pose some fascinating issues. Initially, I have never seen, nor heard of, any statistic which would spit out a number such as "the likelihood that your jihadist/suicide bomber/terrorist attacker is muslim is____%." Personally, I would love to see such a study. While my own observations are mostly anecdotal and purely what I garner from the news, it would seem that a large majority of such acts, definately within the last 10 years, have been initiated by muslims. While one might argue, for instance, "what about the narco-terrorists in south and central america", it would seem that attacks from such sources are less frequent, and also not nearly so long-lived as those from a muslim origin.
You also mentioned books casting doubt on an "islamic world bent on jihad." I would argue with the authors of such books on a very important point. Clearly, the numerical majority of muslims worldwide are not waging "jihad". If they were, we would be engaged in a huge world war, as islam is, numerically, huge. Unfortunately, a very active minority of muslims believe that the Verse of the Sword and other "jihadesque" verses from the Koran and other islamic teachings are to be taken literally. Further, this minority of conservative muslims are the same persons who are the teachers in islamic primary schools. I would argue that the net result of such teaching, paired with a very impoverished and uneducated populace in the islamic regions of the world, lead to a minority of muslims who believe in actual jihad. So, the statement "islamic world bent on jihad" would be mathematically incorrect. However, that minority of muslims with AK-47s and IEDs damn sure believe in it, and they speak much more loudly than do the passive muslims.
You also discuss statistical analyses, or other proof, that the global war on terror is, strategically, a war of necessity. I would submit that this would be a point where mathematics/statistics becomes useless.
History shows us that Islam has been a warlike religion since its inception. Some historians write that the Crusades were initiated in response to muslim invasions into Southern Europe. Jerusalem was conquered and re-conquered by muslim armies. Even our earliest Presidents in the United States had to deal with muslim piracy. Ever since its inception, Israel has dealt with muslim terrorist problems.
200 years ago, if a muslim terrorist attack occurred, it would have of necessity been somewhere near the middle east(long way to row a boat to plant a bomb in the US back then). Moreover, there was really no need to interact with the middle east---we had no need for crude oil, and the sea routes went around africa, not through the suez canal. Stated simply, we didn't need anything from the middle east, and they seldom showed up at our place.
9-11 clearly changed all of that. This attack illustrated that the terrorists had the ability to show up at our place, bombs in hand. Moreover, as we definately need crude oil from the middle east, we must be able to interact and trade with people in the region.
I attach a link which shows that the muslim population in Europe is growing rapidly. While we are not at war with the muslim religion, just imagine if 20% of the muslims living in Europe are of the "jihadist" mindset, and what that might do to geo-politics. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/03middleeast_taspinar.aspx
(Interesting stream-of-consciousness point: I recently read an article, possibly on this website. The author therein argued that both the Roman empire and the British empire never set out with the intent of being "empires". Their empires were the result of each country sending force to protect their respective interests abroad.)
In sum, my opinion is that the global war on terrorism is necessary. The factors that I base this on are: 1) the world we live in today allows for jihadists to export their terrorist acts to the US and its interests quickly and efficiently; 2) the damage that the terrorists can inflict in one attack is substantial and, for all intents and purposes, could debilitate the United States in one blow; 3) the jihadist ideal and the ideals underlying western civilization, specifically the United States' way of life and government, are mutually repugnant and are irreconcilable; and 4) commerce and travel in the present world necessitates the ability to travel and trade without fear of being killed or captured by someone whose motive is denominational dominance of the world.
Would this war have been necessary 100 years ago? Probably not. Unfortunately, we must be realistic. Bad guys can now circumnavigate the globe in 24 hours, bringing their attack with them. Our barriers of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are barriers no longer. Further, the bad guys hate us, not for what we have done, but because it is mandated by their religion. Until the muslim religion, as a whole, denounces literal jihad, this war on terror will remain necessary.
craigiepooh
The Reaper
01-07-2010, 21:09
Typing that post nearly caused a conniption fit. A translation may spark another paroxysm. (The back story: imagine a bunch of social scientist/humanity types suffering through courses on statistics in partial fulfillment of a language requirement. "What did he just say?" "Dunno, I was about to ask you.")
In a nutshell, the analysis would look at a statistically significant number of the cohort in question, examine a number of variables, and determine what is driving what. A discussion of the concept that, coincidentally, will cure (if only temporarily) insomnia, is available here (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/20.Sykes_.Regression.pdf).
My broader point remains the same. In some of the spirited conversations on this BB, facts, evidence, information, and the interpretations thereof are being used to make generalizations about 1.2 billion people. Library shelves groan from the weight of books and periodicals on instances where totalizing generalizations of this nature proved unsustainable intellectually, historiographically, philosophically, statistically, politically, or strategically.With respect, while no single work settles once and for all every point of dispute, I believe there are already a number of books that do cast doubt on the notion of a monolithic Muslim world that is hell bent on jihad.*
Moreover, because there is the tendency to compare Islamic jihadism to Nazism and GWOT to the Second World War, I will point out that a great many contemporaneous assessments of Nazism and World War II have been shown to be inaccurate as more historical evidence comes to light. Verily, John Keegan, who has forgotten more about World War II than most will ever know, put it best in 1995. "The history of the Second World War has not yet been written. Perhaps in the next century it will be."**Bluntly, most things are hard for academics. To paraphrase Kissinger, the reason why conflict in the Ivory Tower is so petty is because the stakes are so small. And hell hath no fury like a professor who cannot park where he wants, when he wants.:rolleyes: Even so, I think it should be remembered that, right or wrong, historians get the last word.
There are many reasons why I participate in some of the debates on this BB centering around GWOT. Chief among them is that in many quarters of the academic world, patriots like you are not going to get the benefit of the doubt when it comes time to write the history of this war. Some will seize any and every opportunity to cast doubt on the integrity of your intent. (This is why I am of the strongly held view that certain members of the armed services should keep journals, collect their personal papers, and participate in oral history projects. Even if these resources remain classified for decades, eventually the facts as known at the time will speak for themselves. Just my $0.02.)
It is my view that somewhere out there is a strategic argument for GWOT that not only reconciles the most of the intellectual differences you and I have, but also resonates among those who do not believe that GWOT is a war of necessity.
So to me, it isn't a question of seeing the individual trees or seeing the whole forest but of seeing the individual trees and the whole forest simultaneously. YMMV.
__________________________________________________ _______
* Neil MacFarquhar's The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday: Unexpected Encounters in the Changing Middle East (2009) comes to mind, as does Christina Asquith's Sisters in War: A Story of Love, Family, and Survival in the New Iraq (2009).
** John Keegan, The Battle for History: Re-Fighting World War II (ISBN 10 0679767436) p. 30.
Does the fact that more of the 1.2 billion are not active terrorists relate to their inherently peaceful nature, or the fact that the majority of them have not yet been indoctrinated and afforded an opportunity to go active?
TR
Dozer523
01-08-2010, 02:36
Hmm. Let's suppose someone gives Nmap $1 billion USD, taxes paid, no strings attached. Would I be happier?
Heck, yes!
So, money really would make me happy! :D
NMAP's BUYIN!
Still happy?
NMAP's BUYIN!
Still happy?
Depends on who I'm buyin' for.
If it's you and some of the other fine folks here - well, imagine this...
Nmap's flying pleasure palace (a refitted C-5?) collects you and a few score others. As we enjoy our libation of choice and a few light snacks - served by a solicitous staff - we descend upon a certain person known for his excellent BBQ ribs.
After a pleasant evening, the airplane takes us back to our respective homes, each of us with a smile on our faces. Except, perhaps, our surprised host. :D
Now, as I said before...who sez money don't buy happiness?
Entire post.To clarify, I offered my comment as an "if...then" statement.
Even if we were to have a blue ribbon panel to figure out the probability that this person or that person was going to perform a terrorist act because of his religious beliefs, I do not think that the U.S. fighting a war by the numbers is the way to go. And, as you eloquently point out, even if a minority of the Muslim population decides that jihad is the way to go, their opponents inside and outside the Islamic world will face incredible challenges.
My broader point is this. As you put it, the evidence we have to support the argument that Islamic beliefs inevitably lead to jihad is anecdotal when compared to the number of Muslims living today. In developing the tools to determine how many of them are jihadists or will become terrorists and should be killed outright, I am deeply concerned that the totalizing argument of "all" will be damaging to America's long term interests as the totalizing argument of "none."
I am also concerned that by focusing so intently on the Islamicists, the west will lose sight of the hydra's many other heads to say nothing of its body from which many heads sprout--not the least is narcoterrorism. (Is there a vorpal against which this fell monster has no proof or defense? Or will there always be evil in the world which this group or that group will find a philosophy, religion, or ideology to justify the indefensible?)Unfortunately, a very active minority of muslims believe that the Verse of the Sword and other "jihadesque" verses from the Koran and other islamic teachings are to be taken literally. Further, this minority of conservative muslims are the same persons who are the teachers in islamic primary schools. I would argue that the net result of such teaching, paired with a very impoverished and uneducated populace in the islamic regions of the world, lead to a minority of muslims who believe in actual jihad.Does the fact that more of the 1.2 billion are not active terrorists relate to their inherently peaceful nature, or the fact that the majority of them have not yet been indoctrinated and afforded an opportunity to go active?A leading expert in the field of educational cognitive psychology, defines "education" as knowledge that allows a student to make informed choices to live a self-efficacious life. From this definition, I argue that knowledge that is taught to fulfill someone else's agenda is indoctrination.
Do the bankrupt ideas and nihilist teachings offered by Salafi jihadists really represent the kind of knowledge their students want (are they being educated)? Or, are they being indoctrinated and, if given the opportunity, would they rather be taught how to walk other paths?
MOO, Bush the Younger's strategic vision for GWOT gives us an opportunity to find out. While focusing on the states he defined as 'the axis of evil', America should empower the single organization--Special Forces--that is most capable of finding definitive answers to those two questions.
If the answer to the second question is "yes," that group should be given the mission of doing the teaching and the testing.
(FWIW, before coming here, I was much more amiable to the concept of a war of annihilation sooner rather than later. Now, I strongly agree with the concept of "surgery with a scalpel as opposed to butchery with an axe." While I accept and acknowledge that there is "a time and place for butchering with an axe," I don't agree that the time is now nor that the place is everywhere there are Muslims.*)
_____________________________________
* Source is here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=83045).
TrapLine
01-08-2010, 14:14
My guess is that the good doctor will run around using the scalpel as long as the patients' kicks continue to be glancing blows or misses. Sooner or later the patient is going to get lucky. When it happens, and I can't imagine it won't, the axe will come out. Right or wrong, it seems to me where this is heading. I don't think this patient will be rehabilitated.
Now, I strongly agree with the concept of "surgery with a scalpel as opposed to butchery with an axe.
I agree with this concept :D particularly with lower grades; < than or = to Grade III tumors (grade V & VI need the axe). I also think the more cognizant that the surgical team members are who know and understand the ramifications of the disease & diagnosis, the more aggressive the treatment will be before the patient becomes unsalvageable, however, what is the survival rate of a grade VI cerebral Glioblastoma Multiform?
IMO, those fully metastasized cannot be saved and need the axe, distinguishing who are will take a precision diagnosis (KSM et al.).
Many patients are in dire need of therapy prior to metastization but how many recognize the disease (Islam) ?
Raise your hand if you think true Islam means peace
14146
It is clear that my allusions were ineffective.:o Two clarifications are in order.
First, by stressing the prominent role that I believe SF should play in determining the answers to the two questions, I am hoping to make the most of a key skill set.The best trainers in the world are SF soldiers. You will be taught everything you need to know in a crawl, walk, run methodology. You will be tested, and if you fail, retrained and retested.
Second, by quoting the "scalpel/axe" metaphor, I was hoping to draw quietly attention to the rest of the paragraph. That paragraph uses the metaphor to teach readers a broader point. The paragraph has helped me greatly in my on-going efforts to understand better what sets SF apart other components of America's SOF.
FWIW, I strongly disagree with the practice of calling any constellation of beliefs--no matter how virulent or dangerous--a "disease." The reasons for my disquiet are many.
One of the reasons is that the practice is contrary to the position that some of you have taken that Islamic terrorists absolutely are not mentally ill. If one wants to make the issue one of medical diagnosis and treatment, but categorically discounts a diagnosis before performing a thorough case history, then how can one say one is using the right treatment?:confused: What would be said of a medical professional who took that approach?
If one wants to make the issue one of medical diagnosis and treatment, but categorically discounts a diagnosis before performing a thorough case history, then how can one say one is using the right treatment?
Diagnosing a brain tumor is quite simple with MRI or CT; determining the malignancy may take a little time, yet Islam’s history is long and dark… Islam is the petri-dish which allows vile pathogens to grow and flourish…
..Islam’s history is dark…I would not want to get into an 'East vs. West' debate about whose history is darker than whose.
The very question is teleological.
The Reformation and Counter-Reformation were neither bloodless nor brief. (Some historians argue that the underlying ecclesiastical issues of the Reformation were not solved until 1806--almost three centuries after Martin Luther published Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, available here (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html).)
Four of the history's most destructive ideologies (absolutism, nationalism,* fascism, and communism) came from Europe.
Europe didn't become a charnel house twice during the twentieth century on its own.
________________________________________
* Not for nothing did monarchists throughout Europe refer to Napoleon as the anti-Christ. Leo Tolstoy reminds us of this convention right off the bat in War and Peace (http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Second-Norton-Critical-Editions/dp/039396647X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263013267&sr=8-1).
I would not want to get into an 'East vs. West' debate about whose history is darker than whose.
I wouldn’t either…unless, you have bought into the idea - we are the “Dark Side”
Why choose moral neutrality, when it usually ends up as a moral quagmire?
Does not Islam promote its prophets evil deeds as a standard of behavior, as a moral compass? Should we choose to accept this standard of behavior - forced upon us by metastasized radicals?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgB4YF0gx0g :D
An antipathy with a reason back of it has no advantage in lasting qualities over an inherited antipathy whose origin has been forgotten.
- Mark Twain
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
GratefulCitizen
01-09-2010, 14:53
Been looking at the references to statistical analysis and probabilities, etc.
Kinda scratchin' my head over it.
Don't see how it would help.
The acts which warrant concern are outliers.
Finding various inputs which are related to the behavior of large groups wouldn't seem to address this.
There is a time and place for using such mathematical tools.
Not sure this is one of them.
Hammers make poor allen wrenches.
YMMV.
"A frequentist is someone whose long-term goal is to be wrong 5% of the time.
A Bayesian is one who, vaguely expecting a horse, and catching a glimpse of a donkey, strongly believes he has seen a mule."
I can guarantee you will lose your way of life and freedom from the enemies within the gates than from outside. :munchin
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
---- Marcus Tullius Cicero
The acts which warrant concern are outliers.
The outcomes are rare, given the size of the population. But I wonder if the attributes and traits are. Perhaps the real challenge is that the terrorists are not sufficiently different to easily discern them.
If only they had purple tentacles...
Warrior-Mentor
01-09-2010, 20:35
I can guarantee you will lose your way of life and freedom from the enemies within the gates than from outside. :munchin
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
---- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Great quote. This is the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy.
Hey, who's doing policy for the Department of Homeland Security now?
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/bio_1250605425754.shtm
Then read this:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2401
This is just ONE appointment.
Hey, who's doing policy for the Department of Homeland Security now?
What's the Islamic saying....Oh yeah:
"If you see something that's objectionable, you should change it with your hands..."
(9:40-10:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um3VIC7NYq8
Arif Alikhan
* Was responsible for derailing the LAPD's plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2401
Lovely...:(
Entire post.FYI, the Christian Science Monitor's account and analysis of the ending of the LAPD's "Muslim mapping party" is available here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1120/p02s01-usju.html). If one takes the time to read the article, one will note that opposition to the program came from many quarters and for many reasons.
A news account that includes quotes from then LAPD Chief Bratton (whom I miss) and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (whom I will not miss) is available here (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1560353720071115).
FWIW, I do not believe that the practice of labeling Americans as "traitors" because they have differing policy preferences is sustainable if one is seeking to broaden an ongoing debate over a controversial issue. IMHO, such rhetorical tactics
undermine civility,
contribute to the deterioration of American political life, and unfortunately,
raise questions about those who frequently make such accusations.
To be clear, I have no doubt that the enemies of America are among us. But if one is going to level charges of treason, I think it is imperative that the charges to be backed by "smoking gun" evidence, (not just insinuations floating around in the blogosphere, and that the evidence be handed over to the proper authorities.
YMMV.
To be clear, I have no doubt that the enemies of America are among us.
Same here...
But from a Muslims pov though, who and what exactly constitutes "those who make war upon Allah and His messenger" and those who strive after "corruption in the land" ? - for they "will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off..." (5:33)
Corruption in the land, or mischief on earth, is a huge category of offenses that go against Islam. The Qur'an does not consider non-Muslim to be innocent. Non-Muslims, according to the Qur'an, are not considered innocent because they are "guilty" of disbelief (45:31, 83:29) - which is considered the worst crime where we (non-believers) - are reduced to the "enemy", "wicked", "unclean", the "worst of created beings", "apes" and "pigs", (25:55, 16:27, 2:91, 2:99,98:6, 8:55, 2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166,...)
Would it be hard for a Qur'an believing Muslim, Arif Alikhan, to find that the LAPD were not guilty of "corruption on earth" by planning to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community ?
Considering Taqiyya, Alikhan may have seen something objectionable, thus changing it with his hands.......just a thought...:confused:
Warrior-Mentor
01-10-2010, 08:49
What's the Islamic saying....Oh yeah:
"If you see something that's objectionable, you should change it with your hands..."
(9:40-10:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um3VIC7NYq8
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2401
Lovely...:(
And I thought you were going to cite this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMI2wRkvMZo
Start at 1:03 - or, if you're really impatient - specifically at 1:30.
Warrior-Mentor
01-10-2010, 09:05
FWIW, I do not believe that the practice of labeling Americans as "traitors" because they have differing policy preferences is sustainable if one is seeking to broaden an ongoing debate over a controversial issue.
I didn't raise the question because of policy preferences.
FWIW, I do not believe that the practice of labeling Americans as "traitors" because they have differing policy preferences is sustainable if one is seeking to broaden an ongoing debate over a controversial issue.
OK, so let us use a less controversial term. Let us call them something else...let us call them Epsilons. :D (footnote 1)
We know that we have a group who seem to have a greater likelihood of engaging in a specific deadly behavior than do those who are not members of that group. In addition, some members of the group may engage in specific behaviors which, while not illegal, suggest at least some sympathy for the deadly behavior mentioned previously.
Or, in plain language, we have seen terrorism originate among Moslem subpopulations, and when some among that group advocate violent jihad, perhaps we should keep an eye on them. That implies a label, whether traitor, epsilon, or banana.
At what point do we start calling them Epsilons? Or, do we close our eyes tight, pull the covers over our heads, and suppose that if we don't make a sound the bad people won't hurt us?
Footnote 1: The term "epsilon" comes from Brave New World by Huxley. The smartest people in society were "Alphas", the next layer were "Betas", and so forth. Epsilons were, in essence, drooling idiots.
GratefulCitizen
01-10-2010, 14:00
The outcomes are rare, given the size of the population. But I wonder if the attributes and traits are. Perhaps the real challenge is that the terrorists are not sufficiently different to easily discern them.
If only they had purple tentacles...
It would seem the only purpose of studying the attributes and traits would be for political reasons: i.e. who was/is "right".
Could care less who is "right" or why.
Only care how to stop the threat.
Just took a casual look at the implied purposes for using the various math tools.
I may have misread the intent.
YMMV.
Could care less who is "right" or why.
Only care how to stop the threat.
In order to illuminate the issue, let us, for a moment, segue from something I don't know very much about - terrorism - to something I know a little more about and in which I have more background.
Consider, if you will, higher education. There are three variants for my purpose - traditional, where most of the time is spent in a classroom. Online, with at least 80% of the work and time allocated to online and no more than 20% in a traditional environment, and hybrid which is somewhere between traditional and online.
In study after study, decade after decade, in colleges and universities, we have results. Those results are clear - there is no statistically significant difference in student learning between online and traditional higher education. Little studies by doctoral students, big studies encompassing thousands of students, and everything in between agrees.
Except.
Except that if we look at a slightly different aspect, we get wildly different results.
The learning, mentioned above, generally involves two tests - one before the course starts and one after it ends. More formally, this is a pretest post-test design. Both standardized (multiple choice) and essay types of tests have been used. So the researchers compare the scores and make their conclusions.
However, if learning, as defined above, is supplanted by "student success" we notice that online courses may (but not quite always!) produce lower results. And what is student success? In some studies it is the overall course grade, and in others the number of students who complete the course with a grade of C or better versus those who drop out or fail. The literature suggests that a far higher dropout/failure rate occurs with online courses.
Now, why is this? And that's no mere rhetorical question. It is a central issue as we try to provide more and better education to those seeking higher education.
Some studies suggest that even though test results are about the same, that students in online courses simply fail to complete their assignments. Several studies indicate that students deeply believe that no online course can be as good as a traditional course. And one study found that students with a strong internal locus of control (LOC), as measured by a 29 question paper and pen instrument, did better than did students with an external locus of control (LOC). An internal LOC indicates that the person believes they control the outcomes within their lives, whereas an external LOC assigns that control to others. Thus, a student with a strong internal LOC might say "I made a B". One with a strong external LOC would tend to say "The teacher gave me a B". But there is another study that found no difference between the two.
So, gentle reader....if you've made it this far...you are surely wondering why on Earth nmap is burdening you with such drivel. :D
Simply this - it is an example of what is necessary to answer fundamental questions such as: "Why do some students succeed in online courses, while others fail?" and "What can we do to steer students toward courses appropriate for them?" or "What can we do to make online courses better for every student?"
Back to terrorism. We might ask - "What, exactly, causes the educated child of affluent parents to want to kill lots of people he doesn't know, and to kill himself as well?" or "Why does someone decide to strap on a bomb, go to somewhere that has lots of people he never met, and then kill everyone?"
Now, if we could, somehow, tease out the factors we could - maybe - change those factors. Or, perhaps, we could at least do a better job of protecting ourselves from those who commit acts of terrorism. We seem to have one binary variable - Islam. If we had a few others, we could focus our efforts on a much smaller target and - perhaps - achieve better results.
On the other hand, if we don't know those factors we face choices. We can call for the elimination of some large number of people. We could accept the costs of terrorist acts as a cost of doing business. Or, we could continue as we are today. I'm not sure any of those is a very workable answer.
So, Grateful, no. In my opinion, this is not just a case of saying "told ya so!". It is the long, hard, and often tedious process of chasing down the rabbit trails, looking at the problem, and trying to understand what's going on. The payoff is large, if we succeed.
And I thought you were going to cite this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMI2wRkvMZo
Start at 1:03 - or, if you're really impatient - specifically at 1:30.
Was going to Sir - but the last time I posted it and commented on it, along with one other, I got an unsolicited email from David Axelrod :D
dr. mabuse
01-10-2010, 19:52
Nmap, the answer may be found in some of the books listed on this site.
http://www.ifpinc.com/
Especially "Suburban Gangs". Disenfranchised youth that want a chance to "be somebody".
I've used Korem's principles for years in some other classes, especially how to spot at risk children in school and characteristics of the random actor.
I'm not surprised that frustrated youth want to blow up stuff and gain the repsect of their peers and adults.
Not surprised in the least.
Warrior-Mentor
01-11-2010, 07:47
Doc, the characterization of "random actors" reminds me of the President's "isolated incident" remark - implying that there's no connection to a grander scheme of things. Not saying it's wrong, just looking for a better characterization.
Just as "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" isn't sudden at all. It takes time - years- of brainwashing to reach the point where someone is ready to cook themselves off.
Just ask any musician that's an "overnight success" how long they worked to reach that "overnight."
GratefulCitizen
01-11-2010, 12:18
Simply this - it is an example of what is necessary to answer fundamental questions such as: "Why do some students succeed in online courses, while others fail?" and "What can we do to steer students toward courses appropriate for them?" or "What can we do to make online courses better for every student?"
Back to terrorism. We might ask - "What, exactly, causes the educated child of affluent parents to want to kill lots of people he doesn't know, and to kill himself as well?" or "Why does someone decide to strap on a bomb, go to somewhere that has lots of people he never met, and then kill everyone?"
Now, if we could, somehow, tease out the factors we could - maybe - change those factors. Or, perhaps, we could at least do a better job of protecting ourselves from those who commit acts of terrorism. We seem to have one binary variable - Islam. If we had a few others, we could focus our efforts on a much smaller target and - perhaps - achieve better results.
Don't disagree with the goal, just some of the techniques.
These tests detect, to some arbitrary degree of "certainty", correlation between/among different variables.
The tests do not answer these questions.
Correlation is not the same thing as causality.
Statistical tests such as these can give a false sense of "certainty" and , more importantly, give a false "air of authority".
Some of our government and media have already demonstrated that they don't know how to use these tools.
(The CIA World Factbook's aggregate oil reserves and the media's calling of the 2000 election are prime examples.)
The people at the NSA know how to use these tools.
Just turn 'em loose, do not ask about nor meddle with their methods, and believe them when they say there are certain limitations on capabilities.
MOO/YMMV.
The tests do not answer these questions.
Correlation is not the same thing as causality.
True experiments are needed to do so. Therefore, we need to set up villages in Afghanistan and vary individual experimental variables to find out which ones cause an increase or decrease in terrorist behavior. One I would like to try would involve feeding them nothing but fast food and lots of it. Now I ask you - how many morbidly obese terrorists do you see? :munchin
The media would love that one.
Since we cannot (usually) experiment on humans (darn it!), we must satisfy ourselves with quasi-experiments where we control for some of the variance statistically. These do not meet the gold standard of a true experiment; however, repeated successful probes of a theory can lead to a reasonable conclusion of causality over time.
The people at the NSA know how to use these tools.
Just turn 'em loose, do not ask about nor meddle with their methods, and believe them when they say there are certain limitations on capabilities.
MOO/YMMV.
On that point, we agree.
dr. mabuse
01-11-2010, 19:58
Warrior-Mentor, concur with your point completely.
The "random actor" term is misleading, but doesn't represent a person that becomes a terrorist in a few weeks. It's someone with strong traits towards being unpredictable ( viewed from others ) and fearful.
The "random actor" type is common among Hitler, the individual that shows up to school/work with a gun, bin Laden, Alexander the Great ( to some extent ) and others. We are already surrounded by them.
The person from a stable upper-middle-class home In Ohio that joins a gang and robs liquor stores or a young playboy from a well-to-do construction family in the Middle East that wants to be part of a bigger cause ( in his mind ) and turn the world upside-down is the exact same person.
Seems that even when we are alerted years ahead of the breaking point ( Ft. Hood ), not enough people can see the forest, on fire, even when it is right in front of them.:( Even happens in the workplace when there is violence. There are clear signs.
I don't have faith right now that as a civilian country, we have the twig and berries to make the tough/impossible/unpopular choices re: terroists in our midst ( Ft. Hood ). And some say that all of this trouble deep down is really a spiritual battle anyway.
To the sheeple, possibly what needs to be done would appear racist or facist at best. If that's true, we're screwed. Too many pansies here. I'm even starting to hear the self-doubt pansie talk from people in uniform. I'm not knocking diplomacy or working things out when appropriate.
Hope I'm wrong.:confused:
So much of this crap is preventable, but no one listens.
Hope I'm wrong.
I suspect you're right - but keep in mind, time and conditions change attitudes.
The term "sheeple" is, perhaps, unfortunate. Let us suppose, instead, that the mass of people are cattle. They eat, they process the food, and they rid themselves of the waste. Sometimes they sleep. And that's about it. However, when the herd is frightened and starts a stampede, it becomes deadly.
In my opinion, we will witness a stampede at some point.
So much of this crap is preventable, but no one listens.
Historically - it can be argued that, perhaps, the problem lies in that too many people do listen - but to whom.
However, in either case, those thoughts hang in the sky much the same way that bricks don't. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
dr. mabuse
01-12-2010, 13:17
*
Before reading my questions below, I want to make sure that all readers understand that I'm asking questions, not offering criticisms. (Those will come later.:p:D)
The "random actor" type is common among Hitler....
<<SNIP>>I would be interested in reading your elaboration of this point. In your view, to what extent was Hitler's conduct random? If some of his questionable decisions (such as declaring war on the United States on 11 December 1941) "fit" into his broader geostrategic vision, do those decisions still qualify as being "random"?I don't have faith right now that as a civilian country, we have the twig and berries to make the tough/impossible/unpopular choices re: terrorists in our midst ( Ft. Hood ).FWIW, these concerns are older than the nation itself.And some say that all of this trouble deep down is really a spiritual battle anyway.IMHO, this is a profoundly important point that is implicitly clear but does not get enough explicit discussion when it comes to linking discussions over public policy with debates over national security policy, in particular the discourse centering around GWOT.
dr. mabuse
01-12-2010, 19:12
*
Great quote. This is the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy.
Hey, who's doing policy for the Department of Homeland Security now?
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/bio_1250605425754.shtm
Then read this:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2401
This is just ONE appointment.
No, they carry the banner for all to see, and they don’t claim to be our friends. I was thinking of the other tribe. A game of chess being played----as checkers is being sold to the masses…