The War on "The War on Terror"

Building on the point of false narratives (below), this is Scott Ritter's sweeping indictment of the "WOT" narrative. Pretty compelling stuff. The full article is definitely worth a read, but here's a snapshot:

"The “war on terror” into which Obama seems to have thrust himself (the most recent manifestation being Yemen) remains the largest obstacle for any rational resolution of America’s problems in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Simply put, so long as the United States seeks an enemy that does not exist, it will always be looking for an enemy in its stead. The “war on terror” has the United States combing the world in search of enemies, and because American policymakers are responsive not to the reality that exists in the world today, but rather the perceptions of an American people largely ignorant of the world in which they live, and paralyzed by the fear such ignorance generates, there will always be countries and causes America will anoint as foe."

... the solution to these problems rests not in defining new parameters for action, but rather in the definition of the basic problems faced. From an overarching perspective, the United States needs to realize that there is no “war on terror,” and as such no “enemy” for us to close with and destroy. The human condition has always produced those who would seek to do harm to society. Norms and standards have been adopted, in almost universal fashion, that define how humans, organized into communities and nations, should interact in dealing with such deviations. This body of rules and regulations is collectively “the rule of law,” the principle of which defines modern society.

Deviations from the “rule of law” are best dealt with in collective fashion by those who share not only common values but also a common interest in such a resolution. Giving a criminal element, whether in the form of al-Qaida or a drug lord, the status of community or nation by waging “war” against it represents a failure to define the problem properly, leading inevitably to solutions that solve nothing. The answer to 9/11 is not war, but rather the “rule of law.” Until this underlying premise is recognized and adopted by U.S. policymakers, the psychosis of war will continue to corrupt American policy, and with it American society."

His solution in a nutshell: drop the WOT BS and deal with Palestine and Kashmir- the real issues.

Full Article

Preach this Evangel

The Siren Call of False Narratives

Sorry for the temporary suspension of duty- this entry marks my return from finals and an end to holiday lethargy. It's good to be back.

I'd like to start off the new year by taking a moment to pause and reflect on one of the most powerful weapons in the media arsenal (and a prime obsession of mine): the notion of narrative. This entry is a bit longer than most, but I hope you'll indulge me because it's a rather important topic- and I hope you'll find it interesting. Please note: this treatment is FAR from exhaustive. Those interested in further reading should consult the work of Berkeley Professor George Lakoff particularly Metaphors We Live By and The Political Mind.

If media perform any principal task, it is the construction of narratives- or basic storytelling. The diversity of facts and details the world has to offer is boundless, but the amount of meaningful narratives is relatively finite. (Think why so many Hollywood films seem to utilize the same plotlines.) Without the framework of some type of narrative, the human mind sputters to extract any meaning from media messages. Without a perceived narrative context, information floats like an indiscernible morass of minutiae. This is so much the case that if message producers do not provide a credible narrative to frame the facts, our brains will instinctively scour our memory for the most salient, ready-made narratives to fill this critical void.

The point is that narratives are what provide meaning in our lives- they organize the chaos of sensory data into convenient frames of time and space so that we may better understand how to orient our lives in an incredibly complex world. In fact, we are conditioned to recognize the traditional catalogue of narratives from a very early age (Walt Disney created an empire on this fact). We learn the hero is inherently good and the villain is evil incarnate; we know the grammar of the hero's quest instinctually and we know how we will feel at any given point in the story whether it's a "rags-to-riches" or "boy meets girl" tale. These emotions are not arbitrary, but are organized to promote specific moral principles passed down from one generation to the next. From Homer's Odyssey to Lucas' Star Wars, we repeatedly encounter these "deep narratives" via media representation. As a result of this diligent indoctrination, most of us come to interpret our own lives through these essential epics- after all, what is our own life if not a story with us as the protagonist.

From a psychological perspective, narratives constitute a valuable cognitive expedient. There is no physical way our brains can digest and compute every single fluttering detail the lived world has to offer- we have to sacrifice a great deal of earthly complexity in order to make informed generalizations based on our "best" judgment. Therefore, we are often less attentive to isolated features than we are to patterns of features. This is to say that our brains think metaphorically because it provides the best economy in cognition. It's the patterns that provide us with the most meaning not the details. Details are important, but only in so far as they help us recognize a pattern. Similarly, facts are important, but only in so far as they help us construct a credible narrative.

The problem is that once we recognize and apply a given pattern/narrative in our thinking, we are more likely to try to apply this same pattern in other circumstances where there may only be a vague resemblance. It's been scientifically proven that narratives are self-reinforcing (in the cognitive sense)- our brains become biased towards seeing these old patterns versus seeing something new or "out of the ordinary". In our cognitive scramble for meaning, we tend to eschew or ignore the critical details that may render our favorite narratives obsolete or erroneous. (This phenomenon is the same for cultural stereotypes.) To put it another way, we tend to see what we are inclined to see. (Was Saddam Hussein really part of the "War on Terror" narrative?) Our deep narratives form the primary lens through which we try to see the world- we compartmentalize the facts into the finite set of frameworks that we can understand. Unfortunately, reality should not be treated as a pliable substance.

As far as media manipulation goes, the problem is threefold. The first is referenced above: our brains have evolved to over-rely on pattern recognition- we instinctually seek to apply a certain narrative whether the actual facts warrant this or not. In other words, narratives enable and encourage a certain degree of cognitive laziness. We love our narratives, and we want to employ them all the time. Rather than parse through the tedious facts and arrive at a truly enlightened picture, we want the "executive summary" so we can understand the gist of an event and quickly move on. Media producers (especially the unscrupulous vendors of partisan media) are highly aware of this and exploit it by framing the facts to fit a narrative that promotes their objectives. They don't so much provide the breadth of clinical facts as much as they sell a prepackaged narrative with a selection of facts couched to fit the framework. (Watch John Stewart nail this.)

This leads into the second vulnerability: narratives are never neutral, especially when it comes to news. Narratives are heavily-laden with rigid value judgments. The hero is always good; the villain is always despised. If you can believably frame the narrative in your favor, the desired effects are almost guaranteed. And finally, the third (and most important) vulnerability we have as media consumers is the instinctive and often unconscious nature of this cognitive process. We do not consciously decide to feel this way or that way about a certain narrative or representation of facts, it happens automatically. We may consciously feel the emotions attached to the narrative, but we have little control over whether they are elicited or not. Therefore, we may think we are making a "rational" political decision based on a certain objective set of facts, but in reality we are being manipulated at the subconcious level.

In sum: news media use narrative device to provide an essential degree of context in the presentation of world events. However, narrative is often used by less scrupulous actors as a mechanism to prey on the psychological vulnerabilities inherent in the cognitive process. We must be vigilant of this practice. Our narratives should only serve as rough guides to aid our understanding- especially when it comes to our domestic and foreign policy choices. They should be held loosely and abandoned readily. Whether you subscribe to the so-called "War on Terror" narrative or not, we should all be wary of those who seek to apply such frames dogmatically to every international event. Clearly, this is evidence of an agenda. The world is much too complex for such facile frameworks however tempting they are. We must resist the siren call of false narratives and strive for a genuine, impartial pursuit of truth.

The Gospel According to Colbert

I take comfort in knowing that 3 out of the TOP 5 books on the New York Times bestseller list include Sarah Palin (#1), Glenn Beck (#4), Mike Huckabee (#5). Damn liberal media....

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
U.S. Army Chain of Command
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating

And, just for kicks, here's a pretty funny Onion News clip with a cameo from the messiah himself:

Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP

Preach this Evangel

Afghanistan: A "Defining Moment"

Over the last few days I've been reading a paperback from the Harvard Business Review entitled On Leadership. The book is just one publication in a long series "designed to bring today's managers and professionals the fundamental information they need to stay competitive in a fast-moving world"- according to the inside flap anyway. As someone relatively detached from the formal world of business and management, I've found most of the book's entries (written by various "esteemed" authors) pleasantly succinct and insightful. Most pieces are eminently digestible and quite relevant to the world at-large. In my reading, one in particular jumped out at me: "The Discipline of Building Character."

I usually skip over any literature that prominently features the word "discipline" or "character", but upon reading the ever-handy "executive summary", I found myself intrigued by the author's conception of a "defining moment." Written by a renowned Business Ethics professor at HBS, the article makes a fundamental distinction between an "ethical decision" and a "defining moment". In the former case, the decision typically involves choosing between two options, one we know to be right and the other to be wrong (in an ethical sense). The later, more interestingly, involves making critical decisions where there is no "right" answer, but rather a number of difficult alternatives with varying and often imperceptible degrees of "rightness". In such cases, the author explains: "no matter which option we choose, we feel like we've come up short." The author's argument is that these so-called defining moments, taken cumulatively over one's life, form the basis of an individual's character.

I like this assertion. Over the course of all our lives, the crucible of character building is more often than not a catalogue of painstaking, introspective decisions. These moments challenge and reveal our core values, our integrity, and our identity. Fundamentally, they are a critical test of authenticity. Who am I? No facade, no bullshit. I think it's fair to say that Afghanistan presents Obama with such a moment writ large. I've followed the so-called AfPak policy making process very closely, and I still struggle haplessly with the search for a profoundly superior course of action. Of course, I'm not privy to the entire US national security apparatus, but I think most candid observers will acknowledge that our options are "not good", "bad", and "worse". I dismiss the knee-jerk capitulation of many politicians to McCrystal's troop request. It wreaks of typical party politics and unvirtuous expediency. In the end, this may be the "best" course of action, but the gravity of this decision demands intense, conscientious deliberation attended by all relevant parties. My hope is that this is what has occurred over the past few weeks.

The unfortunate reality is that we've painted ourselves in a corner in Afghanistan. Like the proverbial red-headed step child, we've ignored it, under-fed it, and starved it of any discipline. Our policy has been adrift for years without any clear sense of military vision or attainable objective. Is it really surprising that the situation has deteriorated drastically? The constellation of serviceable policy options that once existed has now shrunk to a handful of pathetically dour alternatives. I have absolutely no envy for the President's position, but a fine respect for his character. Solemnly, he will do what he thinks is right.

On a final note, it is my sense that the AfPak problem is virtually unmanageable as far as the US is concerned. However, when you are dealing with nuclear weapons (as we are in Pakistan), the risk of simple withdrawal is too high given the current level of instability. The question is, then, can we leave when things are "stable" (whenever this is), or will our leaving cause renewed instability? Are we in for a semi-permanent occupation? And if the long-term goal of this occupation is some sort of stability provided by pseudo-democratic governance and economic development (which is the real problem, along with education/literacy), can this be achieved with our presence. Maybe, but not at the barrel of a gun. Any sustainable solution will involve extraordinary cultural and economic changes that will take generations to occur and will require the involvement of a dedicated multinational coalition. Are we ready, as a global community, to commit trillions more dollars and hundreds more lives? Or will we lose our collective interest (again) once the issue has escaped the media spotlight?

Preach this Evangel

Paving Over Stalin's Grass

For those of us in the West, it was simply the Berlin Wall; for those to whom it mattered most, it was Antifaschistischer Schutzwall. To understand this distinction is to begin an authentic inquiry into the extraordinary and often subtle implications of 1989. It's hard to imagine that just over twenty years ago, this iconic, and seemingly indelible monument to the Cold War met its end at the hands of those it confined- both physically and psychologically. While recent media coverage has immortalized the event with all the tinsel of nostalgia and ceremony, deep and complex neuroses still cripple many residents of the "emancipated" East. Unfortunately, the explosive demise of East Germany and its festering psychological fallout cannot be sufficiently relayed by the spectacle of broadcast. A genuine pursuit of historical significance requires empathy. And real empathy is not virtual.

A faithful commemoration of “the fall” would entail nothing less than inhabiting the fragile lives of those who dwelt in its menacing shadow for so long. Any attempt to convey this plight in either words or images inevitably falls short. Our strenuous empathy requires the solemn physicality of place. In other words, you have to be there. However, sadly for Berlin, this monument of struggle is now almost totally gone. The notorious wall that interned a generation is quickly vanishing for good. While some may greet this summary extinction with joy or, worse, apathy, I think the complete lack of organized preservation is both harmful and wrong, and tragically represents a much larger social trend.

As its agitprop name suggests, the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall was foisted on the East German public as a prudent solution to keep the “fascist” West at bay lest the “capitalist cannibals” beset the happy collective. In reality, of course, the wall or “death strip” as it was known locally, was a penal rampart with unparalleled, methodical lethality. Stock media images of the relatively innocuous concrete slabs do not approach an accurate portrayal of the inhumanity. More than a barrier, the strip was a complex system of watchtowers, staggered fencing, anti-vehicle trenches, bunkers, and other cruel obstacles designed to kill or disable those daring to trespass (“Stalin’s grass” was the local nickname for the nail-spiked stretch of corridor intended to impale and trap victims’ feet). The soundtrack was equally unforgiving: the incessant, barking rasp of border dogs, the ghoulish crack of sniper fire, and the grinding wail of military vehicles. Taken together, the wall’s imposition on the human soul was immeasurable.

It begs the question: why would anyone want to preserve any vestige of such obscenity? Because it’s history? Yes- but most importantly because it’s ugly and you could never replicate its aura of depravity. No documentary, no blog, no research paper could ever record or evoke the stark drama of place. If we lose our tangible connection to the past, we forfeit a vital piece of our collective identity, and we resign ourselves to a fate where our only relationship with history is through media-sponsored simulation. We enter a frenzied hyperreality that is devoid of authenticity or originality; where the priceless topography of meaning is constantly razed and repurposed at the careless whim of society; where representation totally supplants reality. We become aliens in our own land, the characteristics of which are unrecognizable and always fleeting. We become passengers of a rudderless vessel at the mercy of a mercurial sea. Unanchored to the past in any meaningful way, we drown in the present. Defeated and demoralized we passively submit to the will of the Spectacle. In a very real sense, we ARE all Berliners.

I recognize the irony, but here is a....

...poignant documentary on the Fall:

...and a BRILLIANT fictional film I HIGHLY suggest renting:

SHIG