Our World-Historical Gamble

Tech Central Station ^ | March 11, 2003 | Lee Harris

[Mia T]

Our goal, individual as well as collective, is survival. Death is an extraneous cost. That is rational.

Radical Islam's goal is the destruction of the West;. Individual, or, indeed, collective survival is optional, irrelevant… or even undesirable. That is irrational.

[general_re]

Individual, or, indeed, collective survival is optional, irrelevant… or even undesirable.

I don't know about that. Yes, they want to destroy the West, but they want to destroy it and replace it with an Islamic world. Death, in furtherance of that goal, is acceptable to them, but they aren't trying to bring about the end of the world.

Look, my whole point here is not to say that they're right or justified or moral in what they're trying to do - they're not. But what I am saying is that labelling them as irrational or deluded or whatever is not helpful. It doesn't help us defeat them, it doesn't help us to understand them, it doesn't help us to deal with them. If anything, labelling them like that causes us to refuse to understand them, and then we have no option but to kill them all, whereas if we come to understand what motivates them and why, perhaps we can find some way to defeat them that doesn't involve slaughtering a fifth of the world's population.

[livius]

What an excellent article. I also went to the link and read Fantasy Ideology (well, skimmed it and am printing it out right now). Thanks for posting this.

[Mia T]

One can always construct a closed system in which the irrational is rational.

I go back to my original premise: Survival is encoded in our DNA. Radical Islam's goal is the destruction of the West irrespective of its own survival.

This is not rational. Not only is it helpful to understand that this is irrational, it is essential to understand this, if we are to survive.

Moreover, irrationality doesn't imply incomprehensibility. But it is my view that understanding this essential irrationality leads not to alternative solutions, but inexorably to the conclusion that Radical Islam must be destroyed…

[general_re]

Survival is encoded in our DNA. Radical Islam's The soldier's goal is the destruction of the West Iraqi regime irrespective of its his own survival. This is not rational.

See how easy that is? The logic is exactly the same - I've merely changed the details. If your argument is sound, this argument must be equally sound.

This is why it is not helpful to simply call what they do "irrational" - because they do what we do. They just have different goals in mind. As I just posted on another thread, they play their game, and we play ours. To call them simply "irrational" is essentially to define "rational" as "people who share our values and goals". But that makes no sense - they have their values and goals, and behave perfectly rationally in pursuit of them.

And, of course, I don't think your original exegesis is entirely accurate, either. Neither the radical Islamist nor the soldier set out to die, but where we might surrender rather than die, they choose to die rather than submit. Purely a matter of values, which have never been amenable to rational analysis in any case. And if you still disagree that there's no material difference between preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla, and preferring life over death, why don't you rationally prove to me why it's better to be alive than dead?

[Mia T]

Go back to my previous reply. Our goal, individual as well as collective, is survival. For us, death is an extraneous cost.

For Radical Islam, death is not a cost but a benefit. (The suicide bomber isn't the archetypal terrorist for no reason.)

Given the Darwinian system in which we all operate, and putting semantics aside, it is precisely Radical Islam's value of devaluing life that is irrational.

As for your final argument, it begs the question; when I said, "survival is not chocolate ice cream," my point was precisely that opting for survival is not a matter of preference but rather one of programming.

 

[ggekko]

"To deny this is to embrace sophmoric anti-nomianism.

LOL. See how easy that was? Just label me irrational for pointing out that claims such as yours are advanced by every party, and then you can rationalize ignoring the truth..."

I see you didn't bother denying that you are mired in sophmoric anti-nomianism. I think there is still a spot open at the Renaissance fair in Aspen where you might find it enjoyable to while away the hours with Susan Sontag, Jaques Derrida, and Bill Clinton debating what the meaning of "is" is.

Juding from your other posts I would hazard to guess that you are not really a true anti-nomian but your position about the subjectivity language is indistinguishable from the French structuralists and German existentialists. I wouldn't care to be on the same side of this debate with Martin Heidegger.

"Better tell the Chinese - they're doing a bang-up job of controlling the flow of media..."

The Chinese have done a better job controlling their media but even they are having serious problems controlling the Internet and sattellite television with pirate sites popping up all around the coastal region of China. What would you rather watch: China State Television or HBO?

"So you assert, anyway, along with everyone else who makes such claims..."

I agree; everyone and every culture thinks they are right but that begs the question. The distinction between mere gratuitous assertion and historical truth are the objective correlates one can adduce for one's assertion. There a number of people in insane asylums who believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte or Charlemagne; they can offer no objective evidence to support this belief.

On broader level this same criteria apply to cultures and nations. Islamic intellectuals have invented a fantasy verion of Islamic history that attributes to Islam accomplishments and advances that were actually invented in other cultures. The acceptance of this alternate version of history in most Islamic countries has infantalized the entire political culture in Middle East. To believe in such a "noble lie" is self-destructive and irrational in that it causes one to ignore or misinterpret the facts of reality.

[general_re]

I see you didn't bother denying that you are mired in sophmoric anti-nomianism.

There's no need to deny it. If FR has descended so far that we cannot infer a certain minimum common ground among us...I don't know quite what to say. What am I supposed to say? Shall I point out that you have yet to refute my contention that your claims are logically indistinguishable from theirs?

There a number of people in insane asylums who believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte or Charlemagne; they can offer no objective evidence to support this belief.

Well, for heaven's sake - out with it, man. What on earth do you think I've been asking for? Where's the evidence that they are objectively irrational in pursuit of their goals?

[MHGinTN]

Containment versus Pre-emptive Deterrence and Regime Change

Monday, in The British House of Commons, an insulting little man named Cook asserted that had Al Gore been sworn in as President, the world would not now be facing the prospect of war in the Middle East.

Poor Mister Cook was defending the policy of containment through inspections. Containment without muscle on the ground to back it up when dealing with a despotic demon like Saddam Hussein is a fool’s errand … or worse, an exercise in delayed suicide, for expedience sake. But that’s what appeasement and postponement have usually meant.

Aside from the bitter irrationality of raising the United States elections as an excuse for Saddam’s twelve-year defiance of agreed to terms in the 1991 cease-fire, and aside from the irrationality of implying different tactics of a failed politician from two previous terms in office, this alcoholic Brit points to an issue that should be addressed, immediately, before the obstructionists in America gain further traction with this foolishness.

What of containment, the Clinton administration’s chosen policy toward Iraq and terrorism? Has it worked? Would it work as a future policy in a worldwide war against terrorism by fanatical Islamicists? For Chirac and too many American politicians in and out of office, containment of terrorist sponsoring states is still the policy to follow. That’s why they so adamantly pushed the inspections regime; they calculate that leaving rogue regimes in power but containing those regimes through inspections can effectively deal with the threat posed by terrorist organization worldwide.

First, let’s be clear: abject failure at containment leads directly to such horrific tragedies as Kobar Towers, and the World Trade Center bombings, and the Bali bombing, and the USS Cole bombing, and the suicide murders on Israeli buses and in Israeli markets and restaurants, and bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa, and … and you get the picture. Terrorists networks must have a country in which to be trained, and which under gird their finances and documents of identity.

Can failure of Iraqi containment be tied to the horror of 9/11/2001? YES! And to many other terrorist acts around the world.

While the Clinton administration pursued a policy of hit-and-miss containment, the Iraqi secret service sent officers into Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda operatives in the production and use of biological and chemical weapons. All during the Clinton administration’s policy of containment and inspections in Iraq, Saddam maintained a research facility at Salman Pak, developing chemical and biological weapons. Salman Pak was also maintained as a training camp, where operatives from several terrorist organizations received training in hijacking modern airliners with no more armament than sharp knives, received training in the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets, received training in forgery and robbery as a means to maintain their presence in foreign countries, and received training in assassination methods.

Containment, at least as practiced by the previous administration, didn’t work. It was a feckless diversion from the truth that this nation can no longer afford to ignore: containment without force does not work to safeguard the civilian populations of nations that terrorists choose to target. And yet, there are vocal politicians in America still trying to push this approach by various means. They will not shut up until this feckless strategy is exposed and debated into rejection.

What of pre-emptive deterrence coupled with regime change? Well, when directed at the states sponsoring terrorists in order to employ them as weapons against other nations, it is the only thing that does work … as we have begun to prove with the Taliban’s sponsorship for al Qaeda, and we are about to discover regarding Iraq.

[general_re]

For Radical Islam, death is not a cost but a benefit. (The suicide bomber isn't the archetypal terrorist for no reason.)

But they die in the furtherance of their cause - it's not a suicide cult, else they'd simply do themselves in on the spot. The deaths of the suicide bombers are intended to advance some political goal, much as the deaths of our soldiers, regrettable as they are, are done while advancing some political goal. We die for our causes, they die for theirs - how does this make us rational, and them irrational?

As for your final argument, it begs the question; when I said, "survival is not chocolate ice cream," my point was precisely that opting for survival is not a matter of preference but rather one of programming.

Yet we hold up as noble and good those who die in the service of causes we find just. We overcome our "programming" when necessity demands it, just as they do.

I'm trying very hard to paint the difference between rationality and morality here, but I think I'm not doing as good of a job as I had hoped. I will have to think on this some more, in order to find some other way to express this difference.

[nathanbedford]

Containment, at least as practiced by the previous administration, didn’t work.

I quite agree. The whole ispiration for the terrorist model is evade the rules of "rational" containment. One can no more contain Islamicist terrorists than one can contain quicksilver between the fingers.

Bush has the vision and courage to try "pre-emptive deterrence coupled with regime change." The world was relatively tolerant of the application of this doctrine in Afganistan where all but the looniest of the left could see that the regime and the terrorists were one. But the world resists its application in Iraq where the connection between regime and terrorist is not so clear. Perhaps this is because the world istinctively saw that the Taliban was not rational but regards Saddam as "rational" - at least he would act in a western sense in ways congruent with self preservation. In fact, I posted more than once that I believed he would chose exile over martyrdom because I thought he was "rational." I doubt, however, that the French of the world will ever come to this conclusion, i.e. that containment could not have worked, because, if Saddam cannot be trusted with his own life, he can't be trusted with theirs. They are clearly too tightly ensnared in the underbrush which the author is trying to sweep away to ever come to reject containment.

We must look beyond Irak to the application of the Bush doctrine to Iran and North Korea. I have been aprehensive that, after Irak, no matter how clean and clear the victory, and no matter how justified by evidence on the ground, the administration will just not have the momentum to effect regime change in Irak and North Korea. This even though the connection between regime and terrorist is certainly clearer in Iran than it is in Irak and the Iranians have proclaimed they are buliding nukes. The need is urgent but the world probably will not tolerate a conventional war to effect regime change. If it is to occur it probably must be done by undermining the Mullahs clandestinely - a job at which the CIA has a mixed record at best.

The world is likely to absolutely freak out at the prospect of war to effect regime change in North Korea simply because Kim probably already haa the bomb and some rockets which make Korea and Japan and maybe even Alaska vulnerable. Conventional arms along the DMZ make our 37,000 troops and the millions of inhabitants of Seoul vulnerable. Many believe that this toad in control of North Korea is "rational" even if despicable because all he wants is money and a little R E S P E C T and, therefore, he is easilly containable with a little money and some clintonian blarney. Well, evidently I was wrong about Saddam and maybe they are wrong about Kim. But even if he is rational, the record shows that he has never failed to sell every weapon system he has ever met and he will do business with terrorists. So even if his is rational, the danger is he will do nuclear business with terrorists who are not rational. In this scenerio containment is useless.

I sure hope Bush gets a big bump out of Irak because he is going to need it.

[MHGinTN]

Would that the 'opposition' leadership in America could reason as clearly as you! The first and biggest obstacle in adopting a new appraoch is convincing those wedded to failed policies that a new approach is a matter of survival for this nation and in fact the entire of Western Civilization.

Thank you for your cogent response.

[ggekko]

"Containment, at least as practiced by the previous administration, didn’t work. It was a feckless diversion from the truth that this nation can no longer afford to ignore:..."

Containment did not work in case of Iraq. It is also important to understand that containment as a geopolitical doctrine was developed by State Department analyst George Kennan as a particular response to agressions of the Soviet Union in the immediate post-WWII era. The containment doctrine itself is somehwat nonsensical when divorced from the threat of a massive nuclear retaliation. In short containment was a classic Cold War concept that has questionable utility in the new environment.

The new environment that we must deal with is one dominated by asymmetric warfare used by non-State Actors. In this context containment is a non-functional strategy. Asymmetric warfare seeks to use terrorism to achieve political goals. In this type of warfare the traditional tools of statecraft are irrelevant.

The Bush doctrine of forcible preemption recognizes the threat created by asymmetric warfare. In order to properly understand the Bush doctrine it is necessary that the idea of sovereignty be rethought in light of this concept (we need to at least be able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitmate forms of svereignty). The doctrine of National Self Determination is a dangerous anachronism that was invented by left wing anti-colonial politcians working in the United Nations after WWII. It is clear that we need a new doctrine that will allow us to deal with the threat of asymmetric wartfare.

[Mia T]

 

You continue to ignore the nub of my argument: the deaths are not equivalent. In one case, death is extraneous; in the other, it is essential.

Earthly minds, like mud walls, resist the strongest batteries; and though, perhaps, somethimes the force of a clear argument may make some impression, yet they nevertheless stand firm, keep out the enemy, truth, that would captivate or disturbe them.--John Locke

[Mia T]

The new environment that we must deal with is one dominated by asymmetric warfare used by non-State Actors. In this context containment is a non-functional strategy. Asymmetric warfare seeks to use terrorism to achieve political goals. In this type of warfare the traditional tools of statecraft are irrelevant.

This is true, as long as the terrorists are in fact not state-sponsored. But I suspect that Bush is hedging his bets here; if Mylroie, Wolfowitz et al. are correct, if the terrorists are agents of rogue states, then it is not inconceivable that the lesson of Iraq will be de facto containment of those rogue states.

It is clear that we need a new doctrine that will allow us to deal with the threat of asymmetric wartfare.

I think Bush already enunciated such a doctrine. Asymmetric warfare requires asymmetric power.

[nathanbedford]

Thank you for your replies.

I think ggekko is really on to something with his insights about cultural relativism. This is a pernicious doctrine which boggles all efforts to make judgments involving degree, quality and, yes, morality. For example, it is the function of law always to make these difficult judgments. We have a whole body of tort law grounded on what a "reasonable man" would do or ought to do under the circumstances being litigated. We ask juries every day to determine what is good and true and moral, a task which goes way beyond finding "just the facts ma'am."

We saw in the O,J. case how a pernicious doctrine like jury nullification (a euphamism for reverse discrimination) can corrupt the very foundations of the judicial process and render a jury incapable of making inescapable findings of fact, much less descrete judgments about finer points of morality.

So in affairs of state having to do with nothing less than national security, cultural relativism enables lefties like Marcie Kaptur to equate Osama bin Laden with Nathanial Greene. One man's freedom fighter is NOT another man's terrorist, MS Kaptur, because there is a real moral difference between the two, even if you and Patty Murray cannot see it.

The problem for me is that a whole lot of europe cannot see the difference either and I wonder how much cultural relativism is to blame.

[walden]

I believe your analysis is correct, but I am less worried about North Korea and Iran than you are. Kim Jong Il has to be watching the ease of this operation with fear and respect, while, of course, he's losing one of his best potential customers for his nukes. It's my guess that the business of nuclear proliferation is looking much less attractive to Kim these days. Ditto Iran. I also read that Syria pulled back some 5000 of its terrorists from Lebanon.

Given the state of popular unrest in Iran already, an economically thriving democratic Iraq on its border might be just the force needed to tip the balance. Kim and the Iranian mullahs aren't reasonable in that sense they really have no imagination when it comes to American military power and the will to use it-- but once they SEE that demonstrated, it changes the picture entirely.

This operation will give us leverage over a whole lot of people who weren't sure what we were made of (the Saudis come to mind.)

[StriperSniper]

Bump for later.