Playing Chicken with the US of A

Incredibly interesting article by Amir Taheri where we get this little gem:

The idea that the Islamic Republic faces a game of “chicken” against the West was publicized last month by Ali Larijani, the new “security czar” in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration. But the man who first came up with the analysis is Hassan Abbasi who has emerged as Ahmadinejad’s chief strategic guru.

Abbasi heads the Center for Security Doctrines Research of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC). His friends call him “The Kissinger of Islam”, after Henry Kissinger who served as US secretary of state in the 1970s.

“To Iran’s new ruling elite, Abbasi is the big strategic brain,” says a European diplomat in Tehran. “More and more officials quote him in meetings with foreign diplomats.”

According to Tehran sources, Abbasi is the architect of the so-called “war preparation plan” currently under way in Iran.

Last month Abbasi presented an outline of his analysis in a lecture at the Teachers Training Faculty in Karaj, west of Tehran.

The lecture merits attention because it offers an insight into the way the new leadership in Tehran approaches issues of international politics.

According to Abbasi, the global balance of power is in a state of flux and every nation should fight for a place in a future equilibrium. The Western powers, especially the United States, still wield immense military and economic power that “looks formidable on paper.” But they are unable to use that power because their populations have become “risk-averse.”

“The Western man today has no stomach for a fight,” Abbasi says. “This phenomenon is not new: All empires produce this type of man, the self-centered, materialist, and risk-averse man.”

Read the whole article.

We are moving into the orbit of war. The strategy paper I linked to thinks we can somehow find the Lagrangian point and stabilize the descent. I am not so sure, and Iran's recent hardline posture makes me even less so. With Ahmadinejad's recent asinity, the tug of gravity grows ever stronger, and the probability of controntation rises.

Dark Times Ahead

We have much to worry about.

First, I would advise everybody to read "Reassessing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran." Available here.

Second, I would keep in mind Ahmadinejad's recent statement when reading the paper's assessments of Israeli options concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Third, I would remind everybody of the inevitability of Hezbollah infiltration into the US. Iran has been scared to death for four years and has been planning accordingly. There are sleepers here in the country, and they will be activated if things come to a head with Iran.

The paper's assessment of US options are bleak, and their conclusion seems to rest on the inevitability of Iranian nuclear capability and the subsequent regional containment strategy of the US. Containment and MAD may or may not work. The fact is we do not have any great insight on how the Mullahs make decisions and how sane the ones who do, are. But we could handle it if Iran existed in a vacuum. Unfortunately they do not.

If we attack Iran, we risk alienating the Iranian people and strengthening the regime's hold over a strongly nationalistic citizenry. We also risk suicide bombers in New York, or Boise, or Knoxville. We also risk further alienating our allies and strengthening China's role as the less volatile superpower. To add to the frustration, a military attack only buys time, it does not buy a guarantee that Iran will not develop nukes. (The only thing that would buy such a guarantee is if we invade and occupy Iran, but that is politically impossible now.) Any way you slice it, our military options are bleak.

Diplomacy won't work with an Iran so bent on nuclear acquisition. Even those Iranians opposed to the regime believe it is their right to have nuclear technology. Russia and China will block action at the security council. For god's sake, the EU-3 began their negotiations by taking the military option off the table. Machiavelli would be embarrassed, and insulted.

So, it looks like everything is moving towards a nuclear armed Iran. Everything, that is, except Israel.

Even assuming we could handle a nuclear armed Iran and all the cascading problems that would flow from it, we have to get there first. Israel becomes the condition precedent for the strategy of containment, and at the same time it is the condition precedent for a vast regional war. Israel is the great variable upon which everything depends.

We cannot get to containment if Israel attacks Iran. We won't get to a regional war if Israel stays her hand. Israel and Iran are dangerously unaware of each other's redlines, and as we move closer to the tipping point the danger of miscalculation from one or the other grows and compounds.

Which brings us to Ahmadinejad's statement, perhaps the most precipitous event in that region since the assassination of Hariri. I am afraid that statement moved us closer to an all out regional war. If we get pulled in, if it happens, who knows what will follow?

Worst case scenario:

1. Everybody in the region believes bin Laden's conspiracy theories and think a Zionist-American effort at domination is truly underway. Iraq turns against us, or splits completely. Regional wars and battles pop up everywhere and oil production slows to a trickle. European economies, which depend almost exclusively on Middle Eastern oil, tank, and America and Israel are seen as global pariahs by our erstwhile allies on the continent. And then the same people who hate us start to lose jobs.

2. China's economy starts to slow and, in the midst of the largest urbanization experiment in history, begins to generate countless millions of angry unemployed living in close quarters in the cities. China in such a state would be incredibly dangerous and could do anything. Taiwan could be the least of our worries as China seeks to solidify her hold on oil reserves around the world and grows her army to alleviate the unemployment pressure.

The rest I will leave up to your imagination, but this thing could turn global in a flash if Israel strikes Iran. We have no good options, and several deadly ones. And the media obsesses over Plamegate.

More (from Reuters):

Iran is permitting around 25 high-ranking al Qaeda members to roam free in the country's capital, including three sons of Osama bin Laden, a German monthly magazine reported on Wednesday.

Citing information from unnamed Western intelligence sources, the magazine Cicero said in a preview of an article appearing in its November edition that the individuals in question are from Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Europe.

They are living in houses belonging to Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the report said.

"This is not incarceration or house arrest," a Western intelligence agent was quoted as saying. "They can move around as they please."

The three sons of Osama bin Laden in Iran are Saeed, Mohammad and Othman, Cicero reported. Another person enjoying the support of the Revolutionary Guards is al Qaeda spokesman Abu Ghaib, the report said.

This is all moving in slow motion, but things are coming to a head in Iran. It is a time for caution, and resolve.

UPDATE: Also read this.

Why do they hate us?

I think we must resign ourselves to the negative effects of globalization. Eric Hoffer once wrote that envy and proximity are directly correlated, so that the closer you get to the top the more militant are your grievances. Someone living hand to mouth has no inclination to envy the wealthy aristocrat, for the aristocrat's life is as distant as Saturn for the pauper in the street. But let a man live in a slightly smaller house on the same street as our aristocrat, and his envy for his neighbor can become a ruinous obsession.

We see this phenomenon in racialist movements, feminist movements, socialist movements, etc. The rhetoric of liberation becomes the sophistry of powerlessness, with the latter as disingenuous as the former was sincere. A history of past gain becomes a reminder of present want. A taste of success, and an agitated addict is born.

For the time being we are that aristocrat on the hill, and our presence and power mocks those with lesser means. Amongst themselves the powerless vent their passions, but before their superiors the powerless are polite. We should expect and tolerate the former. If the latter should cease, if politeness should give way to open belligerence while we remain at the table, then worry we shall, and with good reason. In such a way is a Brutus born; in such a way does a Caesar fall.

Until then, vigilance should suffice. Let them believe their tropes, so long as we believe ours.

The Rest of the Story

“How can the United States expect other nations to follow its lead in light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal?” So asked one of America’s best and brightest—in high dudgeon and evocative self-righteousness—of America’s Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, after he delivered a speech at the prestigious Yale University. Cheers erupted on the heels of our questioner’s words, as a giddy and self-satisfied crowd let their views be known. Heads nodded and fists were raised. Everybody who was anybody knew the answer was the question, so why wait for the response? As Bolton looked on in despair, the valets of our morality threw down their gavel—a sentence cast before an apology aired. Premise assumed, conclusion foregone: game, set, match for our enlightened youth.

The assertion that Abu Ghraib renders America unfit as the world’s moral leader is often heard, yet rarely examined. We are told that a group of young American service men and women tortured and demeaned Iraqi prisoners, and we are told these actions prove that America is no better than her enemy. Abu Ghraib, we are told, was evil within embarrassment wrapped inside hypocrisy. That it occurred meant America should hide her head in shame, that it was photographed meant even worse. The existence of a bad act was, all by itself, enough to cast judgment on the global and pretentious hegemon. America, because of a crime perpetrated by a few, had relinquished the beacon of virtue and was sent into moral exile.

This is the conclusion sold by our elite. We are made to feel shame for crimes committed by a few. We are held morally responsible, as a country, for crimes that took place thousands of miles away in a gritty, unsupervised, and unscripted environment. Because evil deeds walked that prison, the society that unleashed them has been judged unworthy.

But let's back up a second. If we are to accept this conclusion—that the existence of a bad apple speaks decisively for the orchard—must we not first examine the premises of those who preach it? And what are the premises?

Well, one of the most obvious is the premise that the existence of a bad act somehow speaks poorly of the society from which the perpetrator sprang. An alternate way of saying this is that in a virtuous regime, no bad acts are possible; in a morally attractive society, there are no evil deeds. This is assumption number one.

Another assumption that flows from the first is that ultimate moral responsibility rests with society. If bad acts are possible only because of societal defect, man is no longer accountable for his immorality. Human beings are no longer morally autonomous agents—they are simply vehicles that expose the virtue, or lack thereof, of the polis. A truly virtuous society creates virtuous men; an immoral society creates immoral men. The two are inextricably linked, with the former a condition precedent of the latter.

More assumptions flow from this last: man is perfectible because society is perfectible; society corrupts man, instead of the opposite; man is a noble beast, his nature inherently good; crime can be completely eradicated; human nature is benign; utopia is possible. Etc., etc., etc.

But all of these assumptions are false. Utopia is not a place to go; utopia means literally “no place at all.” Human nature is not noble, benign, or inherently good, and neither man nor society is perfectible. Crime cannot be eradicated from the polis no matter how virtuous its people; evil deeds cannot be thoroughly purged in a society made of men. Even in the most virtuous society human frailty will remain. The most moral of worlds would see occasional crime, indecency, and inhumanity. If men are gathered together, bad acts are inevitable. It is inarguable that society can be improved and evil contained, but we must realize that human nature will always demand our attention, loudly and demonstrably. Society can limit and deter the more evil manifestations of our nature, but it cannot eliminate them. Any belief otherwise is naïve at best.

At worst, the false premises of our youthful elite are corrosive, and dangerous. The belief in perfectibility can go much further than mere moral preening over Abu Ghraib, and the idea of utopia can damage much more than America’s image and moral leadership. The belief that a perfect polis is possible—the belief that a virtuous society with no evil can truly obtain—is a pernicious and subversive faith that leads to only one place: totalitarianism. If one truly believes that evil can be eradicated, then the very presence of evil demands more regulation, more restrictions, more vigilance, and more oversight. If society is responsible for man’s corruption, society, it will be argued, should be finely tuned and heavily imposed so that corruption does not happen. Afterwards, when evil inevitably survives, the believers will argue for increased measures, and more power. Grips will be tightened, and shackles will be brought out of the attic. Evil, instead of being purged, will move up the organizational ladder, and in the void freedom will wilt and despair will reign. This is the end-game of perfectibility.

And so we arrive back at our question, but armed with truth, not with preening. Is it true that Abu Ghraib speaks to the heart of America’s worth as a moral leader? The question would be yes if the actions of Abu Ghraib were done on behalf of America—sponsored, advised, and supported by our policy—and the answer would be yes if the perpetrators were not held to account. If either of these two scenarios obtained, our moral authority would truly be lost.

But they don’t obtain. The deeds of Abu Ghraib were perpetrated independent of American sponsorship, without supervision, and in contradistinction to our policy. These were the acts of a few individual sadists, acting on their own, subsequently investigated and prosecuted by the same military that our enlightened elite decry and slander. The people that brought us Abu Ghraib are still spending time in prison, but now they are on the wrong side of the fence. When faced with the darkness of human nature, embarrassed in front of the entire world, America didn’t flinch. She investigated her own, apologized to the victims, and dispensed a painful justice on those who would perpetrate evil deeds in her name. Is this not virtue? Is this not leadership?

That Abu Ghraib happened was a terrible embarrassment for our country—that is without a doubt—and the actions of the soldiers involved were indeed despicable and immoral. But bad and evil acts will always happen, even in the most virtuous of societies, so something else must inform our analysis of a regime. Another way of saying this is that, in a society’s equation of virtue, evil is a constant, and constants don’t tell us much. Variables, however, do tell us much, for the value of their input can change the value of the output. The variable we must look to is not the existence of evil deeds, but the response of the society after they are committed. Bad acts are only part of the story, the first part, the inevitable part. It is the rest of the story where we must judge virtue.

The Media, Diet Pills, and Iraq

War is hard. Nevertheless, the media think you solve a difficult problem merely by unleashing exceptionally bright people. They cannot embrace the fact that "difficult", in war, means accepting a string of failures that culminate in victory.

So, the first sign of turbulance and the media cries foul. Continued turbulance produces proclamations of failure. In our weird age of self-indulgence, easy successes are praised while hard-fought victories spawn committees.

Cesarean sections and diet pills, hard work be damned! Thus are the preferences of our effeminate elite. It was not always so.

The Provincials are Coming!

It's frustrating, instead of amusing, to watch our media make fools of themselves, because their ignorance is somehow transmuted to the rest of society. In the movie Serenity, the Operative triggers River's insanity by sending subliminal messages through the TV. Our insanity is also triggered by watching television, but it is a much less subtle message that does the triggering.

Lost in the three-to-one
independently-operating Iraqi-battalion debate is whether the numerical retrogression in type I battalions is also a retrogression in effect and capability overall. The whole media focus on this number, when the entire remainder of Casey's information is positive and hopeful, is pathetic, especially when they are not even curious about it's net effect.

Yes, three is greater than one. So, going from three to one is a priori BAD, right? Actually, no, but you can see why the media grabs onto such information. It's easy. It takes no work, no study, no education to understand the concept of going from 3 to 1. And because it is so easy to understand, and therefore so easy to complain about, it is the lead story coming out of the Casey-Abizaid-Meyers-Rumsfeld interview. It's pathetic.

It's pathetic because there is no context in the complaint, nor is there curiosity in how this number fits into our strategy to win. We do want to win, remember? That is the point, isn't it? Instead, the media stands back and studies information coming out of Iraq as if it's sole importance is how it plays to the American people. The only type of campaign the media understands involves elephants and donkeys, so they project this paradigm onto campaigns involving bullets and blood. Russert asks Casey about selling the war, and the national IQ drops another point.

The chutzpah of the media--who control the information fed to the public, then use the negative coverage of the war to attack those who fight it--is astounding. But even more so is their provincialism. "3-to-1 means we've lost two!" is the extent of their analysis, and the extent of their message. Lost is any question of capability in the field, that maybe retaining American support in combat is a good thing, that maybe winning is more important than PR.

Alas, I do not expect much from our media, and I especially to not expect much of their military analysis. But every once in a while there is an episode that engenders from me complete contempt.

This is one of those moments.

The Question of Belief

At the Belmont Club, a discussion arose concerning the belief in God, and how the lack thereof correlates with the weakness in Western society.

My response:

I wonder whether believing in God, is, in fact, a necessary condition for righteous action, or whether it is merely a handy mental shortcut that resembles but does not equal the truth. I've said this before, but once again it is pertinent to the discussion.

Paul Berman, in his book Terror and Liberalism, had this to say about the anti-war French Socialists of the thirties, and how they thought the true enemies of peace were the warmongers and profiteers of the French right; in their eyes, these men, not Hitler, were provoking war:

Those were the arguments on the anti-war left, the political arguments. But the political arguments rested on something deeper, too--a philosophical belief, profound, large, and attractive, which was reassuring instead of terrifying. It was the belief that, in the modern world, even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason. Even the unreasonable must be, in some fashion, reasonable.

The belief underlying those anti-war arguments was, in short, an unyielding faith in universal rationality...That belief was the other face of liberalism--not liberalism as the advocacy of freedom, rationality, progress, and the acceptance of uncertainty, but liberalism as blind faith in a predetermined future, liberalism as a fantasy of a strictly rational world, liberalism as denial...

The totalitarian movements arise because of failures in liberal civilization, but they flourish because of still other failures in liberal civilization, and if they go on flourishing, it is because of still more failures--one liberal failure after another.

The refusal to believe that pathological mass movements are possible--movements with no rational causes, movements that cannot be addressed with rational solutions--this is the failure of liberal society that allows evil to flourish. Is the denial a godless one, or is it merely the refusal to look at history empirically?

We look at the anti-war left, we see they are godless, and we assume causation. We look at the resolute right, we see they are devout, and we assume still more.

But how to explain someone like me? I can recognize evil, though I do not recognize a God. I believe in empiricism, but I do not have blind faith in rationality. I believe in blind physical and moral evolution, but I also believe in progress, and better. I look at history, and have no problem seeing pathology.

My eyes and my memory allow me to discern, and in that way they make me selfish, and give me the courage to discriminate. But it is an enlightened selfishness, not the drivel put forth by a novice of Nietzsche, and it is a rational discrimination, acceptance bleeding into tolerance bleeding into condemnation, and that which is condemned is that which I seek to destroy. My enlightened selfishness forces me to accept that my well-being is inextricably tied to the well-being of others; because there are masses of enemies who would destroy me, I must subsume myself into an even stronger mass. I accept any that believe likewise, that are willing to die for my freedom because I am willing to die for theirs, but in the end it is still selfishness. Without this nation of exceptional virtue, without its strength, I would be vulnerable and defenseless. And so I defend her unapologetically, and unabashedly clamor for her success.

I arrived at none of this by way of God. I know many others who feel the same, who do not need God to discern good and evil, who do not need religion to have the courage to do what needs to be done. We look around us, at the wealth, and decency, and opportunity of this land, and we simply know.

I guess a more precise statement would be that I arrived at my beliefs without also having a belief in God. I do not factor a deity into my analysis.

Whether or not God is causing me to arrive at these conclusions, or allowing me to arrive at these conclusions, is quite beyond my ability to know, though I doubt it. Descartes rejected "God the Deceiver", and I tend to doubt "God the Self-Denier".

As to why, who knows? The Anthropic Principle suggest that, in an infinite probability theater, it is unhelpful to ask why, because "why" means nothing more than "is". There is life in this universe because there is life in this universe. We can ask why because in this particular iteration of the universe we exist to ask why.

I never claim to be certain. But if an idea doesn't rise to the level of belief for lack of evidence, i.e. the existence of God, I discount it in my analyses. I could be wrong, but then again, so could you.

Being an empiricist, if I am to be intellectually honest I must defend the virtue of Judeo-Christian ethics because I celebrate the obvious results of their supremacy. I also am forced to concede that such ethics were probably a condition antecedent to our present situation.

Where I tend to disagree is on the issue of reality. That we have developed a useful mental construct to enable man to live with man does not mean that construct is true. Such ethical narratives can be necessary without being fact. But by necessary I mean necessary to get to this point, this time, not necessary metaphysically (an ethical version of the Anthropic Principle).

It is not curiosity that kills the cat, however the saying goes. It is exposure that kills the cat. Exposure to reality, exposure to phenomena for which it was defenseless or unprepared, that destroys it. Curiosity may be the proximate cause, but "reality" is always the cause-in-fact.

The same goes for belief and memes. They may be the proximate cause of ethical development or civilizational success, but the cause-in-fact is much more interesting. My belief that I can fly may make me leap from a building, but the cause-in-fact for my death must take into account neurological posture, prior experience, gravity, biology, etc.

The same principle applies to beliefs in general. Beliefs can correlate with reality without equaling reality (which is how I see Christianity--supplying the correct form without supplying the correct reason). The closer to equaling reality they are, the better they enable man to exercise power and survive. While man may have developed an unbelievably complicated mental universe, nothing can change the fact that we are mere animals, moving through and affecting reality, arbitrary in general, but precious in the particular.