Following is taken from an email to a friend and concerns this article http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122221472541069353-lMyQjAxMDI4MjIyNDIyMTQ0Wj.html
I found the article interesting because the author addresses the difference between two realms of competence: that of the military and that of their civilian overlords and how they are completely seperate in our modern days. These two proficiences are often taken to be the same, thus the confusion that can arise. Plato has a dialogue where he takes the present as an example of something more general, and he has Socrates opine that how to make use of military might is not the same as how to exercise it in effect. In other words, somebody can be a very good battlefield tactician and yet make poor decisions at the strategic level (Hannibal is often characterized as such).
However, there is a problem in the author's argument. He takes an old charge - that civilian leaders - the Rumsfelds, Cheneys, etc. of 2003, didn't listen to their military subordinates, and applies it to events that took place after that (the time of the decision to enact the surge, 2006-2007). Even tho they are vindicated now that the surge has worked, one can still hold charges against the same people for decisions they took independantly and at another time earlier in the story.
Moreover, the reasons for the success of the surge sometimes go beyond the decision that made it happen. Namely, the distressful situation of the sunnis in 2006.
Still, the surge was the right policy in my opinion and still is. I sure hope none of the progress is jeopardised by whoever wins the elections. As the biggest hero in this story recently said again, General Petraeus, the progress made to date is wholy reverseable. We may be on the brink of victory, but that victory won't happen for another few years. Security is paramount to the political process which is always lag far behind any security gains on the ground. It will also always be hard to tell when victory is achieved because a certain level of violence is bound to continue to happen in and around that region for a long time still.
Socrates has crept up in a few of my posts latelly.
One thing he revolutionized was his interest in human affairs.
First a word about the orator and the alphabet which led on to the climate in 5th century BC Athens and permitted Socrate's revolution.
One interesting problem is why did philosophy develop where and when it did. There are two crucial elements I would like to highlight. First is the predominance of the forum in political regimes of the greek city states of antiquity. Secondly, there is the alphabet, that allowed Homer first to record and then surpass the bards and poets crucial to the common conceptual reality of the time. The alphabet also contributed to the writing of laws and their examination by a large number, and the greater accountability that literacy brings to book keeping and deal making in dominance relations. It is the tool of the weak against the powerful, so it is a possibility that the alphabet further allowed the forum element in the traditional tri partite political organization of the original greek tribes came to evolve.
It is no secret now that the orator culture comes from the preponderance of the forum. Orators needed to compete, and training was eventually provided by specialists best exemplified by the Sophists during Athen's time as an empire.
Onto Socrates.
Somebody could ask: was Socrates mostly adept of social sciences or pure sciences in technique and knowledge? The question is a very bad one, but can be infomative none the less.
Socrates departed fromt he previous philosophers in investigating not natural phenomenas but human and social phenomenons. The ethical question was at the center of Socrate's questioning into Plato's work. The cosmogonies from ..............
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186492076758643.html?mod=article-outset-box
I wish he went more into the reasons as to why the Surge worked. My explanation, a year ago, was that the Sunnis suddenly found themselves in a critical position against the Shias so they decided to side with their american foes. Not all of the Sunnis, but definitelly the "tribal councils".
Perhaps even greater than the effect of the 30,000 odd thousand supplemental troops, the surge offered the assurance that the americans would be reliable partners in the Sunni's eye. (EDIT: I speak of the Sunni as we spoke of "Jerries", or "the frank" in the past. It is almost a Zeitgeist, or at least, a stereotypicality. This is perhaps a venue for attacking my story - like Berkeley did about the "abstract ideas" of Sir Mr. John Locke. But I would counter that these abstract ideas - the zeitgeist, are verifiable in actions - in actual instances. We would seethe tribal councillors seek out relations with the american commander in their area.)
See my series of posts a year ago. There is no question however that Petraeus is an outstanding hero with a gleaming aura of victory around him. He has caught my attention since I met him in my intellectual sphere back in March 2003, when he was interviewed by some newspaper as the leader of the 101st in Iraq.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186492076758643.html?mod=article-outset-box
Not having any contact with the news for the past few months has created a certain shock coming back to it.
The Musharraf fallout is having redefining strategic importance. I discussed the implications for the americans if Musharraf was dispossessed in a series of posts about a year ago, when the former leaders were making pressure to come back to the country and change the government. In all revolutions, one element is common in the wake of it: making concessions for the embattled prince only accelerates the rate of his decline.
As a consequence of this, the americans have to reshuffle their cards in that vital area of the globe.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122157191948543051.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122158649252543893.html
One can ask what would an Obama government would do to the situation. It would make official the failure of the american policy in that corner (Pakistan/Afghanistan). Further, this has implications in their relations with Iran which will have even more room to breathe and spread it's power. It will affect his relation with India because nobody wants to associate with a looser on his doorstep. This in turn will embolden China. The awe inspiring effect that America's power will have had on leaders around the world in 2001-2003 will have been short lived (the Gadaffis, and NK).
Just as Iraq seems to become manageable has shown tangible progress over the past year - since the surge and Petraeus, Afghanistan is failling. It was showing signs for a while howerver. Nato has seen a constant creeping up of the violence since 2006. The turning point happenned at the frontier of Pakistan, and in Pakistan. Under Musharraf, they could fight it. Now they lost, and operations within Pakistan are now impossible. Any cooperation at all with Pakistan now seems problematic or at the very leat, insecure.
I do not believe the situation is unsalvageable. To the contrary. I would advise however is next president to persevere through the situation. This doesn't mean not to find new ways of doing things. It also perhaps could mean showing a little humility and conceding defeat in certain situations where the rot is just too large. If it gets worse, this could mean for example giving up on Pakistan and isolating it - or at least giving it a very restricted set of options Pakistan wants to keep good relations - and their financial support from the US.
Now Pakistan did not exactly revert to being a fully hostile state to the US. Although the inclination is now clearly in disfavor of the US (ceratinly not what it was under Musharraf), Pakistan will in some ways be similar to what it was before: a complex situation where the executive needs to accomplish a balancing act between the more pro islamist factions, and the more secular preference for the US's might and power. The only difference now is that the majority of voices with the country and the government has switched sides...
I'm still confused about ethics. Somebody help me!
WARNING! The following is worth SKIPPING due to general lack of finishing. I err in ignorance on this topic. But can you say better, as the socratic, rhetorical question would come?
Interesting guy and story. But I'd rather he be a CIA agent than an idealist myself. Overthrowing regimes on purely ideological grounds is very close to fanaticism: it consists in loosing your self-interest in the name of some idea or meme. This smacks me of hubris. In my view, his books simply spawned a bunch of angry activists who think it good to destroy their government simply because their doctrine says it's the right thing to do. The world has seen many regimes go by and all had it's supporters and detractors. Coincidence? So, I do not believe that liberal democracy is better than the petty 3rd world dictatorship (it might be better in the sense of "fitter" in a darwinian way, but certainly not "ethically better").
Basically, I am taking a different take on Socrates paradox, that no one does wrong knowingly. Socrates' answer (or Plato's) was that wrong was commited out of ignorance and that the solution resided in instilling knowledge in people because nobody that knew his virtue(s) would go against them in action. My take on the paradox goes against Plato's idea of an eternal crystalline knowledge, and is a lot more cynical perhaps: no one does wrong knowingly because everyone thinks he's doing the right thing! Yes, very simple, but in that case, we really do have a real paradox because wrong is impossible: there is no such thing as an impartial arbiter, a god, a revelation, or, for that matter, a rational discovery that goes beyond the rank of opinion (doxa).
The problem is that wrong exists but is contingent. Wrong is a predicate that has for subject a given situation. That situation can be described in a game theoretic environment: it has it's end game, it's rules, etc. Wrong is when you fail to win the game, or do what you wanted to do. Ethics is for action, not for sacred, platonic values.
What we are left with is a broken down system of value that emphasises the actor's interest and resources. Indeed, it is close to the ethical premises of political realism. "Liberte, fraternite et solidarite", as the french moto went, is only a tool to use against (or enlist) the believers: those enslaved to a doctrine ie a group of memes. Memes are indeed looking as if they are self serving in this case. Certain memeswhen they commit millions of people throughout history to act out of sheer belief.
But therein lies the danger because such doctrines are inflexible and present disadvantages in a competitive environment. Richelieu's advantage against the holy roman empire was his freedom of action, and his focus on material stuff.
But what of this doctrine, is it not in the same boat as all the others? No, not as much.
An idea is just an idea, there to be used or not. I would, for instance, advise a prince to follow the above principles such that their hands were never tied up.
But materiality is not naivety or greedy reductionism either: it doesn't mean only calculating the number of tanks you have vs your neighbour's. Any good realist needs to be in touch with the ideas of his time but also of the protocols, customs and the different modes of acting and responding to actions. Each international relation - each interpersonal relation for that matter too, has his overtones, his precedents, and his constitutive and prescriptive rules. A good realist starts from the bottom of the materiality table and goes up. This is a different strategy than a liberal democracy proponent, who seeks to supplant other ways of seeing things just because it contradicts an artificial principle...
Our roads are rough. The terrain is mountainous. The ranch spends close to 1000 feet. There has been a truck overturned and totaled, a quad launched 60 feet down a slope into a creek down below. I even had a few scraps and bruises from my first dipper on that minibike. Pain reminds me the succession of my experiences actually constitute a contiguous fillum.
Had to kill a Crotalus today, a viper commonly known as a "rattling snake". It had about 4 or 5 rings on it's tail. I spotted it while I was driving the truck. I jumped out and followed it carefully until I had it cornered. By that time it was hissing and rattling that tail. Since the snake was too close to the house for comfort, I ran to get my buddy to keep watch on it while I raced back to the house and grabbed the ranch rifle.
I know it was a little crude but it got the job done.
It has been close to six months since this blog was updated. The time in between has been profitable to my life and to my wallet. However, I haven't had much time to ponder about things of the world and I long for the period where I will be able to spend more time doing just that.
