ShrinkWrapped

None So Blind

Tomorrow, in yet another demonstration of their deeply non-serious approach to the world we live in, the Democratic led Congress will send the emergency spending bill, laden with pork and crippled by time-lines, to the President who will veto it. 

It requires a degree of myopia bordering on blindness to miscalculate so badly as the Democrats have done.

David Brookes summarizes in brief some of the inherent contradictions in the Democratic narrative about Iraq, who keep repeating we need to focus on Afghanistan apparently unaware that in Iraq we are now primarily fighting al Qaeda, who are being aided and abetted by Iran; Congress & Iraq: Declaring Defeat:

Wait a minute, you say: What about all those recent deadly bombings? The bad news is real - but those attacks are mostly the evil handiwork of al Qaeda and foreign jihadists (80 to 90 percent of suicide bombers are non-Iraqi). Osama's henchmen are still intent on fomenting a sectarian civil war - and hastening a U.S. retreat by influencing politics back here. Congress' action must leave them pumped.

Interestingly, such luminous intellects as Harry Reid, who apparently knows the war is lost because he has difficulty with the English language (note to Harry: General Petraues indeed said the war could only be won through political means, but he also said we needed to use military means as a prerequisite to provide the setting for the political victory) suggests the real fight is in Afghanistan, against al Qaeda, yet al Qaeda says the central front is in Iraq.  Maybe Harry missed the memo, 7/7 ‘mastermind’ is seized in Iraq :

The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein’s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the “high-value detainee programme” at Guantanamo Bay.

Remarkable: Iraq, Iran, and al Qaeda all in the same person!

The Suicidal Core of the Anti-Semite

Compare and Contrast:

Since the latter half of the 20th century the Nations of South East Asia have joined the modern world in increasing numbers.  From the ruins of the post-WWII environment, Japan, with almost no natural resources beyond their human capital have built a modern economy, the second largest in the world, complete with self-perpetuating engines of innovation, enriching themselves and the rest of the world in the process.  China, after initially handicapping itself with the failed ideology of communism, has joined the race with a fury, becoming so successful so quickly that they are already showing signs of transitioning from a purely labor intensive manufacturing economy to an information economy in the space of 20 years.  India, similarly handicapped by communism-lite, aka socialism, has been playing catch-up with China and much of the history of the 21st century is going to involve the rivalry between these two economic giants.  Various other Nations of South East Asia, ranging from Malaysia to Vietnam have begun to join the global economy, enlarging the core to the benefit of all. 

Two areas have persisted in their refusal or inability to join the core.  Africa has so many structural problems, exacerbated by dysfunctional governance, that it will be a very long time before they are ready and able to join the modern world.  Interestingly, some of the dysfunction of Africa overlaps that of the area most conspicuous by its unwillingness and inability to join the human race in its drive for the future of mankind. 

The Nations of the Muslim Middle East should be among the wealthiest in the world, yet they have done less with more than any people in history.  Their massive failure is not coincidental but is inseparable from their anti-Semitism; unless there is a change in their soul-sickness, they will destroy any hope their people can ever have in becoming part of the successful, modern world of possibilities.

In Pity the Poor Anti-Semite, I described how anti-Semitism defines the self-imposed inferiority of the anti-Semite:

Who Are We Fighting in Iraq?

The Democratic leadership in Congress has determined we have lost the war in Iraq and imagine that they can leverage the American people's legendary impatience and relative ignorance to electoral victory in 2008.  They may well prove to be correct in their assessment of the domestic political stakes involved in the ongoing turmoil in Iraq, but their positions on the war remain incoherent and evidence of serious ignorance of the nature, strategic thinking, and psychology of the enemy.  Amir Taheri points this out today in Iraq: Who's Winning, Harry?

Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated.

...

... Reid might have added to the confusion that has plagued his party over the issue from the start.

Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner. This Reid cannot do.

...

It's possible that Reid imagined that his analytical problems are over simply because he has identified the war's loser. The truth is that his troubles are only beginning. He must tell Americans to whom they wish their army to surrender in Iraq.

Taheri goes on to point out that none of our enemies in Iraq, which include al Qaeda, ex-Baathists, and Iranian supported Shia Islamists, can be thought of as having "won" the war.  Even if you imagine that Iraq is a lost cause and the chaos can only get worse, you are essentially committed to the position that one or the other, or perhaps all three, of our enemies will emerge victorious, after we have left the field. 

To say that surrendering the front lines in such circumstances is irresponsible, is a tautology. 

At this time, the sectarian violence has already diminished in the early days of the surge.  Shia death squads have retreated, with Moqtada al Sadr hiding in Iran; Sunni tribes in Anbar are increasingly signing up with the coalition to oppose al Qaeda in Iraq, and al Qaeda is pouring the vast majority of their resources into the fight, properly recognizing the primacy of the Iraq theater of operations in their war against the West. 

The effects of the Democrat's craven and cynical behavior on our enemies can already be seen in the recent upsurge in suicide attacks, the terror weapon of choice of a weak adversary.

There are two significant aspects to the current war that must be understood when considering the near term course of the war on Islamic terror.

Informed Opinion

It is common place in discussions about the war in Iraq for people on opposing sides of the argument to talk past each other.  As with many of our disagreements, basic assumptions determine how we perceive and incorporate new data into our paradigms.  Tony Blankley, in Is There Writing on the Wall? describes the problem in the clearest terms possible:

It would appear that the great divide in both public opinion and between politicians is not Republican-Democrat, liberal-conservative, pro or anti-Bush, or even pro or anti-war (or, in Europe: pro-or anti-American). Rather, the great divide is between those, such as me, who believe that the rise of radical Islam poses an existential threat to Western Civilization; and those who believe it is a nuisance, if, episodically, a very dangerous nuisance.

His conclusion is apt:

And so the debate stands. Every political decision -- from the Iraq war appropriation vote this week, to the Patriot Act, to the status of Guantanamo Prison, to NSA intercepts, to the presidential election -- is seen through our conceptual squint of the threat or non-threat from radical Islam.

Neither side seems remotely capable of persuading the other of the accuracy of our respective foresights. Two years ago, I wrote a book on the subject. I have talked to thousands and thousands in speeches and millions on radio and TV (as have so many authors these last five years). But the net effect seems to be to re-enforce the opinions of those who already share my view, rather than persuade others to change their mind.

Thus, while others and I will continue to make our case in public, it seems probably inevitable that the correctness or incorrectness of our views will only become persuasive to the multitude when history teaches its cruel, unavoidable lessons. It was ever thus, which is why history is strewed with broken nations and civilizations that couldn't read the writing on the wall. Of course, it is also strewed with sad hulks of false predictors of doom.

Dean Barnett, in the process of deconstructing the rhetoric on both sides of the political discussion, links to an important survey of Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda.  Dean's summary is short and to the point:

Saying Whatever Comes to Mind XXXVI

This week the Sanity Squad considers some of the difficult Psychiatric issues raised by the recent murderous rampage at Virginia Tech, including questions of Involuntary Commitment, and the distinction between mental illness and evil.

Download or listen to Involuntary Commitment and join Neo-neocon, Dr. Sanity, Siggy, and me and be enlightened. 

As you listen, you might consider this conundrum as posed by Dr. Sanity today:

[Just as an aside: I am curious as a psychiatric professional--why do we appear to be more frightened of the mentally ill (who are not more violent than the general population but are 2.5 times more likely to be the victims of violence), but not of terrorists who were caught actively fighting and killing Americans and are now incarcerated at Guantanamo?]

The Organizing Function of Paranoia

In a post from last year, Paranoia and Reason, I discussed some of the compensatory functions of paranoia in severely disturbed individuals:

Their illness, in reality, has estranged them from their family, made it impossible for them to maintain long term relationships or productive employment, often leaving them prone to drug and alcohol abuse, frequently victimized on the streets, in general with a bleak future outlook. A person who suffers the devastation of Schizophrenia, with rare exceptions, is emotionally and cognitively crippled. The delusion that they are being followed by the FBI suggests many compensatory attributes. They are never alone (there are always people thinking about them), they are clearly extremely important (the FBI doesn't waste time following people who are inconsequential) and often, they have grandiose fantasies that they are the key to world peace, or some other such problem. We admit them to the hospital, give them powerful medications to help them return to more appropriate reality testing, and often, have to deal with a severe, sometimes dangerous, condition referred to as a Post-psychotic Depression. Giving up their position of power and importance, and facing the bleakness of their lives is terribly distressing; for this reason suicide is a significant risk in young patients who recover from a first psychotic episode.

I drew some analogies to dysfunctional cultures, which often use similar paranoid projection to create enemies who can be blamed for all failings and become a focus of the people's passions.  I expanded the concept in The Reparative Function of Paranoid Delusions, with specific interest in the plight of the Islamists and their elevation of the West, especially Israel, the Jews, and America into iconic status.  The existence of a  Great Satan and a Little Satan protects the fragile self-esteem of the Islamists, and the Ummah, from recognizing and facing their manifest failure as a culture:

We can see the problem for men like [Hamas Leader Khaled] Mash'al.  They believe with the greatest conviction that they are chosen by Allah to rule over the infidels.  The very existence of Israel in the heart of the Middle East, and American and allied troops in Iraq is a constant humiliation, not just of them but of their God.  This is intolerable and they have no choice but to fight with every tool at their disposal.  The alternative, to make peace and accept their humiliation, would lay bare all their grandiose fantasies and rationalizations; they would have to confront all their actual failures instead of their fantasied successes.  It is unlikely that their version of Islam, which they see as indistinguishable from themselves, could survive such humiliation.  Elevating suicide/murder to an ideal then becomes explicable as a measure of their need to hide their reality from themselves, even if it costs them their lives.

There is yet an additional function that such paranoid delusions and the quasi-delusions known as conspiracy theories serve for the believer.

Explanatory Disclaimer

I have written many posts in which I use examples from my patients to illuminate an aspect of pschodynamics.  In all such cases, I disguise the patients in ways which make their identity impossible to establish.  I apply the understanding of the individual dynamics to the behavior of larger groups of people with the goal of understanding why people believe some of the things they believe and behave in the ways they behave. 

For example, I have used the example of a young patient developing a paranoid delusion as a way to illuminate the uses of conspiracy theories among groups prone to such beliefs.  This is not meant to diagnose people who believe, for instance, that George W Bush and/or Dick Cheney were behind 9/11, but to explain why such beliefs can gain traction and what purpose they serve for those who believe in such conspiracy theories. 

This has led to a misunderstanding that I should have anticipated but failed to recognize because of certain assumptions I had made.  Unfortunately, I had neglected to examine my own assumptions and this has led to the present confusion.

A number of commenters have noted, from time to time, that I have diagnosed my political opponents.  That has never been my intent but I can understand how such a misunderstanding could arise.

There are two crucial assumptions that differentiate an exploration of psychodynamics in groups and psychiatric diagnosis of the individual.

The first assumption is that describing psychodynamics is the same as diagnosis; the two are related but quiet different in practice and theory.

Liviu Librescu

Chabad has set up a condolence page for the family of Liviu Librescu.  Please go there and let his family know that his life, and death, made a difference.  [HT: Seraphic Secret]

Short Takes

A number of questions keep echoing in my mind, triggered by the Virginia Tech murderer:

Even if he wasn't a Jihadi, isn't it obvious that he used the model for mass murder first sensationalized by the Palestinians and now part of the modus operandi for al Qaeda and all other haters of the modern world in which they fit so poorly?  And perhaps someone smarter than me can explain this:

Islam has been used as inoculation against outrage. When Muslims do something crazy in the name of Mohammed, it is not regarded as a mental illness, rather as freedom of religion.

Further, under the heading that even very smart people can be poorly informed, serious mental illness does not necessarily increase the risk of violence.  Most violent people do not have major psychiatric disorders (Schizophrenia, Bipolar, Depression) but rather suffer from character pathology.  The Va Tech killer may have shown evidence of paranoid trends in his thinking, antipathy to others, inappropriate anger, but he was not, as far as is known, psychotic, which is what we usually mean when we talk about mental illness.  (Of course, the APA has done its part in trying to pathologize all sorts of behavior, but it is a disservice to call anyone who is depressed, "mentally ill.")  The question should be whether the person had the capacity to know right from wrong and the ability to choose one or the other course.  By all accounts, the killer knew what he was doing and chose to do something unspeakably evil.

And one more thing about the killer.  We know that, just as with the idealized murderers of the Islamist world, notoriety rewards them for their atrocities and encourages further atrocities.  If we know that, or should know that, why is it that of all the bloggers I have read and all the MSM reports I have seen and read, only Robert Avrech (independently) has joined me in refusing to mention this killer's name?  Maybe if we start to deny them their posthumous gratification, the next killer will think twice.  When I wrote about Amok on Monday, I omitted comments about how the scourge ended in Malaysia at the turn of the last century; this is germane to the discussion of our response to this man's Amok. 

Saying Whatever Comes to Mind XXXV

This week the Sanity Squad addressed the terrible events at Virginia Tech in which so many innocents were slaughtered by an evil person.  Unfortunately, I was unable to take part in the discussion this week but Dr. Sanity, Neo-neocon, and Siggy try to understand What Went Wrong at Virginia Tech?  Join them and though you will not find any comfort, you might just find some illumination.