|
|
humint
|
|
|
|
|
|
HUMINT: Mental Models Seductive: tending to entice into a desired action or state. Successful: having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome. HUMINT: Survival depends on a clear conception of how the world works. You can be wrong but it always has consequences. Your personal understanding of the world and its mechanics is a model of reality. Your model transcends your personality. It transcends your nationalism. It transcends your religion. It’s true no matter what threatens the survival of your model or what threatens your reality. Understanding our history in the context of world history helps us form our models, but history alone cannot serve as sufficient mental model. At best, history is a user’s manual for society. That’s why historians tend to be extremely competent model makers. Historians can see patterns most of us can’t. But don’t embrace a historian’s version of reality casually. Just because historians can see patterns and articulate them doesn’t guarantee those patterns are real or relevant to the rest of us today. History is an interpretive enterprise. Historians aren’t priests. They don’t demand your faith so don’t give it to them. History is comprised of disconnected windows into the past; like pieces of a model that someone is going to glue together. Too often history is ignored when we’re building our mental models. What I’d like American professionals, professors, and politicians to realize is that history’s pieces will be fashioned into a model, by someone, whether we like the results or not. If you’re expecting me to force my model on you, that’s not what this essay is about. That’s not what my writings here at human intelligence are about either. It’s a fool’s errand to force a model on anyone. By virtue of their existence, all models are seductive. Put a brick on a podium in an art gallery and you’ll see what I mean. As the pontificators gather around it, they’ll invest their own meaning in the brick. I’d like to believe the most accurate mental models are the most socially seductive, but they’re not. The most accurate models are usually the most successful, but success is not universal, therefore successful mental models tend to be unseductive when other illusory choices are offered. Ultimately, it’s not what a mental model looks like that matters. It’s what a mental model does for its subscriber. Successful Washingtonian, Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, to name a few mental architects, have a high melting point in our American melting pot, but the mental models they created for Americans are not indestructible. The work done by the Founding Fathers is being undone by a number of disingenuous members of American Authority who claim American foreign policy is an arbitrary adventure in aggression. Any implication of arbitrary acts of aggression committed for the sake of a nation or government is enough to degrade any mental model that sustains that nation or government. In terms of Iraq and Afghanistan, empirical evidence does not support accusations that the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War were not necessary. Despite the lowest record of error and casualties in any American war ever, the daily news in America and around the world is replete with implications of misconduct. The fact is, the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are being conducted with a high degree of professionalism. Those are the facts… So, why are there implications to the contrary? Where are the implications of misconduct coming? If consensual government is a just cause, where’s the disconnect between success on the battlefield and support for our wars abroad? I don’t know the answer. I do however know that long term peace (a highly desirable outcome of any violent conflict) fosters the idea that all aggression is arbitrary. This is a very self destructive misunderstanding of violence in the midst of a struggle for consensual government in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans are ideologically and institutionally geared to fight for inalienable rights, liberty and an enduring pursuit of happiness. That’s a good thing. To be coy about that reality is a tacit acceptance of contrary mental models. Nothing could be more debilitating to the American Mental Model here at home than the belief that “conflict” and “failure” are equivalent concepts. For those that see the world through this distorted lens, are as likely to avoid decisive victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. Presumably they’re skittish of escalating conflict in the Middle East when they are doing exactly that. War without victory is a stalemate. It is a recipe for sustained conflict. To clarify this point, let’s dissociate America’s Wars from American Sport. Non-violent competition may feel like war but each is an entirely different experience. Unlike victory, spiking a football after a touchdown may be bray. On the other hand, declaring victory after a war or the pursuit of victory during war is the only guarantor of finality. Violent engagement will only cease when one mental model supplants another in society that accepts attacks against the United States and our forces serving overseas. The mental model that remains after victory needn’t be American. It shouldn’t be. It must however peacefully accept the United States as a legitimate component of the world we live in today. If it does not, and as long as it does not, our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will smolder indefinitely. Mental models do not peacefully coexist in the minds of militants. Either the United States is a legitimate nation pursuing legitimate goals around the globe or it is not. It is not bray to actively seek the elimination of dangerous ambiguities swirling around in the minds of Americans and our enemies abroad. At this important moment in history, when more and more identities are expressing their mental models in public and online (with the technology the American Market empowered them with) it is dangerous to modest. The best of my ability, I built my model and will risk everything for it. I’m not a cognitive architect but I love my model like a mother loves her newborn. I’m still working on it but enjoy displaying it; unfinished, unpolished, with pride. My confidence comes from acknowledging my model’s limitations and my enduring attempts to articulate it. But set that aside. No matter what you may think of me or my model, think about the model you consciously or unconsciously push on the world. Is it inclusive, exclusive or divisive? How did you derive your model? Was your model a gift to you or did you earn it with blood, sweat and tears? Did you find it in your teens or are in adulthood? Was an introspective experience or some kind of group love-in? Is it sustainable? Be honest with yourself. Do you talk about or even think about your mental models? If you’re modest with your model at home or abroad, it doesn’t count. Look at the alternatives. There will always be plenty of alternatives. The most seductive models are shown often and copy themselves in the public arena. Think about it. Missionaries take their models on the road. Door to door, they sell their ideas best face to face --- with a smile! Whether we’re conscious of it or not, our world model changes as it asymptotically approaches reality. It’s very difficult to notice these changes as they overtake us. The mental model of the world we have now is our point of reference for the past, present and future. It’s not Orwellian. When your mental model of the world changes your conception of the past present and future emigrates as well. Nevertheless, we hope our model is increasingly accurate. At least the ecosystem of mental models appears to be evolving toward better precision and accuracy. It’s a trend that occurs without bias, because biased models, no matter how seductive they are, biased models always fail their subscribers. Unfortunately, I’m describing a feeling. I have no proof. I’m extrapolating because I know; no matter what models individuals subscribe to today, reality and all of our mental models of it are dynamic, no matter how wrong or right they are. Some mental models will be adopted; others will be edited to accommodate reality or abandoned in their entirety. I don’t care if you adopt my mental model or call my articulation of it bray. If you do adopt it, do it without me. I’m not trying to start a cult. If you think I’m bray, it’s a tangent worth spending a few words on --- kiss my ass! [2] I’m here to define and defend my ideas at all costs --- that applies to dinner parties and fist fights. I prefer the former to the later, but know both intimately. Defending a mental model with pleasantries does not contradict a healthy readiness to engage in violence. If anything I’ve just written is intimidating check your mental model. It’s probably biased. That said --- During the American Revolution, whose mental model was more accurate; King George III or Thomas Jefferson? Obviously Jefferson! Right… well, that’s how it all played out didn’t it. Thank God that’s history and thank God for our British allies! --- NEXT! During the French Revolution, whose mental model was more accurate; Marie Antoinette or her pitch fork wielding, revolutionary people? With hindsight, perched high on my own mental model, I’d say both were wrong! Thank God that’s history. Thank God for our allies in France! Let’s keep going --- During the Iranian revolution, whose mental model was more accurate; Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi or Ayatollah Khomeini? Both were wrong, but this revolutionary example is different than the American or French Revolutions. Empirical evidence suggests the Iranian Revolution isn’t over. Nothing has been settled since it occurred. It never fulfilled its purpose. We could pretend it’s over… but that would be biased. It wouldn’t explain why the Iranian Government continues to burn American flags in their streets. It wouldn’t explain why a sovereign nation like Iran is pushing the International community to the edge of smacking it with debilitating sanctions. Tehran is running a reckless nuclear program making the region more nervous than anything else occurring there. Pretending the Iranian Revolution were over wouldn’t explain the mass graves scattered across Iran. It wouldn’t explain what’s going on when student leaders and democracy advocates are tortured for their opinions, or gays hanged for being gay or feminists beaten for demanding women’s rights… The fact is, the slogans from 1979 were never realized. Victory in that revolution was suppressed and that’s precisely why turbulence continues in that country today. Revolutions are turning points in many minds. They have influence that ripples through generations of mankind. Revolutions may be the most significant events in human history, for better or worse. Events larger than individuals like Revolution and War usually shape our mental models, even if we don’t realize they do. From my reading of history, only a few brave souls have been intelligent and brave enough to bring the world’s collective mental models closer to reality. Many of those individuals paid for their altruistic curiosity with their life. I don’t know all their names and cannot sufficiently praise them. They are the real architects of our existence today. Some names I do know and cannot be coy about. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, Grant, Sherman --- these men were architects. Their bold acts transformed into modern day gifts Americans take for granted today. Now, we look back and consider their miracles mundane. They could not have made any other choices, could they? How could we not look at them that way? It is through their design that we see the world. Their omnipresence renders Americans blind to them. No matter what we can see or what we believe exists… our current mode of survival is just one model among many that came before it. How the world really works is too complex for our minds to fully comprehend. Our beauty comes from the struggle to understand what we know we can’t fully know… Ideally, one day, the most successful mental models will also be the most seductive… That’s not going to be easy to manifest. Get out there. Test your model. Learn something new about us and spread the word as though it were gospel! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Earth’s atmosphere is protected in part by our planet’s magnetic field. The Earth’s auroras are incredibly beautiful. This image shows a solar flare to be deflected by our magnet field. We perceive such events when we see the aurora. [2] If I come across as aggressive, you don’t know what aggressive is. There are diverse peoples in the world with bad ideas and guns to back those ideas up. They want to kill Americans. If you can’t look them in the eye and express your mental model, you definitely won’t be able to deescalate the situation. In the heat of a fight, you won’t be able to kill them before they kill you. You won’t even know when violence is about to happen. In fact, if you never express your mental model as an sign of modesty, you’ll make violence inevitable. Labels: afghanistan, england, france, iran, iraq, mental, model, political, victory, world |
|
|
HUMINT: Beautiful Merit Merit is in style this year, but it's not a fad. Merit will be fashionable for more than a season or two. It’s beautiful and it’s here to stay. Why?!... Because merit is a lifestyle! What’s amazing about merit is how those who own it flaunt it. You can see it in their eyes and their smiles. Their lives are happier with merit than the rest of us without it. But you won’t see merit paraded on a Parisian cat walk. You won’t see it on the dance floor of a nightclub either. It might be hidden inside the boardroom’s best groomed metro-sexual or hiding inside a gorgeous super-model… or not. Merit is about expressions of one’s inner beauty. Described by its most mundane definition, merit is an “admirable quality”. Buddhists tend to think of merit as “insight, power or energy bestowed on the mind when one performs virtuous actions”. In other words, it’s not about who you are, merit is about what you do and who you become after you do it. Having merit is like having universal beauty. Those that pursue it, emulate the actions of Mary Curie, Mother Teresa, or Melinda Gates. Ideally we would all have tons of merit and simultaneously look as appealing as our own cultural archetype. Dolly Parton for instance, enjoys a spectacular career as a musician (I’m a fan) while simultaneously looking like the model for the American cultural archetype, the Barbie Doll. Fortunately for Americans, the Barbie “look” is at least attainable. If you’re not born with it, the “look” may require a series of painful surgeries to get. Modern medicine has made looking like a cheap plastic action figure with blond hair a possibility. HUMINT: Throughout history, not all cultural archetypes have been attainable. Michelangelo sculptures of exaggerated musculature size and perfectly symmetrical facial features are an important example. As an artistic genius, Michelangelo and artists like him were able to set a new aesthetic standard for mankind that remains entrenched in Western Culture. I doubt however that he or the toy maker that invented Barbie expected to be so culturally influential. If the West is seemingly mired in aesthetic cultural archetypes, do Easterners, Middle Easterners or Africans have aesthetic targets to strive for? Of course they do. However there is a kind of beauty that transcends culture. I believe it is merit. Try it. For the sake of experience, consider each individual you know aesthetically naked. Now look at their merit. Designer cloths are transparent from this perspective. So is makeup, a $400 hair cut, a nose job, breast implants, tummy tucks and toe twisting high healed Italian shoes. We all know the storybook narrative of the “Ugly Duckling”. According to it, inside every ugly duckling there must be a beautiful swan desperate to reveal itself. Really?! The pedigree of our feathers has little to do with who we really are. You’ve got to be naive, stupid or four years old to believe the “Ugly Duckling” narrative. The truth is, most of us are just average ugly ducklings. In a modern society, we tend to make ourselves more or less beautiful with our actions. Now we’re talking about merit. That said; superficial beauty is an insensitive beast that’s always out of our control. It always has been and I suspect it always will be. Besides cultural archetypes, major world events can redefine what a culture might consider beautiful. Before September 11, 2001 I was in a unique position to observe a man working on a menial task. The memory has become more vivid than it otherwise would have if 9-11 never occurred. He was Afghani living and working in Afghanistan. His job, at that moment, was to move boxes off of a dusty flat bed truck into a mud brick hut. Over his shoulder was a Kalashnikov rifle. As I recall, he wore a traditional outfit, brown cloth draping over his shoulders. He had a long black beard. His hands were dirty and calloused. He was in his twenties but looked fifty. By all accounts he looked exactly like a warlord’s soldier or a member of the Taliban. Aesthetically speaking, he could have been a cold blooded killer. Maybe he had killed before. I didn’t know. Back then the area was crawling with killers. As you might suspect, he was an outlaw in a lawless land. He was definitely breaking the law. I knew what was inside the boxes. I was well aware he was carrying contraband. He was risking his life and I knew he was. I was helping him do it. He was unloading school supplies for Afghani children, specifically Afghani girls. I haven’t seen or heard from him since that day but I’ll remember him for the rest of my life. He had merit. Labels: afghanistan, beautiful, freedom, inner, justice, merit, morality, outer, style |
|
|
HUMINT: 9-11 Ideas HUMINT: The 9-11 attack plan was a satanic idea perpetrated by demons on earth, supported by those who have taken the idea of Allah hostage to use as a weapon against free people. Tomorrow marks the sixth anniversary of 9-11-01. Most of America will be prompted to relive the attack by a free American press. The images of that day are some of the most dramatic scenes ever recorded. Like the Hindenburg Disaster or the assassination of John F. Kennedy, generations beyond our own will get a glimpse of that day. The images of 911 dwarf every shocking image that preceded it. God help those who become emotionally numb to the images of two suicide passenger jets crashing into and leveling two of the tallest buildings that, until 9-11-01, proudly dominated the New York City skyline. Unfortunately, the experience of 911, like all human experience, becomes attenuated over time. The further Americans are from the event, in terms of time and space, the more surreal it feels. Under the circumstances, our respect for our own opinions and the decisions made by our leaders in the wake of 911 naturally falters. That’s why remembering 911 should be, and in my case is, a community effort. Anniversaries are important in a healthy democratic-republic. This one is no exception. Remembering 911 and acknowledging all that we have learned since is particularly healthy for American democracy. I believe it isn’t particularly important whether or not Americans agree or disagree about the meaning of 911. Their unwillingness to capitulate to evil is what truly matters. Of course there are a wide variety of opinions about methods, responsibility, efficiency and competence. It was a traumatic experience. As a nation of free minds, we must find patients in ourselves for those we disagree with, so long as our end goal remains the same. Victory in the form of sustainable peace is what we should demand of ourselves. Sustainable peace is our collective responsibility. We must realize it will not come today, or even tomorrow. We are engaged as a nation, in a Long War, an epic struggle against an ideological foe. Indeed, it takes time for society to absorb traumatic events and create conditions that reduce the likelihood of recurrence of 9-11-01, and an enhanced national awareness of the geopolitical warning signs that preceded it. Where American academia and the United States Military merge (for example); West Point and the Naval Academy are finally graduating classes that volunteered as plebes after 9-11-01. These soldiers and sailors are entering careers with a new global paradigm. As for the threat, the communities in the Middle East that foster the kind of militant hate that precipitated 9-11-01 are under an American microscope. We, as a people, are learning more and more about the insurgent war being waged against us. The idea that our wars in the Middle East are happening in the middle of the world’s largest petroleum reserves complicates the situation but does not render wars against terrorists un-winnable. With history as their guide, Americans will take on post 9-11 challenges with the same American zeal that won the American West. Our sheriffs in this fight, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have been called to testify about our progress in Iraq. Read and think about every word they give the American people! They are depending on the American people as much as the American people are depending on them. They know Americans are passionate about peace. They know Americans are determined to create a world where men, women and children can feel secure. They also know there can be no peace without justice. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker should expect Americans to believe the war effort is a common cause for all free people, wherever they are, whatever language they speak, whatever God they are free to pray to. On this 9-11 anniversary, tears for the victims of 9-11 will not be shed in vain. American volunteers are relentless. They will break the remaining few suicidal demons. American volunteers will hunt them down and cast them out of our world, into hell where they belong. Middle Easterners and Americans are experiencing a revival; a mutual awakening. The 911 idea of Allah cannot stand. God will not be made a slave to the ambition of murderous fascists, be they Sunni or Shiite. On this anniversary, there is only on fitting conclusion to this remembrance commentary: God bless America, God bless the Middle East and God bless all the free souls that live there. Labels: afghanistan, iran, iraq, provictory, tribute, victory, war |
|
|
HUMINT: Pro-Victory HUMINT: In every free society throughout the history of mankind, citizens charged with the responsibility of war returned from the front with the truth; “War is Hell!” They always have and they always will. Free minds have no compulsion to lie about the horrors of mortal combat. It requires a disturbed kind of sickness to glorify the carnage of war. Only fascist dictators and supreme leaders revel in the blood of their dead. Dictators and fascists embrace genocide as the answer to their problems. Stalin said, “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem”. For example, during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) Iran’s fascist leaders sent human waves of young men without arms or armor into combat. The youth brigade, known as the Basij was organized by the newly formed Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), the same people ruling Iran today, to attack entrenched Iraqi machine gun units. Tens of thousands of young boys kissed the Koran before senselessly marching to their death into a hail of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein’s, bullets. In tribute to this colossal waste of life, Khomeini stained the waters of a familiar fountain in Tehran blood red – to symbolize the blood of his martyrs. In 1988, as the Iran-Iraq War was winding down because the sociopaths in Tehran and Baghdad were running out of money to buy weapons and troops to watch slaughter each other, Khomeini’s war policy came to an end, and as a result veered off in two new directions. Told his foreign policy could no longer sustain the casualties he and his idiot generals kept incurring Khomeini authorized his IRGC goons to pursue a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Yes… I am referring to the same Iranian nuclear weapons program that remains highly controversial and destabilizing to the Middle East today. In terms of domestic policy, Khomeini started slaughtering political prisoners. Ordering the mass kill of more than 30,000 Iranians, Khomeini and the IRGC had taken Stalin’s maxim to heart. “Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” Fast forward to today, Thursday September 6, 2007. Iran is under the command of the same men who carried out the orders of Iran’s Stalin. Dissenters in Iran are hung in groups by cranes, on public television. Mind you, the programming in Iran is not about ratings. The Iranian Government controls the programming and they have no intention of entertaining the Iranian populace with the twitching bodies of young men and women, suffocating at the business end of a hangman’s noose. The IRGC’s skills of mass murder have not magically transferred into any moderation or responsible government. There is no indication that the Iranian government intends to be responsible, or is even considering moderation as an alternative to its history. There are changes within the Iranian Government, akin to musical chairs. Rafsanjani, a former President of Iran who openly boasted about Iran’s intent to acquire nuclear weapons in the past – is once again, being framed in the international press as a pragmatic figure capable of moderating the more militant forces in Iran’s government. On the contrary; those that openly lie about Rafsanjani’s past are overtly seeking to pacify Westerners looking for sustainable solutions to the Iran threat. While it is impossible to prove those who call Rafsanjani a moderate or pragmatist, the repetitious nature of their labeling exposes their selective amnesia of Rafsanjani’s past. For better or worse, American forces are fighting battles to Iran’s east and west, in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and the Warlord Government of the Taliban has been deposed by free Americans who volunteered to do the job. The mess made by these former regimes will not be cleaned up overnight. Indeed, the sociopaths in Iraq and Afghanistan will leave scars and bloodstains in World History books that will last until the end of time. This generation, judged through the lens of history, will be seen as the destroyers of men like Stalin. While I’ve had many heated debates with Americans, Europeans and Middle Easterners fed up with the U.S. conflict in Iraq today, none have argued that the former Government’s of Iraq, Afghanistan and the current government of Iran was and is anything but repugnant. None have offered any sympathy for the sociopaths targeted by U.S. Forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. None have argued that American casualties exceed the casualties of any other American conflict in history. None have argued that Afghanis, Iraqis, and Iranians don't deserve an American foreign policy that supports their pursuit of liberty and democratic governance. All, however, argue that we (the U.S.) should not be involved in these conflicts (as though we weren't already). The reason why is always the same, they can’t relate to the struggle under the terms given to them by their ratings driven media. The truth is there is no Anti-War Movement in American today. Every argument against U.S. involvement in the Middle East is instead an Anti-Conflict Movement. Every American I’ve ever spoken to about the Middle East is Pro-Victory. Labels: afghanistan, america, anticonflict, antiwar, iran, iraq, usa, victory, war |
|
|
HUMINT: Counter Insurgent The United States “is not good at counter insurgency and never has been”, according to George Friedman, Chief Executive Officer of Strategic Forecasting. He also calls for an end to the limitedly successful Surge in order to redeploy troops to Kuwait or the uninhabited south west of Iraq, so that they might “flank” any expansive Iranian moves toward Saudi Arabia (for example). First and foremost, the lessons of 2003 to 2006 in Iraq show Iraqi and foreign resistance/insurgency is inversely proportional to the size of the U.S. or U.K. footprint. Dr. Friedman’s analysis calls for a reversal of successful policies in favor of those that demonstratively failed only months earlier. Dr. Freidman is so wrong as to deserve a full rebuttal. HUMINT: The idea that the U.S. is not good at counter insurgency is flawed. The U.S. largely abandoned counter insurgency and guerilla tactics in the aftermath of WWII, in favor of a Cold War induced stalemate, intentionally encouraged by the infamous policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). But there’s far more to the history of American insurgency and counter insurgency than WWII and the MAD stalemate that followed it. It would be disingenuous to suggest recent history [the last fifty years or so] encompasses all trends, or even the most important long term trends. Long term trends better represent the engine and its fuel that maintains economic growth and sustains American’s national morale. While any long term outlook naturally calms average Americans familiar with their nation’s history, the genuinely calming effects of understating long term trends does not work on individuals with SDHSM syndrome. SDHSM is an acronym for the political disease known as Self Defeating, Hyper-Spastic, Masochism (SDHSM, also pronounced sdism)]. This rebuttal is not necessarily accusing Dr. Friedman of having SDHSM but his recent commentary shows symptoms of the disease. Indeed, recent history and spectacular attacks can thoroughly distract policy makers and their advisors who suffer from SDHSM. The disease can be a debilitating to a nation at war, but rarely fatal. SDHSM is a contagious disease that spreads more rapidly among the true believers of the religious cult I refer to as Non-Confrontationalism. Pfizer and Merck should seriously consider teaming up to find a cure for SDHSM syndrome. In the mean time, those with a natural immunity to SDHSM; historians, logicians, analysts, current and former members of the United States military, have a particularly important mission. Their job is to keep the nation on track. So consistent is the SDHSM phenomenon in fact, some contingent of politicians always insists on reversing their nation’s course at every nervous precipice. It’s like a socio-political twitch. Washington DC, arguably the most powerful city in the world today, is particularly susceptible to distraction, political reversals, non-confrontationalists and sufferers of SDHSM. To its credit, or discredit depending on your point of view, Washington DC is a city of lawmakers who appear to hop erratically from one distraction to the next, rarely solving crisis with any observable coherent democratic consciousness. Instead, crisis mounts into an untenable situation and finally a group of technicians is called in to Get-er-done! It’s not pretty but it proven effective time and time again… Therefore it’s wrong to suggest the United States has never been good at Counter Insurgency. Throughout its history the U.S. performed admirably as insurgents and counter insurgents. From the Lewis and Clark expedition to the Texas Revolution, Americans have shown their allies and enemies alike, great competence on and off the battlefield. The only argument to refute such gallantry comes from the perspective that all violent conflict represents failure and must be eliminated. It is an argument that stems from of moral relativism that makes distinguishing between gun wielding cops and gun wielding criminals impossible. Nature is clear on this point. We are what we have to be, or we go extinct. The notion that the U.S. has not been good at counter insurgency is wholly separated from its direct and indirect need to be good at counter insurgency, at home and abroad. Free societies are always accessible to every disgruntled malcontent and are therefore ripe for insurrection. As an open society the United States must be on guard against foreign and domestic insurgent threats. Throughout their history, Americans have performed admirably as insurgents and counter-insurgents; as revolutionaries and guerillas; as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. There is more fight left in Americans than Dr. Freidman might imagine. Looking at the trends, good or bad at counter insurgency is an issue of supply and demand. It’s not a choice. Insurrections will continue to occur and their occurrence will demand Americans be good at counter insurgency. Consider this tactical forecast: Americans will continue to improve in the art war while they recall their legitimate legacy on the subject. Expect violent clashes around the world to continue without a break. Anticipate decisive American victories to come. Labels: afghanistan, history, insurgent, iran, iraq, revolutionary, stratfor |
|
|
HUMINT: Follow us Home?HUMINT: If we quit our wars now, will terrorists follow us home? In other words, will terrorists attack Americans in the United States, IF the U.S. Army precipitously withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan? It’s a simple, YES or NO question. If YES, the U.S. Army should stay to win the wars we’ve started. If NO, we have already won our wars; let’s end the fighting by bringing the troops home now. Sounds simple, right? But it isn’t that simple. The repercussions of wars are never simple. Indeed, the question is terribly misleading. By asking it, the inquisitor creates two faux alternatives. No matter which side you choose, the two politically charged answers are so emotionally distracting that they both eclipse the question’s irrelevance. Let’s assume, for the sake of this essay, American journalist, politicians and historians have relinquished their occupational responsibilities and deconstruct the question ourselves. To do so, let’s break it down into more manageable questions. After that, we can subject each component to a – who, what, where, when, why and how – test.  QUESTION: Will terrorists attack Americans in the United States, IF the U.S. Army precipitously withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan? ANSWER: see who, what, when and where below. WHO: Indigenous and foreign terrorists are flowing to the Iraqi and Afghani battle fronts to attack Americans and their interests there. Individually, the terrorist or insurgent represent an amalgam of national origins, motivations and affiliations. Precise statistics on the level of foreign vs. indigenous insurgents are not readily available to the general public. Certainly any percentage of foreign terrorist influence in Iraq and Afghanistan is disconcerting. Foreign contributions to terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq are central to the question of what will occur when these two fronts dissolve. As they operate off the battle field, foreign organizers will undoubtedly live through these wars. What decisions these organizers are likely to make after these wars is an important variable. If the United States cannot interdict these individuals during these wars, there should be no confidence among policy makers that allied agencies would be able to do so after these wars. WHAT: Terrorism is an asymmetric manifestation of aggression. Raw aggression, regardless of its excuse, is a return to jungle law. Jungle law does not adhere to academic conflict resolution formulae. Starting it and stopping it has everything to do with fundamental human behaviors and effective communication. If terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan were fighting for independence, as was the case with the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, the insurgent enemy would be attacking more coherently. Instead, the enemy’s raw aggression is directed in nearly every direction. Incoherent or seemingly random acts of violence raises anxiety among the populous subjected to it. Self sustaining violent trends in Iraq and Afghanistan must be mitigated or stopped to prevent regional or global leakage. WHEN: The time scale terrorists operate on is very different than the West’s. Western Democracies are open systems. They are cyclical, transparent, reliable and inherently predictable. These qualities make the West successful but simultaneously represent serious security gaps. Despite the rhetoric of government officials seeking more and more authority, there is little they can do to protect their citizenry from suicidal mass murdering terrorists. They can try to disrupt terrorist recruitment, try to infiltrate, and try to engage vociferous agitators and will occasionally succeed in their own jurisdiction. Unfortunately, their level of success has more to do with the mistakes a terrorist makes than their own efficacy. Groups of people can legally organize and educate individuals within a Western democracy. They can do the same in regions of the world that exist seemingly without law. In either scenario, successful democracy or perpetual violence, Iraq and Afghanistan will remain havens for terrorist recruiting for their next generation. WHERE: Terrorist and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan reportedly migrate from province to province, establishing safe houses. Iraq and Afghanistan are two diffuse fronts in a regional war. Politically, these two wars extend well beyond the Middle East and influence government efficacy on every continent – hence the phrase Global War on Terror, GWOT. Terrorists violence has touched but not plagued Spain, Britain, India, Pakistan, Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel have all experienced and or thwarted terrorist attacks since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Lebanon, Syria and Iran have all been involved in stoking violence. In some cases, terror attacks directly referenced the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Given its history as an international phenomenon, where it occurs is not as key a variable as the question implies. Would be terrorists are already in the West. CONCLUSION: Iraq and Afghanistan are central fronts in a regional war. Trends toward greater globalization and increased reliance on fossil fuels will continue to provide Middle Easterners with indirect resources to attack Western interests. This analysis suggests that “the likelihood of terrorists following us home” is high, even in the best case scenarios. The window of opportunity to win in Iraq and Afghanistan is short and the enemy was aware of it at the outset of this war. The next six months will show if the American people and the United States Government that represents them, including the Army fighting their wars, have learned enough in the last four years to win. In situations like these, there is no alternative to optimism. Failure is not an option. Labels: afghanistan, debate, humint, iraq, war |
|
|
HUMINT: Khomeini’s ScriptFor the sake of this essay, liken Hezbollah’s operational doctrine to a geopolitical script. It was written as high drama by one of the most ambitious men of the 20th century. While most Westerners remain oblivious to this virulent Middle Eastern narrative, the author’s infamous name is highly recognizable. His name is Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. To his follower’s dismay, few scenes have lived up to Khomeini’s script. In hindsight, it’s clear his plot was intellectually corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. Oddly, when Khomeini’s actors took the world stage, performing their first dress rehearsal, their actions were not dramatic at all. Instead they were and remain grotesquely tragic actions. Khomeini’s script is in fact an amalgam of bad ideas uncomfortably organized to form a geopolitical tragedy. [Geopolitical TRAGEDY not STRATEGY] Despite the fact that Khomeini’s script was a befuddled political mistake, some Middle Eastern actors still sign up to act it out. To find out why, I’ve spent hours discussing Khomeini’s ideas with anyone who does not deeply regret their resultant theatrics. The villains in Khomeini’s script exist precisely because of the hatred they can invoke in any Middle Eastern crowd. Positive history and relevant facts are consciously dismissed as distractions, erroneous to any final solution. Indeed, progressive realities are a distractive to milking a crowd for all the hate it can produce. Therefore, villains are relegated to cartoonish roles, given fewer lines than, for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger in his classic film, Commando. These villainous cartoons are always played by some combination of the following actors:
Heroes in Khomeini’s script are particularly boring. One would think that their irrelevance contradicts the starring role Khomeini gives them, but apparently it does not. Khomeini’s heroes are almost always an archetypal youth; mostly male but occasionally female. They are given more lines than villains but even less substance. The scope of their commentary is always confined to grievances and the principles of social cohesion they are kidnapping, murdering or committing suicide for. The obvious fact that their actions dissolve all manner of social cohesion is yet another distraction. In their scene, the heroes climax achieves little more than a pathetic mess. Counter to their purpose, acts of violence always harden the resolve of the innocent community or security services attacked. More relevant to the script, is the villain’s response. All reasoned responses result in perpetuating the tragedy, ad infinitum. The real meat of Khomeini’s script exists in the interplay between leaders and martyrs. A leader wields real power in Khomeini’s script because he or she is both an actor and director. This character’s job security depends on a frenzied crowd fuming with hate. The high energy hatred of a crowd nurtures otherwise normal minds into performing martyrdom scenes in front of a global audience. The real question should be, Q: how do Middle Eastern leaders develop a hate filled crowed in the first place? A1: One sermon at a time. A2: One family at a time. That’s how, over time, an entire society either becomes actors or willing audiences to a seemingly relentless pursuit of Khomeinist carnage. To win back Middle Eastern society and pull the final curtain down on Khomeini’s tragedy, agents of the West will have to do as Hezbollah actors do. Disarming Middle Eastern crowds of their hate requires a vigorous -One sermon at a time, -One family at a time, approach. IF my American friends believe the sermon should consist of a terrorist tip-line phone number, they are bound to mire Americans in a perpetual war. It doesn’t matter what the war is called; The Long War, The Global War on Terror, The Regional War. What then, would the –One sermon at a time, –One family at a time, approach look like? By my estimation, it would look like a census operating continuously on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan…
And so on… When this American message reaches every corner of both countries, over time it will replace Khomeini’s script. It will disarm the hate and eventually replace Al-Qaeda’s script. It will replace the Taliban’s script. And so on… To burn down the empire Khomeini’s script and its malicious spin offs… Americans are going to have to take their old fashioned neighborliness with them to their unfinished wars. The United States Army, State Department and other agencies in Iraq and Afghanistan must be good neighbors before they can ever hope to win back the Middle East. Labels: afghanistan, hezbollah, humint, iran, iraq, khomeini |
