Force, Pride, and Saving Face

[quatoria]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?hp

In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in. "You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."

Force, pride, and saving face. Gee, I guess their forces and our forces aren't really all that different after all.

[quatoria]

Best quote from the article?

"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.

[Jason McCullough]

We are so fucked.

[Bob Violence]

"The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does the Westerner."

[Anders Hallin]

They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.
Oh.. crap.

[Kyle Wilson]

So do you guys have some more constructive ideas for how to enhance security in Iraq?

[Jon R.]

My constructive idea for enhancing security would probably be to not do this. We might as well just have Capt. Pyle over there publicly skullfuck these captive relatives while shouting "I'M HELPING! I'M HELPING!".

[Mark Asher]

So do you guys have some more constructive ideas for how to enhance security in Iraq?

Maybe we need to recruit some moderate Arab nations to help and more or less turn over the operations to them, continuing to fund the reconstruction but let other Arab states be the ones who rebuild the government in Iraq. And I realize that could open the door to all kinds of things we don't want to see, but I see a bleak future for our presence in Iraq if we continue on as we're doing.

[Daniel Morris]

Maybe we need to recruit some moderate Arab nations to help and more or less turn over the operations to them, continuing to fund the reconstruction but let other Arab states be the ones who rebuild the government in Iraq.

What difference would that make? The insurgency is happening because the Sunni old guard do not want to share power with the Shiites in a democratic Iraq. Do you think they're fighting because they hate Mickey Mouse? The insurgents are merrily killing Italians, Spaniards, Red Cross workers -- whoever.

[Midnight Son]

I've got an idea: let's fuckin' leave except for the oil field guards.....

[Kyle Wilson]

I don't exactly see other Arab nations tripping all over themselves in their rush to get their hands on the Iraq tarbaby. Nor the U.N. I think that the rest of the world sees what's going on there now, realizes that if they got involved, it would be their troops dying, and has politely demurred.

We could just leave, as Midnight Son suggests, but I think that would pretty much guarantee that Iraq would end up another Somalia, a wasteland where the only law is that the strong take whatever they want from the weak. I think that would increase the amount of violence rather than reduce it.

[DavidCPA]

I just feel sorry for the average, everyday Iraqi.

Pre-invasion - Organized terror campaign led by Saddam. Keep your mouth shut or die.

Post-invastion - Random, semi-organized terror campaign. Don't talk to the Americans or you may die.

Even the good news coming from Iraq can have a bad ending in these circumstances. Great, The Americans help open a school that doesn't teach Saddam-based propaganda. Not so great, the terror forces may blow the school and your kids up to make a point.

I'm also not sure of the benefits of rounding up potential terrorist family members. Unless the terrorist is convinced we will kill or torture their family, there isn't alot of pressure to give up.

I haven't really heard many good answers from anyone on how the Iraq issue can eventually be resolved with the least amount of bloodshed. Turning over activities too quickly to the Iraqis will only make for a civil war. There needs to be a UN prescence for a long period of time if we ever hope to see a peaceful Iraq.

-DavidCPA

[Jason McCullough]

At this point I'm half-predicting the US eventually leaves, Iraq splits into a three-way civil war. Maybe we'll catch Saddam and that will fix everything, I dunno.

[JessicaM]

At this point I'm half-predicting the US eventually leaves, Iraq splits into a three-way civil war. Maybe we'll catch Saddam and that will fix everything, I dunno.

I predict that the Bush Administration will adopt the "white man's burden" position; to give freedom fully, we must occupy the country fully. It is the only way to bring civilization to the poor heathens, right?

I never thought I'd live to see the day we openly changed from a Republic and democracy to an outright empire. I seriously thought it would take at least another decade to start becoming a police state and another 10-20 years after that to transform into an empire. Now, I think it will take maybe a decade more for all of that to happen.

To those of you with young children: I apologize on behalf of my generation. We failed, and your kids are going to pay the price.

[cyborg]

Saddam was a vicious bastard - and it evidentially clear that only a vicious bastard could keep Iraq from tearing itself apart.

If only we hadn't fucked the Arabs over a hundred years ago we could have avoided all this.

There is no answer to this because no-one bothered to ask the questions in the first place.

[Linoleum]

Interesting round-up of some ground commander thoughts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40195-2003Dec5?language=printer

[Jason McCullough]

The insurgency is happening because the Sunni old guard do not want to share power with the Shiites in a democratic Iraq.

Do we actually know this? I've heard a dozen theories, and Washington doesn't seem to know which is true. Not encouraging.

[John Many Jars]

The insurgency is happening because the Sunni old guard do not want to share power with the Shiites in a democratic Iraq.

Do we actually know this? I've heard a dozen theories, and Washington doesn't seem to know which is true. Not encouraging.

I'm sure the Sunnis don't want to share power, but it's also true that many Shiite leaders won't accept anything less than an Iran-style Shiite Islamic republic.

I'm of the above-stated school of thought: we're fucked. We don't exactly have a tiger by the tail --- we've got several pissed-off serval cats by the tail, and at least one that's loose.

[bee cubed]

i have to admit that i'm still on the fence as to how the war is going to go.

a) i don't have the cultural experience to even hazard a guess as to how the average iraqi feels about the liberation, nor do i know anyone i trust enough who can tell me what they think.

b) this makes it extremely difficult to "de-spin" the major news sources. if source A tells me the iraqis love us but source B tells me the iraqis hate us, obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle. but without any value judgement of my own, it is difficult to determine where in the middle the truth lies. is it closer to A or closer to B?

one thing that i do know is that if the rebuilding is going to go south, i hope it happens sooner rather than later. bush got us into this, and if it going to go badly, he needs to pay the price and not get re-elected.

[Daniel Morris]

...it's also true that many Shiite leaders won't accept anything less than an Iran-style Shiite Islamic republic.

This is totally inaccurate.

In fact, the senior mullah of the Shiite south, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has gone so far as to issue in April a fatwa for Shiites to cooperate with the US-led occupation.

In fact, the original Iraqi flag is the one now displayed by Shiites in the south of Iraq. This flag omits the "Allahu Akhbar" that was cravenly added by Saddam in the Nineties.

In fact, Iraq's southern Shiites spent all of the Eighties in a vicious war with the Islamic government of Iran. It was a war that, by best estimates, claimed almost a million of their lives.

Iraqi Shiites have little stomach for an Iran-style theocracy. (They know what things are like for their Iranian cousins; no thanks.) If they wanted one, now would be the time, which is actually to say, if they'd wanted one, April would have been the time -- it would be a simple matter for them to welcome Iranian paramilitary support for a concerted uprising against the coalition. Instead, all is quiet on the southern front.

[John Many Jars]

Thanks for the correction (I'm not being sarcastic).

I read an article maybe four months back (in the New Yorker?) about the nebulous ambitions of certain Shiite mullahs --- Iranian exiles, for the most part --- in certain cities. They had been at odds with the Iranian government over various political matters, but were pushing hard for Shiite constitutional religious government in Iraq; the reporter was making a case that the invasion had opened a strategic opportunity for Iran. My post above was made under the (big) assumptions that these mullahs were (1) representative of their peers and (2) still pushing as described after the significant amount of time that has gone by.

The details you cite seem more up-to-date and are certainly encouraging.

...it's also true that many Shiite leaders won't accept anything less than an Iran-style Shiite Islamic republic.

This is totally inaccurate.

In fact, the senior mullah of the Shiite south, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has gone so far as to issue in April a fatwa for Shiites to cooperate with the US-led occupation.

In fact, the original Iraqi flag is the one now displayed by Shiites in the south of Iraq. This flag omits the "Allahu Akhbar" that was cravenly added by Saddam in the Nineties.

In fact, Iraq's southern Shiites spent all of the Eighties in a vicious war with the Islamic government of Iran. It was a war that, by best estimates, claimed almost a million of their lives.

Iraqi Shiites have little stomach for an Iran-style theocracy. (They know what things are like for their Iranian cousins; no thanks.) If they wanted one, now would be the time, which is actually to say, if they'd wanted one, April would have been the time -- it would be a simple matter for them to welcome Iranian paramilitary support for a concerted uprising against the coalition. Instead, all is quiet on the southern front.

[quatoria]

if source A tells me the iraqis love us but source B tells me the iraqis hate us, obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle. but without any value judgement of my own, it is difficult to determine where in the middle the truth lies. is it closer to A or closer to B?

That's exceptionally fuzzy thinking. Just because two people give you a piece of information that they purport to be true, and each is placed on an opposite end of the spectrum, does not mean that the truth lies in the middle. One of them could be completely right, both of them could be completely wrong, or the truth could be in any position at any point in the spectrum between those two absolutes. There is no reasonable reason to assume that truth can be discerned as a function of aggregating all availible news coverage and taking an average.

[XPav]

Well, its what the news media does.

On MSNBC...
--
On side A, we have Bart Sibrel, a crank that sells "we didn't go to the moon" stuff on the internet to gullible fools with no engineering or science background.

On side B, we have Phil Plait, an astronomer that works at Sonoma State that has a website that points out what a complete and utter dingbat Bart Sibrel is.

We will now give them even time to make their arguments.
---

The newsmedia, in the interest of being "fair" casts around for crazy people to make points, and in the process, legitimizes the crazy people.

[Linoleum]

That's exceptionally fuzzy thinking. Just because two people give you a piece of information that they purport to be true, and each is placed on an opposite end of the spectrum, does not mean that the truth lies in the middle. One of them could be completely right, both of them could be completely wrong, or the truth could be in any position at any point in the spectrum between those two absolutes. There is no reasonable reason to assume that truth can be discerned as a function of aggregating all availible news coverage and taking an average.

While not directly applicable to this situation, that is a perfect setup for an example of the dangers of trying to apply Greek logic where it may not apply. To a Western mindset, if A and B are opposite from each other, and A is true, then B must be false. In a Middle/Near East system of thinking, it is not a conundrum to have A and B be polar opposites yet both be true and correct.

[Anaxagoras]

While not directly applicable to this situation, that is a perfect setup for an example of the dangers of trying to apply Greek logic where it may not apply. To a Western mindset, if A and B are opposite from each other, and A is true, then B must be false. In a Middle/Near East system of thinking, it is not a conundrum to have A and B be polar opposites yet both be true and correct.

I'm not so sure that the two mindsets are that different in the end. Usually when two polar opposites appear to both be true, what is actually happening is that each opposite is referring to a slightly different facet of the situation, thus they're not quite addressing the same thing.

In any case, I've found that Greek logic can be appropriately applied to anything, but sometimes such an in-depth knowledge of the subject is required (which facet, exactly, am I addressing right now?) that sometimes other systems of analyses are more fruitful and less prone to error. The Middle/Near East system, for example, tolerates a large amount of ambiguity, which is often very useful.

[Kyle Wilson]

To a Western mindset, if A and B are opposite from each other, and A is true, then B must be false. In a Middle/Near East system of thinking, it is not a conundrum to have A and B be polar opposites yet both be true and correct.

I reckon that explains why we have computers and a space program and they have sand.

[bee cubed]

if source A tells me the iraqis love us but source B tells me the iraqis hate us, obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle. but without any value judgement of my own, it is difficult to determine where in the middle the truth lies. is it closer to A or closer to B?

That's exceptionally fuzzy thinking. Just because two people give you a piece of information that they purport to be true, and each is placed on an opposite end of the spectrum, does not mean that the truth lies in the middle. One of them could be completely right, both of them could be completely wrong, or the truth could be in any position at any point in the spectrum between those two absolutes. There is no reasonable reason to assume that truth can be discerned as a function of aggregating all availible news coverage and taking an average.

fine, so source A could be entirely correct or source B could. or neither could be correct. or both, but only if you are from the middle east.

what i'm saying is that i lack a good frame of reference to determine whether A or B is lying/spinning more. i honestly don't know whether all the news coming out of iraq means the war is going well or not. stories of attacks and numbers killed make it sound pretty bad. but interviews with iraqis and soldiers, and stories of reconstruction, oftentimes make it sound pretty good. i just don't have a good read on whether the average iraqi is with us, neutral, or against us. their attitude is, in the end, going to determine whether we succeed or not.

[Jason McCullough]

To a Western mindset, if A and B are opposite from each other, and A is true, then B must be false. In a Middle/Near East system of thinking, it is not a conundrum to have A and B be polar opposites yet both be true and correct.

I reckon that explains why we have computers and a space program and they have sand.

They were kicking our ass until the Renaissance, so it's probably not that.

[cyborg]

I actually DO logic as a course - things have moved on somewhat since the Greeks. Predicate logic is a far more powerful argumentitive tool.

Linoleum's idea that if A is known and that B is opposite to A then B must be the opposite of A is not true in predicate logic - B may not be bound whilst A may be; whilst A and B express predicates that would be interpreted as contradictory that does not always mean A^B->¬T.

Put simply (or not):

Ex(iraqi(x)^unhappy(x)) ^ Ey(iraqi(y)^happy(y))

Does not always equate to ¬T. The overal form being ExA ^ EyB. In a domain of objects (Iraq say) it would not be inconceivable to be able to satisfy both A and B under these bounds - ie there exist Iraqis that are happy and unhappy. If we rewrote as:

Ex((iraqi(x)^unhappy(x)) ^ (iraqi(x)^happy(x)))

Now we are asking if the same Iraqi is both happy and unhappy at the same time - which is of course contradictory as far as the understanding of the predicates are. However the situation that is being argued that the media presentation is in would suggest that the first equation would make more sense.

I don't know much about any Middle Eastern logic systems but I would sure like to be enlightened if you actually know any formal systems.

[Anaxagoras]

To a Western mindset, if A and B are opposite from each other, and A is true, then B must be false. In a Middle/Near East system of thinking, it is not a conundrum to have A and B be polar opposites yet both be true and correct.

I reckon that explains why we have computers and a space program and they have sand.

They were kicking our ass until the Renaissance, so it's probably not that.

Actually, they were never kicking our ass. When I read about the Middle Ages/Renaissance, I was surprised to find out that the Middle/Near East have always sucked ass. During the 700 years while they were culturally dominant (~800 AD to ~1500 AD) they produced a mere handful of great poets/writers, not a single great scientist or mathematician, and only a couple great philosophers. And those great philosphers' only accomplishments was to comment on the Greeks. (Averroes, for example, earned his renown by commenting Aristotle.)

In terms of economics, they achieved all their wealth by skimming money off of trade; no native economic strength was developed, nor was any industry created. Finally, from a military point of view, they were incredible only while they could use their traditional nomad warfare: on open plains. They were crap at sea... lost battle after battle. And the only strong, well-organized state that they came up against (Byzantium) they lost to. Repeatedly. Byzantium didn't fall until after the idiot Crusaders sacked it. Hell, the Arabs even lost to the Mongols, who employed the same style of fighting that the Arabs were supposed to be specialists at.

Meh. Their stupid repressive religion has always been a handicap. It got them off to a good start, though. Shame they could never move beyond it.

[Anaxagoras]

I actually DO logic as a course - things have moved on somewhat since the Greeks. Predicate logic is a far more powerful argumentitive tool.

Linoleum's idea that if A is known and that B is opposite to A then B must be the opposite of A is not true in predicate logic - B may not be bound whilst A may be; whilst A and B express predicates that would be interpreted as contradictory that does not always mean A^B->¬T.

I don't know much about any Middle Eastern logic systems but I would sure like to be enlightened if you actually know any formal systems.

Yeah, I do logic as a course as well... one of my degrees is in Philosophy. You used symbolic logic (which I've never found to be very enlightening) to illustrate the idea I expressed earlier: that B and A may be referring to different aspects of the situation.

As for "Middle Eastern logic systems", there are no formal systems, nor are there any non-Western formal logic systems at all. The very idea of a formal logic system is alien to the entire world except the West. Hell, I myself am not that big a fan of them; generally you get bogged down by rules. Formal systems seem to turn logic into an end in and of itself rather than viewing it as a tool. In fact, logic is useless unless it helps you arrive at greater understanding; thus, logic is almost by definition a tool.

[Jason McCullough]

Money's money. No one calls the Mongols pansies because they stole all theirs.

Mostly it's just that trying to explain dominance by seat-of-the-pants sociology has a really nasty history.

[Guido Jones]

Hell, the Arabs even lost to the Mongols, who employed the same style of fighting that the Arabs were supposed to be specialists at.

To be fair - Everyone lost to the Mongols. The world would be a much much different place today if Ogadei Khan hadn't died in 1241, invoking the law of sucession and forcing the armies to return to Mongolia from Europe to elect a new leader.

If you want some interesting reading about the Mongols foray into Europe, read this link: http://historymedren.about.com/library/prm/bl1mongolinvasion.htm

[Anaxagoras]

Any society.... any culture.... can produce an amazing leader that unites them for a generation or two and gives them dominance. However, fundamental cultural traits combined with environmental factors determine how long an empire lasts, as well as what shape it takes.


Mostly it's just that trying to explain dominance by seat-of-the-pants sociology has a really nasty history.

I do agree that explaining dominance completely by sociology is foolish; as much as I would like to believe that the medieval European knights lost to the Mongols because they (the knights) were superstitious peasants, I know that that wasn't the case; they lost because the Mongols were so much better at warfare. However, you can see the adverse effects of Islam on the Arabs throughout history; its repressive influence continually shunted the best and brightest away from useful activities, such as industry or financing, and away from useful thought patterns, such as science, math, or more advanced forms of government. Their adherence to a medieval faith (Islam was, and is, a medieval faith, through and through) has virtually guaranteed them to be an economic and cultural backwater. We see the exact same effect here in the U.S.: the South, which clings to a medieval form of Christianity, is also a backwater. Now it's possible that such a correlation does not equate to causation, but since the very thoughts that hold them back are the same ones exalted by their religion, I strongly suspect that there is causation there.

By the way, nice link Guido... I only knew the overview of the Mongol invasion. I wasn't aware of the specifics of their tactics... fascinating stuff. And you're right... everybody (except the Mamelukes) did lose the Mongols.... it wasn't fair to single out the Arabs for that distinction.

[cyborg]

You used symbolic logic (which I've never found to be very enlightening)

Well I do computing so the aim of my logic course is to enable correct reasoning about programs rather than being able to argue philosophical points - however both are perfectly valid ends from either system.

[Anaxagoras]

You used symbolic logic (which I've never found to be very enlightening)

Well I do computing so the aim of my logic course is to enable correct reasoning about programs rather than being able to argue philosophical points - however both are perfectly valid ends from either system.

Interesting.... I do computing too. I guess it's just a matter of preference.

[Jason McCullough]

Now it's possible that such a correlation does not equate to causation, but since the very thoughts that hold them back are the same ones exalted by their religion, I strongly suspect that there is causation there.

Hey, I wouldn't be surprised if it's true, but it's such a toxic subject I don't think it's possible to come to an unbiased conclusion.

On a related note, Delong has some stuff today:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002854.html