BC #4: Dirty Wars - No, it's not porn with a war theme.

[jennypenny]

What Ego wrote reminds me of the problem the medical community faces. The oath is 'first do no harm,' and I think most doctors would prefer to follow that. But once you add in the problems of insurance and malpractice, doctors end up over-treating to avoid being accused of under-treating.

Actually, parenting and education are like that now. Maybe it's a symptom of our culture at the moment? Over-doing is less of an offense than under-doing? (yes, I'm making up words now )

[Ego]

The "at least I tried" defense. Hum, that's interesting.

[Dragline]

This is an interesting question. Is it actual danger/events/information that causes this? Or, is it the weight of the bureaucracy and one person (even a President with well staffed White House) only has so much personal capital and energy to go around?

Reminds me of the epicurean paradox.

His anti-intervention stance was a (the?) defining characteristic of candidate Obama. He has done a 180, not once but continually. He has been proactive about the use of interventional force. I didn't read the whole thing, but I got the impression that that was the theme of the book. In my mind being proactive is very different from giving in to the bureaucracy. He would not have spent much personal capital by refraining from using drones as a result of top secret information. He would have been acting on his stated beliefs. I believe those beliefs changed the moment he realized that HE was the one on the hook if something went wrong. It would be on his conscience if he failed to take the pre-emptive action that he had the power to take.

For the first time he saw the depth of the threat. That drawing back of the curtain and the responsibility that goes with it scared him in the same way it scares most everyone on the intelligence committee.

I think that's at least partially correct. But I think it also demonstrates a lack of conviction in his original stated beliefs.

The book does a good job pointing out that Obama became enamored with Special Ops when he saw how they were able to take down the pirates in the Maersk Alabama hijacking in a very surgical way. I think he saw this as a way to have his cake and eat it too -- i.e., pull back from formal entanglements as he argued in his candidacy, but remain engaged with stealth technology and operations.

I'd agree that this is preferable to the nation-building plans of the predecessor administration. But it also encourages a culture of bureaucratic lying -- if everything is secret, then no one really knows what is going on or even what the policy is. This seems to be exactly what the NSA has been doing -- lie about everything and hope nobody figures it out. Obama's only woken up to this as a fundamental problem recently as he sees his legacy about to be tarnished as not "the guy who got bin Laden", but as "the guy who got your phone calls."

What he's still never done is actually craft a position or doctrine about when interference or use of force is justified. We seem to have an awful lot of stealth operations for reasons that are completely opaque. "Just because we can" or "Just because it makes us feel safer" doesn't seem like much of a policy.

And it leaves open the possiblity that all hell will break loose again if the next occupant of the White House is more of the Rumsfeld/Cheney/McCain pursuasion. Or worse yet, speaks apocalytically about Israel's role in the world. Then we're back in manifest destiny/crusader land again.

[Ego]

Obama's only woken up to this as a fundamental problem recently as he sees his legacy about to be tarnished as not "the guy who got bin Laden", but as "the guy who got your phone calls."

That's true. The problem for him is that we will likely never know when the phone calls (or whatever else is being monitored) produces results.

What he's still never done is actually craft a position or doctrine about when interference or use of force is justified. We seem to have an awful lot of stealth operations for reasons that are completely opaque. "Just because we can" or "Just because it makes us feel safer" doesn't seem like much of a policy.

Yeah, "just because we can" is driving the lawyers nuts because the policy hasn't kept pace with the technology. It's only going to get worse in the near-term and we will likely err on the side of permitting action rather than limiting it.

And it leaves open the possiblity that all hell will break loose again if the next occupant of the White House is more of the Rumsfeld/Cheney/McCain pursuasion. Or worse yet, speaks apocalytically about Israel's role in the world. Then we're back in manifest destiny/crusader land again.

Agreed. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/george-ch ... rsion.html

[Dragline]

More on how trumped up fears are still driving the truck off the cliff:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/12/th ... um=twitter

This really has taken on a life of its own.

[jennypenny]

I had a disturbing discussion this week. It started innocently enough when I was teased for refusing to submit to the background checks at my son's school. Eventually, I was told that I was being un-American for not submitting to, or agreeing to, this kind of surveillance. When I suggested that not only wasn't it legal, but it wasn't even effective, they said that all they wanted to know was that someone was watching. Not watching the bad guys, but watching them. That's what made them feel safer and sleep at night.

This isn't the thread for this, but I think people's precarious financial situations contribute to the type of irrational fears that help them rationalize things like the NSA's spying.

[Ego]

When I suggested that not only wasn't it legal, but it wasn't even effective, they said that all they wanted to know was that someone was watching. Not watching the bad guys, but watching them. That's what made them feel safer and sleep at night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pcWlyUu8U4#t=34

[jacob]

@jennypenny - To increase your freedom please report nonconforming behavior or thinking amongst students or parents to your block commander or local security representative. Please check off the appropriate violations on the available forms for reporting. Do not add explanations. We already know what you're thinking. If aberrant patterns in your records are detected, remain with your cellphone and wait for a freedom officer to be dispatched to your triangulated position for expedient rendition. Stay safe!

[My_Brain_Gets_Itchy]

"I really tried to read the book......then I tried to skim it......then I just watched the movie

This is one of those topics that I do not devote much time too-ultimately because it really is beyond my control."

I did the same thing @sshawn did and have pretty much the same views.

The two generalized impressions that I had though were:

1. Is there such a thing as a clean war? Isn't propaganda and controlling public opinion (ie by lies ,bending the truth, obfuscation), covert activities, injustices or indignities, cover ups, mistakes, inherent in all wars just not Afghanistan?
Taking the conspiratorial angle with a piecing of clues like a whodunnit mystery, aided tremendously now by our digital information age, is surely entertaining but the "Dirty War" of Afghanistan is not an exception, but the norm. It seemed like the underlying subtle point implies that this war is dirty while others are clean. This to me, is also a form of propaganda in itself. (my point may be way way off since I am basing it on the movie, not the book).

2. Having said point 1, it still doesn't make any of it right or something that should be willfully accepted. I am very grateful there are people like Jeremy Scahill who spend their lives questioning,seeking truth and being skeptical in areas that the vast majority of us do not. Without people like him or doing what he does, we'd be worse off.

I'm also glad for guys like @chad and others who care enough about these issues to inform themselves and inform others.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Ego]

Best case for drones I've heard yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ver-heard/

[Chad]

Best case for drones I've heard yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ver-heard/

The article makes a valid point, but we use this style of stand off attack too much. We appear to do this because "we have to do something." The author notes this later in the article, but fails to note that we don't have to bomb everything or nothing. We can create a higher bar for stand off strikes, with the idea that we would create less anti-American feeling and still get the targets that actually matter.

When you look at the guys who are executing this, they say, "Well I can't do any of these other things, but I have to get rid of bin Laden and his support network, so I'm gonna go with this." And it was super effective.

Yes, there are new threats coming up, but Bin Laden and that support network are long gone. I would bet the current connections are so loose that they would hardly qualify as a network.

The author also notes that not all strikes are drone strikes. Drones seem to have developed a "magical" tech quality when they are rather simple and are only really effective against 3rd world or rag-tag military groups.

[Ego]

There has been a lot of talk about how we are minting new terrorists with each drone strike. Some also mention the psychological toll on the operators. Very few discuss how drones have become godlike omnipotent eyes in the sky to those being watched. The psychological power this has over those who are inherently superstitious is enormous.

Despicable? Perhaps. But it works.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-raj- ... 88443.html

The paper published in the academic journal, Theoretical Criminology, provides evidence for a new military program dubbed the Gorgon Stare- named after the Greek mythological figure whose gaze could turn victims into stone. The aim is to dramatically increase the video feed capable of being transmitted and recorded by standard drones.

A clandestine aspect of drone warfare is the psychological impact on a population of being constantly spied upon, to the extent of preventing them leading normal lives and, oddly enough for a supposed 'anti-terror' weapon...

[anomie]

Very few discuss how drones have become godlike omnipotent eyes in the sky to those being watched. The psychological power this has over those who are inherently superstitious is enormous.
.....

We should all get used to looking overhead for the 'omnipotent eye'. As the popular sentiment for international war wanes, war industry will convince powers that be of the 'need' for drone patrol inside the us perimeter (immigrants? terrorists? immigrant terrorists?)... (Think NSA eavesdropping on all internet traffic as evidence of that dissolution of privacy ; guess we all should be watching for this 'omnipotent eye' as it is already here...)

[jennypenny]

We should all get used to looking overhead for the 'omnipotent eye'.

I am...through my scope.

[jacob]

Obviously, when I start my permaculture garden [one of these days], the shrubbery will be planted in a pattern which when read from above will read: THESE AREN'T THE DROIDS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

When we lived in the RV, we would cover it with a tarp which also happened to be a recycled billboard on a seasonal basis. We would be advertising to the skies for AT&T and some cheap credit card company respectively. It was visible to google satellite.

[Dragline]

Vonnegut would be proud -- along with Tyler Durden:

http://www.iconophilia.net/art-where-yo ... expect-it/

[Dragline]

More on teleology and empire:

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/20 ... style.html

[jennypenny]

More on teleology and empire:

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/20 ... style.html

LOL ... I thought of you when I read that this morning.

[Dragline]

My idiosyncratic worldview must be catching . . .

You know, its funny, I found ERE through a citation in one of CHS's books.

[jennypenny]

I know I'm the resident paranoid prepper on the forum, but did this column disturb anyone else?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3828260732

It made me think about this book. How long before publishers get told what kinds of books they should be publishing?

From the column...

Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.