ISIS/ISIL

[elegant]

The alternative solution/outcome is business as usual. This means increasing military costs (to compensate for the asymmetric attacks) which fall on the taxpayers and ultimately the productivity of the country. However, people will slowly get used to terrorism and start thinking of it as a hassle rather than the end of the world as we know it. Eventually, another dynamics enters...

This has been the case over here since the late nineties. Well, except for the new dynamics part.

[Chad]

@jacob

You tend to look at group motivations as individual motivations en masse, (bottom up) whereas ego and chad tend to look at the group motivations as leader/follower motivations (top down).

I'm not going into which is more accurate, (I think that's personal, and subject to change), but I don't think they are incompatible. Blind men describing elephants, and all that.

Agreed. Definitely not incompatible and both aspects, bottom-up and top-down, are part of all events of this magnitude. I do think each event has it's own mix. Some of these events are driven more from the top than the bottom and vice versa.

What makes you think I believe ISIS/ISIL is top-down? I'm not saying you are incorrect. I'm just curious what convinced you of this. What did I say about IS that makes you think that? Or, is this based on my entire body of comments in all threads? Always interesting to see how others see you or , in this case, how they see my writing.

[Ego]

Funny, I was thinking about that top-down/bottom-up comment as well. I thought it was interesting that some here assume that isil is bottom-up yet believe that our own motivations (resource allocation) is top-down. How we see ourselves vs how we see others.

[jennypenny]

I realize you weren't arguing statistics and that you personally weren't suggesting you were feeling this way, but it seemed like you were arguing that this feeling of fear by the general public was ok. My goal was to argue against the idea that it was ok for them to fear the new boogeyman.

I do think it's ok. It's normal to be freaked out when someone is beheaded. I don't think we'll get anywhere telling people not to be afraid. A better approach is to acknowledge what they fear is real, albeit highly unlikely, and then assuage their fear by explaining the statistics and outlining what reasonable action will be taken.

I think the only real solution is to treat these acts as crimes instead of acts of war, go after the perpetrators, and stop hating on groups, religions, countries, tribes, etc. We should say "We're not going to declare war on Iraq or Syria or Muslim groups. But those guys that beheaded the reporters? They're going down."

Totally OT ... I'll vote for any candidate for president who promises not to use the phrase "War on [fill in the blank]" during their presidency. Hyperbolic rhetoric has sadly become the norm.

[Dragline]

I think the only real solution is to treat these acts as crimes instead of acts of war, go after the perpetrators, and stop hating on groups, religions, countries, tribes, etc. We should say "We're not going to declare war on Iraq or Syria or Muslim groups. But those guys that beheaded the reporters? They're going down."

Totally OT ... I'll vote for any candidate for president who promises not to use the phrase "War on [fill in the blank]" during their presidency. Hyperbolic rhetoric has sadly become the norm.

I completely agree -- these are criminal gangs involved in acts of extortion in hopes of obtaining money and power. Stripped of the window dressing of a "cause", its just piracy and thuggery on the high desert.

And I like your voting criteria -- mine is similar: "least likely to start another unnecessary war." Babbling on about "losing face" or "not being respected" (whatever the hell that playground rhetoric means) in the international community is another red alert.

[Devil's Advocate]

Here's the thing to do. Not in exclusion of other short-term "strategic" measures.

Launch an all-out crusade against gobbledygook religion. All religions are fairy tales. To say there is a bearded Arabic-speaking giant (or Hebrew-spouting crazed tyrant, or Sanskrit-speaking Aryan pro-war philosopher with a penchant for speaking in verse) whose giant hands protect only u and none else, how imbecile.and effed up a belief is that? Mixing religion with politics (be it IS claiming the fealty of fellow Muslims, or cutting stem cell research, or teaching Intelligent Design in schools, they're all symptoms of the same disease.

So fight this stupid superstition. With as big a budget as the military budget, on war footing. Not, of course, to the exclusion of short-term band aids.

[Dragline]

Here's the thing to do. Not in exclusion of other short-term "strategic" measures.

Launch an all-out crusade against gobbledygook religion. All religions are fairy tales. To say there is a bearded Arabic-speaking giant (or Hebrew-spouting crazed tyrant, or Sanskrit-speaking Aryan pro-war philosopher with a penchant for speaking in verse) whose giant hands protect only u and none else, how imbecile.and effed up a belief is that? Mixing religion with politics (be it IS claiming the fealty of fellow Muslims, or cutting stem cell research, or teaching Intelligent Design in schools, they're all symptoms of the same disease.

So fight this stupid superstition. With as big a budget as the military budget, on war footing. Not, of course, to the exclusion of short-term band aids.

Launching a "crusade", eh? Sounds like a cure worse than the disease. Since people will die for their beliefs, what you are really saying is go kill them. Lots of them. Maybe set up some re-education camps, too. Otherwise your crusade plan won't work. And I think its been tried.

I suppose we could take down the Mennonites first -- they'd be easy picking. Maybe those Hasidic folks too -- now they look pretty strange, and therefore are probably quite dangerous. Thanks, but no thanks.

Or you could better define the problem and come up with a more realistic solution that does not assume some sort of utopia would appear if you just eliminate religious beliefs. This is the fundamental problem of all crusades.

Don't get me wrong -- I do believe in the separation of church and state and I have no sympathy for crazed zealots. But declaring "war on religion" is no better than declaring "war on drugs" or any number of other misguided declarations of "war" on various people and things.

[Spartan_Warrior]

x2 Dragline. As far as impractical solutions, I find FFJ's slightly more palatable, if not any more likely to happen--the average Amurican is probably more attached to their SUVs than to Jesus.

[Devil's Advocate]

Err... Dragline, I didn't mean a guns and guts crusade, nor calling people Richie the Lion or Bambi the Olyphant or Mickey the Mouse.

I meant a crusade of ideas, on absolute war footing, with huge budgets.

Thee Muslim problem can only be weeded out by a crusade of ideas, led by primarily Muslim liberals and perhaps some clerics, talking of the absurdity of crazed faith, of Jihad referring to inner transformation.

But don't start and stops with Muslims, that's unfair and will be seen as such.

And done on real war footing, with crusade-like zeal,and wbudget, it will.work. Long term. Nothing else will.

Meanwhile, of course, short term band aids as well.

[Devil's Advocate]

Three levels to this war of ideas :
1. Separation of church and state. In every way.
2. Replace crazy faith with "good" faith. Outer jihad bad, inner jihad good. Intelligent Design crazy, Christian love and charity good.
3. Finally, obliterate crazy religions. Replace Krishna cults with experitial meditation. Replace blind faith with real spirituality. Or with atheism, if you prefer.

Difficult to uproot crazed militants via this? Sure, very. But that's the only long term permanent solution.

If you can kill Saddam and Osama, uproot their infrastructures, why can't you do this with enough strategy, planning, budget and resources? Establish a BSEA (bullshit elimination agency) at par with the CIA. A whole troop of rational evangelists/operatives, subtle not in your face, at par with the military.

[Riggerjack]

My top/bottom dichotomy is based on top:stated goal of groups, vs bottom: motivation of individual members. Both are often contrary to the actual actions of the group.

I have no links to studies. This is just my experience as a foreman, leading a crew of 6-30, and military training (Primary Leadership Development). I'm an INTJ, who dreamed about the job, woke up and thought about the job, worked the job, thought about it after work, repeat. I have a strong emotional tie to efficiency. So, I didn't just focus on logistics, or the skillsets of my crew, but also who worked best with whom, on which tasks, the aspects of their lives that were work affecting, etc.

If you get a chance to work for someone like me, RUN. Obsessive focus, plus unrealistic expectations make it very easy for me to be a tyrant.

I'm much happier now as a cube monkey in charge of nobody, but my crews are even happier, still.

Back to the top view/bottom view thing. I've never written about this so bear with me as I try to get this down.

First, your group needs an identity. Positive identities are a good starting point, but negative are much more effective. Positive: "we are going to pick up trash along the road."; negative: "we are going to beautify Carson road, picking up where the amateurs left off."

Note, the goal is the same, but the second group is more focused, and has a group to compete with. They can define themselves as different/better than the original group. All things being equal, (and the never are) the second group will recruit better, and be more cohesive. This group will be easier to lead, and benefit more from good leadership.

Humans are clannish, and always looking for ways to divide themselves out of larger groups. The "big fish in a small pond" principle at work here. Many wannabe leaders, will start out by trying to carve a subgroup out of a larger group. This is natural, and helpful, in that few tasks can be done effectively by large groups. Most tasks define the required group size, not the other way around. You need a leader for each of these subgroups.

I found that each of these volunteer leaders were generally better leaders than I. This is because they were volunteering to meet their own needs, and I did it out of necessity. Unfortunately, the same instinct that makes them want to be leaders, makes them bad at the other aspects of leadership. Finding and training subleaders in particular. Those who want power, would rather crush volunteer leaders than nurture them. This can be an effective negative group identifier, but limits the size of the group. This also is one of the primary distractions, as subgroups will be in competition to meet the ambition of the sub leaders, often with actions not in the interest of the organization as a whole.

The other defining characteristic of groups is their motivation. This is mainly individual motivation, but good leadership will make a group more than just the sum of its parts. It is very difficult to keep groups motivated long term, and the most effective way to defeat a group is to lower the individual motivation.

This relates to the ME in that our presence is a positive definer for groups. Getting us out is a good overall statement of intent, but so is kill the infidel, or over run Israel, or impose sharia law. The overall stated goal isn't all that important to the States, as actions against us can be used by sub-leaders to further any of those goals. Notice that our footprint was pretty small in ME prior to 9/11. Enlarging that footprint was Bin Laden's stated goal. We danced to his tune, always a bad strategy.

Simply packing duffle bags, and leaving the ME would at least make strikes against us harder, but then those strikes will be against our civilians. Our government is far more comfortable sacrificing soldiers than civilians. Also, leaving will have consequences, to our ability to play American Empire in the future. While I think that would be a good thing, it isn't appealing to those who dedicated their lives to gaining power, here.

So, if pulling out won't work, and we are too "civilized" to use Roman tactics, then we need to reduce the motivation of individuals to harm us.

Theoretical case:

If I grew up in Palestine, within sight of the house my family had lived in, hearing stories about Israeli tanks knocking it over, from my uncle who had his arm broken when he was 10 for throwing rocks at that tank, and now couldn't find work to support himself, or a wife, so he was a dependent of my father, I think strapping a bomb to my chest at 15 would seem fairly reasonable. But consider all those factors to my theoretical motivation.

1. My "oppressors" are close. A constant source of ire.
2. The proof of oppression is constant, hearing about how things were better is one thing, seeing someone living where you should be living, and living better, that's something else.
3. The uncle who can't find work is a constant, but if others in the area could provide positive role models, at least I'd see a way out. But the poverty and lack of opportunity would tie in nicely with teen moodiness to make a shot at paradise seem like a good bet.
4. The local Anti-West group has power. They have the guns, and can silence anyone. They get treated well, because they have guns, and nobody else does. They may have the best of intentions, but angry teen males with new power aren't known for restraint. Joining them may seem far better option than being forced to support them.

1-3 could be resolved by better economic opportunities. Schools, work programs, a just rule of law. Unfortunately, that is in the interest of absolutely nobody in power. None. Oh, long term, of course that would be a good thing, but it is in nobody's short term interests, and in a land where instability is the rule, not the exception, short term gains are the only gains.

1-4 are the recruiting criteria of non governmental groups, and the governments just want to keep that rage focused on the West, out of a sense of self preservation.

That's long enough, I'll have to start a new thread to discuss guns and power ratios.

[Riggerjack]

DA, your solution assumes that Islam is the problem. I disagree. On the face of it, Islam has a few teachings that can be easily used to train terrorists, and most of the active armed conflicts on the planet today have an Islamic faction.

If that's as deep as you look, that is all going to point to a problem with Islam and peace.

But there are many places where Islam gets by just fine. Here in the states, and in most of Europe are fine examples. I think looking a little closer, we can eliminate the religion aspect.

I think this is pure economics. While I don't think income inequality is the enormous problem it is portrayed to be in the US, it is when a fleet of gold plated limos drive past subsistence goatherds living in tents.

Every Western policy has been focused on resource extraction at the lowest cost. This has resulted in concentration of wealth to whatever abusive dickhead would keep the population in line, while we pumped out the oil.

Mind you, the US doesn't get that oil. We get our oil from Mexico and South America. But Europe does get it's oil from ME sources, and the USA/USSR cold war had power plays throughout the region. We supported any dickhead who "Opposed Communism".

The language of Antiwest sentiment in the ME is based in a religious text, because it is a strongly uniform language in the region, but don't think for a minute that removing the religion will remove the antipathy we have inspired.

[Ego]

Historically we gauged the value of each individual citizen by their willingness to sacrifice for the good of everyone in the group. Wise leaders soon discovered that most would be willing to give everything if they could be made to believe that they would get something better in an eternity just beyond view. The risks of encouraging this belief were relatively low and the benefits enormous.

Today technology is changing everything. During this most recent war the US military lost more service-people to motorcycle accidents at home than on the battlefield. Here, the competitive advantage of encouraging willing martyrs is diminishing unbelievably fast. Drones and robots will most certainly accelerate the change.

A culture of martyrdom was once a competitive advantage for both ourselves and our enemies. It has now become a liability. Technology gives those who continue to believe the martyr-myth abilities they would have never had before. One crazed person with the right tools can do more damage today than a million zealots could have done a hundred years ago.

So, we're faced with a series of races. On one hand we're racing to create weapons that allow us to win with zero human costs while on the other we are trying to stay ahead of the curve by creating surveillance methods that will diminish the possibility that any zealot will gain access to those weapons. Competing societies were once in a race to instill the martyr-myth into the populace. We now race to eliminate it.

DA, a "crusade of ideas" being led by moderates is probably the way it will go and it is inherently flawed.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Divide and conquer.

Yeah, Jenny and Rigger... I know. The most terrifying of all is fifty years from now. Who will be programming the programs?

[jacob]

http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Slums-Mike ... 844671607/

I was going to post this in recommended reading as a study in "things we take for granted", but it might be illuminating in this thread. Basically, a large number (hundreds of millions, billions) of people live in slum conditions. What does that mean? It means finding identifiable pieces of shit in the drinking water (Baghdad). It means having to avoid eating during the day because it's only safe for women to go out and take a crap [in the woods because there are not toilets] between 2am and 5am. It means that people who are slightly better off---from getting one of those microloans---sell their somewhat cleaner tap water to slum districts at 500% margin.

If these are the default conditions then thoughts about freedom and democracy or giving up crazy religions(*) are probably not first and foremost on people's minds. In particular joining a band of pirates or terrorists might seem like a step up?

(*) One example mentions Harry Potter which has taken on a religious reality of its own with people believing in children flying around on brooms at night and persecuting accordingly.

I think that's the main problem with changing people's minds. The kind of minds we want people to have require at the minimum some basic Maslow needs to be satisfied first, e.g. food, water, and safety. We (our leaders and those of us who vote them in) are not willing to allow this, that is, we have set up a world which makes those basic needs harder to achieve---e.g. bombing a power plant and then rebuilding one that doesn't work. That kind of stuff. It's a mess.

It's kinda like trying to solve domestic poverty with ERE [or by handing out free money for that matter]. It's not going to work very well, because the poor are poor in several dimensions, e.g. stress, lack of time to study, knowledge, ... These problems are too fundamental relative to the proposed solution. In particular, we (the West) can't make a very convincing case by 1) Proposing an out of reach solution; while 2) Eliminating the foundation required to reach that solution with our actions. I think this is what makes them angry/paints a target on us.

[Chad]

I think this is pure economics.

Definitely the main issue. What are your options if you are growing up in that region? Not a lot.

I have never quite understood how the economic dynamics became so fucked up between that region of the world and the West. I far as I know, their only trump card is the fact that they are sitting on oil. Now, we are absolute gluttons when it comes to the consumption of that oil, but it seems to me if we were to show restraint in that consumption, the dynamics could be restored to a more respectful relationship. You can't eat sand.

I know the above statement is simplistic but I still believe we could make drastic changes through economics alone.

I have used a variation of this argument for a long time. The basic idea is there is no reason that climate change policies should put liberals and conservatives at odds. Saving the planet would satisfy the liberal desire to improve the environment and the conservative desire to improve national security.

Of course, no one ever responds to it, as it would mean your team kind of lost.

[7Wannabe5]

The slums of Detroit are worse in many ways worse than the slums of Tehran (even given sanctions.) My recent Ex grew up rather wealthy in Iran but both the son of his nanny who didn't emigrate and the son of his family's gardener who did emigrate to the US are now wealthy men in their 50s so there are also opportunities for upward mobility. It's not just about religion OR economics. It has a lot to do with Identity Politics. The moderate Muslims I know think what this man has to say on the issue makes sense.

http://www.ted.com/talks/maajid_nawaz_a ... anguage=en

[Devil's Advocate]

I realize the thrust of this thread is pragmatic, from a primarily US-centric view point.

I'd spoken earlier of the religious angle. I believe religion is a far reater source of evil than peopple realize. Not just Islam, Christianity no less : the Vativcan edifice is built on blood, no less than the IS. Look at what even purely pacific religions like Buddhism have got up to in Sri Lanka.

But I'll let that pass for now. And move on to another semi-tangent if I may, to talk of another pet peeve of mine : hypocrysy.

[Devil's Advocate]

IS is a criminal organization. Sure. That man in black is the definition of a ghoul.

But someone explain to me why those killing innocent women and babies through drone attacks are not BIGGER ghouls and BIGGER criminals than those killing innocent adult full-grown men.

Someone explain to me why those who destroyed a nation in retribution for non-existent weapons should not face the gallows or the lethal injection, instead of a presidential pension.

The IS are ghouls, but there are beams aplenty in eyes closer home. Some of those eyes merely go with stronger arms, is all "our" righteousness is.

Now let's devise an emoticon for "hanging head in shame".

[jacob]

@DA - Wearing a team shirt eliminates any form of cognitive dissonance. From an Us vs Them perspective, anything Team Us does is automatically justified and anything Team Them does is automatically unjust. A material number of people see the world in those terms compared to more universal terms. It's a matter of moral perspective: whether all humans have the same "rights" or whether 'our humans' have more "rights". For example, compare a morality which focuses on "being nice to friends and family" or a morality which focuses on "following the laws of our country" to a morality where "laws are simply a matter of convention" or "treat others as you would would them to treat you". They're all very different and they all exist in numbers.

Incidentally, I've noticed that many who subscribe to the "us vs them" world-view seem strangely incapable of acknowledging the existence of the same kind of subscribers in the "them"-group.---That those who cheer the loudest for the confrontational view is match by the exact same kind of people on the other side. This is all supremely ironic and speaks to the hopelessness of this particular human condition.

[Scrubby]

But someone explain to me why those killing innocent women and babies through drone attacks are not BIGGER ghouls and BIGGER criminals than those killing innocent adult full-grown men.

ISIS aren't killing civilians by accident, they do it intentionally. If they don't kill the women it's because they are using them as sex slaves (yes, really). Even the al-Qaeda has severed ties with them because they think they are too brutal. It is hard to overstate how much worse than anyone else the ISIS is.