ShrinkWrapped

Reasons for Optimism: Part II

In Part II, Owen takes a close look at what exactly is meant by the term Information Warfare.

On Information Warfare

I have often characterized the conflict we are fighting as unprecedented, and indeed it is; so much so that we cannot even adequately name it. We fight this conflict on a global scale, on multiple levels, in various ways. Our enemy is comprised of hostile governments and transnational organizations supported by both international and local groups, many of which reside in nominally friendly governments. Politically, there are governments and groups that are allies, some that are enemies, and a number that are trying to have it both ways. We are not fighting a conventional war, or a counter-insurgency, or a counter-terrorism campaign, but all of these all at once. And all are asymmetric. No wonder we don’t know what to call it. No wonder people are confused about it, or even fail to believe in it.

To go into all the dimensions of this multidimensional, global, asymmetric war is outside the scope of my discussion here; an apt topic for a future book perhaps, to be written by someone else. Here I will restrict my comments to one of the factors that makes this conflict unprecedented: the central role information plays in it. This is, I think, the first conflict that is more than anything else an information war. Given its centrality, some discussion of information warfare is appropriate.

Information warfare has meant different things to different people at different times. When I starting working on IW in about 1991, it was just out of the pet theory stage and many foolish things were said. Fairly quickly, a consensus view developed along with a consensus definition — which I now forget. I made no great attempt to remember it because it did not adequately capture the essence of IW, which is to manipulate the enemy’s decision-making process in our favor while maintaining the integrity of our own. To use this as a definition probably assigns IW an unacceptably wide ambit; it certainly does from the organizational, operational, and bureaucratic point of view.

Reasons for Optimism: Part I

In response to some posts which seemed unduly pessimistic, a reader and frequent commenter on my site suggested that there are actually many reasons to believe we are currently winning the War against Islamic fascism (though he doesn't particularly like that appellation.)  He volunteered to put together his thoughts on the matter and succeeded far beyond my expectations.  Owen Johnson is a retired career intelligence analyst and knows how to construct a position.  His note to me is long and I am going to present it in several parts. 

I am blessed with the ability to read fast and to retain a great deal of what I read and I have not seen, in the almost 5 years since 9/11 "changed everything", such a clear exposition of who we are fighting, what we are fighting, and how we are fighting, as what Owen so cogently put together.  This is as good a summary as I have seen of the various issues involved in the war.

In this first part, Owen sets the stage for how 9/11 effected him, discusses the terminological difficulties we face in this war, and lays out the multi-pronged strategic approach to fighting and winning the war. 

On Strategy

It may seem odd to begin a essay on strategy with a personal reminiscence, but I do so because it has relevance beyond the symbolic interpretation that immediately occurred to me. On 09/09/01, our beloved Newfoundland underwent a serious operation that our vet told us would result in profuse bleeding for at least a couple of days. We asked our vet what "profuse" meant. Before answering , he cocked an eyebrow and his face settled into that off-kilter expression that means, "You have no idea."

Why we write…

Saying Whatever Comes to Mind IV

The Sanity Squad has once again attempted to inject some small measure of rationality into the news.  Neo-neocon, Dr. Sanity, Siggy and myself look at the psychological processes involved in the Stockholm Syndrome and the meaning of forced conversions to Islam, as exemplified by the kidnapping, conversion and post-release press conference of Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. 

If I may quote my collaborator, Dr. Sanity:

The podcasts are posted every Tuesday; and we guarantee you won’t ever have to talk about your mother—unless you want to!

And our fee is very reasonable--in fact, it's free.

Download or listen to the latest Podcast here: The Sanity Squad on The Stockholm Syndrome. 

And feel free to listen to all the earlier Podcasts as well.

Comments, suggestions, and questions are welcome.

Politics and Faith

Several months ago I offered diagnostic criteria to determine if you were suffering from Blogosphere Addictive Disorder (BAD) and warned of its progression to WORSE if not treated adequately.  To that end, I have decided to go (almost) "cold turkey" from blogging this week.  I know I can quit whenever I want and plan to re-post some old gems from the early days of my blog as well as a missive from a commenter or two.  My post today is the first in a series of posts that considered the relationship between politics and religious.  Many political "true believers" especially those whose political beliefs are  descended from Utopian political ideologies, have unwittingly adopted a religious perspective on politics: their politics are based on beliefs, not evidence.  Once again, I note that even though the original post was February 16, 2005, and even while the manifest content has changed a bit, it is remarkable how the post remains timely.

A psychoanalyst, as part of his training, learns how to continually monitor and question his own prejudices, preconceptions, and biases (which is much of what happens during analysis but in post-analysis is carried on without the assistance of the analyst.)  The need to do this is related to the ongoing work of analysis with one’s patients.  When, for example, I make a particularly trenchant and incisive interpretation and my patient reacts with disbelief or worse, doesn't have any reaction at all, it is up to me to discover the source of my possibly incorrect interpretation.  Did my own prejudice cause me to miss something the patient was working on?  Was I so invested in my own brilliance that I forgot to attend to the working of my patient’s mind?  There are, of course, innumerable ways in which the Psychoanalyst can miss something important, and it is crucial to learn whether the “miss” had its source within the mind of the analyst as opposed to arising in some resistance of the patient.  All of this is preamble to a question that has been troubling me for some time: Why is it that some people have so much trouble questioning themselves?

I have been often accused of various transgressions since beginning to change my political views.  My favorite was being told I am stubborn and won’t ever change my mind, when in fact that is exactly what I have done which is so troubling to people.  My least favorite pejorative was being called a fascist by family and friends who were outraged that I might have the temerity to not only support our efforts in Iraq but actually planned to vote for Bush!

The Defensive Denial of Terror

Several months ago I offered diagnostic criteria to determine if you were suffering from Blogosphere Addictive Disorder (BAD) and warned of its progression to WORSE if not treated adequately.  To that end, I have decided to go (almost) "cold turkey" from blogging this week.  I know I can quit whenever I want and plan to re-post some old gems from the early days of my blog as well as a missive from a commenter or two.  My post today is from January of 2005 and while the manifest content has changed a bit, it is remarkable to me how the post remains timely. 

A group of Democratic Senators and Congressmen meet and announce they are protesting the recent election because of voter fraud; the judiciary committee attacks Alberto Gonzales for supporting policies that allow making terrorists uncomfortable, while the MSM and multiple pundits call it torture; the Iraq war is a disaster because the terrorists who are fighting to reassert the absolute power of the Sunni Baath party haven't been brought to heel; you know the drill here.  It evokes images of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.  It is enough to make one wonder about one's sense of reality.  If you have recently discussed politics with someone who identifies with the liberal wing of the Democratic party, you have surely recognized that there is a dimension to these arguments (they are rarely discussions) that defies rational understanding. Fear not; there are reasons for this unreality and I will offer some illumination.

The obvious first point is that we are not agreeing on our underlying assumptions.  If al Qaeda is a threat and is willing to use WMD against the Western Democracies, and is only restrained by their lack of capability, then our invasion and regime change in Iraq is not only reasonable but necessary.  Many people have laid out the case in detail and I won't repeat their arguments here.  If, however, as Michael Moore has stated, the threat of terrorism is overstated and John Kerry is correct that it can be handled as a police matter, then the war is illegal and all sorts of explanations for the war can then be reasonably advanced, from the economic (oil) to the pseudo-psychological (so that W can finish the job his father couldn't).

Information and the Information War

If you believe that an enemy has devised a complicated, high tech, campaign to attack you and prevent you from becoming successful, and the evidence you muster fails to convince anyone else that this campaign actually exists, you will likely be sent to see someone like me and determined to be suffering from paranoid delusions. 

However, what if you are able to convince a large number of people that you are revealing an accurate version of reality?  The first point is that you would not be diagnosed as Paranoid.  If the danger is real, your fears are appropriate.  This would be true whether or not, in some fixed point of view which accurately renders reality, such a danger doesn't even exist! 

This may seem contradictory.  After all, a delusion is defined as a "fixed, false belief" yet there are many "fixed, false beliefs" which great numbers of people accept, find "proof" for, and react to on a daily basis. 

It gets even worse when the "fixed, false belief" requires an aggressive response.  As an example, let's posit that your teachers, parents, religious leaders, media, in fact, every important organ of authority in your culture, continually presents the message that some foreign group has the most vile and hateful intentions toward you and your people.  Naturally, you will want to protect your people from such evil.  Protestations by the enemy that they mean you no harm are constantly offset by "evidence" that they are lying.

How is anyone, including people who have no personal investment in the situation, to make sense of who's right and wrong and where good and evil lie?

One of the most important stories that is emerging from the interaction of the blogosphere and the MSM is the creeping awareness, more advanced in some than in others, that we can no longer believe what we see and hear, with our own (media mediated) eyes and ears.

The Council Has Spoken:

This week's winning post was by Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House.  Rick does not mention Vietnam in his post, but many of us old enough to remember would suggest that it was the attempt to fight the Vietnam War without fully committing to the battle that eventually led to our defeat.   In IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT, he quite carefully and in a superbly reasoned way, makes the updated argument that if we are to win in Iraq, we had better not repeat the mistakes of the past.  There are a number of places one can disagree with him, but his arguments are well worth taking seriously.  The second place post was by Dymphna at Gates of Vienna.  Her post, The Nation-State vs Anarchy and Imperialism, includes this:

But before discussing the critical issue of the nation-state, we should step back a pace and consider the alternatives to national sovereignty, and what these alternatives represent both historically and to our future as a country.

We have known only two other choices when it comes to political organization: anarchy or imperialism.

If our enemies are not a nation state, our options narrow; read it all.

The winning non-Council post was BAD FAITH, by David Thompson at 3:AM Magazine.  It is telling that there are people who need to have it spelled out in clear and concise terms that there really are important differences between cultures and some are in fact better than others; consider this:

By way of further illustration, while red-faced evangelists may say gay people are wicked, damned to hellfire, etc, I don't know of any internationally renowned Christian leaders who are calling for the imprisonment and killing of gay people. Unlike the supposedly "moderate" Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who insists that gay men and lesbians should be "killed in the worst manner possible." Not condemned, 'corrected', prayed for, or pitied, or any of the usual nonsense spouted by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al; but murdered -- as brutally as possible.

Read it all and book mark it so you can direct muddle headed multi-culturists to the post.  In second place was a typically excellent article by Micheal Totten, Terror War, which documents the damage done by Hezbollah to Kiryat Shmona, their main target in Northern Israel.  Somehow the International press corps has managed to neglect their reporting on the victims of Hezbollah; I suppose Hezbollah, for all their noise, was not terribly effective, and Jews and their property do not make good victims.

As always, all the nominated posts can be found at the Watcher of Weasels and all the posts are well worth your time and effort.

"Root Causes" and Other Nonsense

NPR this morning featured a report about a change in the laws on shoplifting in the UK.  From now on, there will be no risk of jail time for shoplifters.  Their crime will be handled in the same manner as traffic violations unless there is a particularly high value item involved.  Naturally, shop owners are distressed by this devaluation of their property but that apparently counts for little. 

I am not terribly interested in determining the optimal punishment for shoplifting, but I was struck by the explanation for the change.  The reporter explained that the change came about as a result of a typical (mis)application of the "root cause" concept.  Since the "root cause" of most shoplifting is drug addiction (sic), and jail time does not address the "root cause", then jail time for the offense is not warranted.  I suppose in such thinking, jail time would be a "disproportionate response."

While the particular offense involved is shoplifting, the logic, if this kind of thinking can be dignified with such a word, is familiar.  The rubric of "root causes" as an explanation for manifest behavior, especially criminal behavior, remains one of the most egregious misuses of Psychoanalytic concepts that our psychobabble addled age has been heir to.  It represents a classic inversion of the meaning of Freud's work and completely distorts and perverts the entire enterprise of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis.  It also leads to a "reductio ad absurdum" that renders the use of the concept literally nonsensical.

Freud's theory of the mind was revolutionary because he proposed the existence of a dynamic unconscious and formulated the concept of compromise formation and multiple determinants.

Contrasts, Edges, and Differences

I will be out of the office and away from my computer for much of the day today, so I thought I would re-post one of my earliest efforts from the ancient days of January 2005, when I started this blog.  At the time, despite my experience as a Psychoanalyst and Psychotherapist, I thought that in the political sphere rational argumentation and discussion would have an important place and might even change minds. 

This early post suggested some of the neurological and psychological bases fro the kinds of splitting and dichotomizing that i have written about with some frequency.  Humans are social beings and our social structure remains the tribe; in many ways it is hard-wired into us.

As part of one’s training a Psychoanalyst must go through his/her own Psychoanalysis.  While there have been many questions raised about whether or not Psychoanalysis is a Science, it is unquestionable that it is the closest state we have to a laboratory in which the patient (Analysand) can explore the machinations of his own psyche, complete with prejudices and unconscious biases.  The typical analysis lasts anywhere from 4-7 years; during their time together the Analyst cultivates a Zen like attitude of neutral curiosity.  Often caricatured as non-involvement (and sometimes, some Analysts do a terrific imitation of detachment) the Analyst must remain non-judgmental and curious about all facets of the patient’s mind.  Part of the work involves helping the patient develop a curious attitude about himself, and especially about his basic relationship with the world around him. This is not as simple as it sounds.  Patients, even patients who are desperately unhappy, who have had disaster after disaster in their work, or their relationships, have a powerful investment in maintaining their dysfunctional perspective.  Many patients (and many people in general) would much prefer to see themselves as victims of their hereditary and their Neurochemistry, rather than as agents of their own unhappiness.  All victims share some common features.  Whether you are a victim of your genetics, of your parents’ inadequate nurturing, or of the greater society, all victimization involves a feeling of helplessness.  Victims, by definition, are helpless.  It is extraordinarily difficult to make someone aware that their victimhood is all too often an active state, one that they unconsciously create.  Certainly, real victims do exist.  The victims of the tsunami are real.  Children who are being abused by parents or caretakers are truly helpless.  However, once the world is divided into victims and victimizers, all discourse ends.

Saying Whatever Comes to Mind III

The Sanity Squad has been at it again, clarifying questions ranging from poll data to personal responsibility, with special attention to Gunter Grass and mass murderer Kim Hyon Hui (whose story will surprise you and should deeply trouble you.) 

Politics Central, part of PajamasMedia, has the podcast:

Poll Crafting, Personal Responsibility, and Apocalypse Maybe