17 September 2012
Lots of BAD information
If there is one strain held in common by the variety of "bad things" that seem to have happened to western "civilization" this past decade, it is that decisions were made which led to "suboptimal" outcomes, and those decisions did so because of bad intelligence. At least, that is what those in positions of power responsible for the decision making always seem to point to. Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction™, Osama evaded capture for 10 years, we had no reason to believe the economy was in danger, Greece was a good place to invest...
What new decisions will be poorly made based on "faulty information"? And is that an excuse I can use to avoid paying taxes? Evade personal responsibility for a multitude of sins? Explain to my kids and grandkids why we sold their future in exchange for several all-inclusive vacations, a new car, big screen TV or a hot tub that's never used? And what about the environmental catastrophe we're leaving them? Why not? I mean, the problem with this line of thinking is two-fold: we have no reason to respect, trust or esteem those in power who resolutely refuse to accept their own personal responsibility for the very serious bad judgment they exercise; and by not correctly identifying what and whom is to blame, we leave ourselves in no better position to make decisions in the future. I mean, of course, a cynic would say that that is exactly what is intended--inoculate the worst miscreants by blaming the quality of the data rather than the interpretations, or simply actions, taken by those miscreants.
For want of a nail...
(Held over from November 2011 by accident, design or inertia)
The LA Times published an interesting op-ed this week on the efficacy of targeted killings and war as a means to an end (here it is). The author strongly suggests that they are not. I'm not talking about whether they are morally defensible, or whether they might sometimes "be necessary", or whether they are better or worse as strategic options; no, just that they do not achieve the long-term goal of winning the conflict, and then winning the peace. "I used to be able to go talk to local Taliban commanders," a journalist long resident in Afghanistan told me, "but they are all dead. The ones who replaced them are much more dangerous. They don't want to talk to anyone at all."
Is this a surprise? To many of us, no, uh-uh, not at all. The question is, why is this a surprise to so many of the leaders making these decisions, or the average citizens who support them? Let's go back for a second to that quaint notion of whether it is morally defensible as a strategy. I guess this gets into the very murky area of what constitutes moral action, and furthermore, whether morality has to be consistent. Let me say up front that I recognize most people regard morality as a code of behaviour associated with one or more existential beliefs about who we are. Often they are based on a book of some sort: the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics or The Way To Happiness. (Don't worry--I'm not positing some kind of nominal equality between these works on any level, be it artistic, cultural, quality of writing, "legitimacy", philosophical consistency or what have you.)
Anyway, let me assert something about moral choice: regardless of what moral system one believes in or ascribes to for whatever reason, it is important that all actions be capable of either being justified by the moral code, or categorized as aberrations, evil or "sin". Failure to do so will inevitably cause the entire moral system to lose coherence--or at the very least, influence. So, having asserted all this, I would go so far as to say that targeted killings fail this test for most moral schema, and therefore fail the test for a nation that claims to follow such a schema like the United States (or Canada, or most nations or one sort or another). So I think it's not only a strategic concern, but also a moral problem. The really interesting issue, however, is, regardless of the moral issues, does it achieve the practical goals intended? Again, that quote sums it up (as does a great deal of statistical evidence): no. In fact, it appears as though it has the rather unfortunate unintended consequence of increasing resolve, and generally worsening the conflict. [One important caveat: the studies looked at targeted assassinations carried out on behalf of occupying forces, the forces that had the upper hand. It may very well be quite different when looked at from the point of view of insurgents, or those occupied.] Again, this does not strike me as terribly surprising, any more than the crappy state of the American (and global) economy, education system, culture... You see, there are those who believe that military conflict is an expression of a nation's power. I, and many others, however, regard military conflicts as the ultimate expression of the limits on a nation's power. Everyone knew that the United States had an unmatched, powerful, advanced military. Following Iraq and Afghanistan people now know that the US has a military which, no matter how powerful, cannot subdue a motivated enemy, no matter how poorly equipped. They also know that such a military costs a great deal in blood and treasure to use, and that leaders who don't have the wisdom to avoid conflicts at all costs, or who don't have the wisdom not to launch conflicts, also won't have the wisdom to run their own countries. This is hardly new. Read Josephus, Herodotus and every writer on war since. Everything is bound up--the economy, unemployment, military success, cultural dominance--and one cannot simply enact strategies in one sphere without seeing some kind of reaction in another sphere. Forget 9/11 for a second. Bush II talked openly about ensuring a second term by fighting a successful military action. He may not have planned to go to war, but he certainly planned to take advantage of the opportunity. But to do so meant laying the groundwork: making people scared. 9/11 was the catalyst, but it was the colour coding, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act that helped establish fear in the general populace. And it worked! Sure there was a legitimate desire for revenge (!) and a legitimate need to respond somehow to the outrage of 9/11, but the amount of fear created ensured that there would be little questioning of the policies implemented. Now, the problem with this is that fear is not a great motivator to buy consumer goods. Especially if it's fear of foreclosure. But even if it's fear of a poor cash position. So the economy began to slow down, and risk aversion became the order of the day. This was solved by keeping interest rates abnormally low, which led to all kinds of risky speculating, and perversely, the inability to earn much from traditional investments. So the banks created new mechanisms for "wealth creation"--Asset Backed Securities and Credit Default Swaps. Here, at last, were financial vehicles which could generate good returns even in the face of unbelievably low interest. But to realize this, Congress had to eliminate regulations. Which was easy, because what could be more patriotic than the creation of wealth while at war? Now we have fictional financial vehicles, risk aversion leading ironically to unmeasured risk taking, expenditures of huge sums on the ill-thought-out conflicts, fear now of losing jobs and/or houses... a perfect storm of incompetence, immorality and a failure of the imagination. And they are all related. The question is not how do we solve the current fiscal crisis, but how do we solve the current existential crisis, given that we have politicians seemingly committed to a worldview swimming in cognitive dissonance?
The LA Times published an interesting op-ed this week on the efficacy of targeted killings and war as a means to an end (here it is). The author strongly suggests that they are not. I'm not talking about whether they are morally defensible, or whether they might sometimes "be necessary", or whether they are better or worse as strategic options; no, just that they do not achieve the long-term goal of winning the conflict, and then winning the peace. "I used to be able to go talk to local Taliban commanders," a journalist long resident in Afghanistan told me, "but they are all dead. The ones who replaced them are much more dangerous. They don't want to talk to anyone at all."
Is this a surprise? To many of us, no, uh-uh, not at all. The question is, why is this a surprise to so many of the leaders making these decisions, or the average citizens who support them? Let's go back for a second to that quaint notion of whether it is morally defensible as a strategy. I guess this gets into the very murky area of what constitutes moral action, and furthermore, whether morality has to be consistent. Let me say up front that I recognize most people regard morality as a code of behaviour associated with one or more existential beliefs about who we are. Often they are based on a book of some sort: the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics or The Way To Happiness. (Don't worry--I'm not positing some kind of nominal equality between these works on any level, be it artistic, cultural, quality of writing, "legitimacy", philosophical consistency or what have you.)
Anyway, let me assert something about moral choice: regardless of what moral system one believes in or ascribes to for whatever reason, it is important that all actions be capable of either being justified by the moral code, or categorized as aberrations, evil or "sin". Failure to do so will inevitably cause the entire moral system to lose coherence--or at the very least, influence. So, having asserted all this, I would go so far as to say that targeted killings fail this test for most moral schema, and therefore fail the test for a nation that claims to follow such a schema like the United States (or Canada, or most nations or one sort or another). So I think it's not only a strategic concern, but also a moral problem. The really interesting issue, however, is, regardless of the moral issues, does it achieve the practical goals intended? Again, that quote sums it up (as does a great deal of statistical evidence): no. In fact, it appears as though it has the rather unfortunate unintended consequence of increasing resolve, and generally worsening the conflict. [One important caveat: the studies looked at targeted assassinations carried out on behalf of occupying forces, the forces that had the upper hand. It may very well be quite different when looked at from the point of view of insurgents, or those occupied.] Again, this does not strike me as terribly surprising, any more than the crappy state of the American (and global) economy, education system, culture... You see, there are those who believe that military conflict is an expression of a nation's power. I, and many others, however, regard military conflicts as the ultimate expression of the limits on a nation's power. Everyone knew that the United States had an unmatched, powerful, advanced military. Following Iraq and Afghanistan people now know that the US has a military which, no matter how powerful, cannot subdue a motivated enemy, no matter how poorly equipped. They also know that such a military costs a great deal in blood and treasure to use, and that leaders who don't have the wisdom to avoid conflicts at all costs, or who don't have the wisdom not to launch conflicts, also won't have the wisdom to run their own countries. This is hardly new. Read Josephus, Herodotus and every writer on war since. Everything is bound up--the economy, unemployment, military success, cultural dominance--and one cannot simply enact strategies in one sphere without seeing some kind of reaction in another sphere. Forget 9/11 for a second. Bush II talked openly about ensuring a second term by fighting a successful military action. He may not have planned to go to war, but he certainly planned to take advantage of the opportunity. But to do so meant laying the groundwork: making people scared. 9/11 was the catalyst, but it was the colour coding, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act that helped establish fear in the general populace. And it worked! Sure there was a legitimate desire for revenge (!) and a legitimate need to respond somehow to the outrage of 9/11, but the amount of fear created ensured that there would be little questioning of the policies implemented. Now, the problem with this is that fear is not a great motivator to buy consumer goods. Especially if it's fear of foreclosure. But even if it's fear of a poor cash position. So the economy began to slow down, and risk aversion became the order of the day. This was solved by keeping interest rates abnormally low, which led to all kinds of risky speculating, and perversely, the inability to earn much from traditional investments. So the banks created new mechanisms for "wealth creation"--Asset Backed Securities and Credit Default Swaps. Here, at last, were financial vehicles which could generate good returns even in the face of unbelievably low interest. But to realize this, Congress had to eliminate regulations. Which was easy, because what could be more patriotic than the creation of wealth while at war? Now we have fictional financial vehicles, risk aversion leading ironically to unmeasured risk taking, expenditures of huge sums on the ill-thought-out conflicts, fear now of losing jobs and/or houses... a perfect storm of incompetence, immorality and a failure of the imagination. And they are all related. The question is not how do we solve the current fiscal crisis, but how do we solve the current existential crisis, given that we have politicians seemingly committed to a worldview swimming in cognitive dissonance?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)