Viral Extremism?

My wife and I were having a discussion on what makes this war different. She asked “Since we are at war, how should people act different?” The thought had never really occurred to me, other then the criticism me as a serving soldier had considered when dealing with the idea of “America goes shopping”. Even though she has a husband who just got back, she really did not understand the threat. She asked, “what would happen if we just pulled out of Iraq?” For her, like many Americans I suspect, the war is confined to the geography of the Middle East. She does understand that terrorism is a threat, but even that is somewhat remote – it primarily affects icon like super cities, capitols, and mass transit systems such as air-planes & cruise ships.

This idea of communicating the threat present in the war bothers me to no end. It is the key to engaging the public and allowing the politicians to take the political risk that accounts for political leadership. I know that sounds cynical, but as was pointed out, “all politics truly are local”.

You often hear that this threat is most dire for free and open societies, but how do we account for that. I think we tend to consider in light of our borders and immigration process. We naturally link it to something physical. We sort of understand the connection between the information age and violent extremism – lets call that the physical act of coercing others to abandon their beliefs in favor of yours through terror and intimidation. We also wrestle with the idea of ideology by trying to link political and religious philosophies together such as “Islamo-fascism”. I’m not sure the term does a good job at describing the threat, and probably does a poorer job at communicating the threat because for most of today’s Americans, the terror and threat of Hitler is too far removed.

So what would be a good description? What is a good way to communicate the threat? I’m not sure about the description, but I am willing to take a look at the threat. The danger of the threat is that it does not need to penetrate a border, or immigrate. In fact, the best way for it to achieve its purpose is to attack us from the inside out. Because we are a free and open society that recognizes, encourages and draws strength from pluralism we are susceptible to organisms that masquerade as just another pluralistic component seeking to provide diversity and fit in. It attempts to show us one face when we see it on the street, but in private attacks those freedoms which allow it to prosper. It is viral in nature in that it hunts similar types of healthy cells (those people who are moderate and tolerant in their religious views and seek to prosper in the pluralistic corporate whole.) It infects those cells gradually, by identifying ways to encourage divisiveness and incite passions such as racism, prejudices, and feelings of community isolationism). It knows where to look – passion and energy are most readily found in a population’s youth, which as luck would have it is also where the least amount of balancing responsibilities is found.

This is they type of judo that I think others have applied to economics, etc, but in this case its applied toward our national philosophy. The enemy seeks to use the weight of our most defining convictions against us. The part of the equation that seems to be missing most from our strategy of homeland defense is not the wall at the border or the comprehensive immigration reform, but the strengthening of our social institutions that bind us together and give us strength. I’m not talking about the ones a government might create as they are artificial. I’m talking about the ones we engage in willingly to build and sustain communities. You might be talking churches/mosques/synagogues, social clubs, CoPs such as SWJ/SWC, scouting, VFW, rotary clubs, civic groups or the multitude of community building/strengthening organizations.

The next step would be to link those communities together. There has to be a catalyst that brings new people into existing organizations and convinces existing organizations to link with others. This means a sober communication of the threat that does not breed exclusion, but focuses on inclusion. The goal is to make the links to our society stronger and less easy for extremists to slice away members who they can then exploit to conduct acts of terrorism. This means American leaders regardless of faith or philosophy must first believe and acknowledge the threat to their American way of life.

By doing this we’ll find the unity to accomplish our goals where we truly need it. We’ll have more informed and better decisions about how we move forward in the world. When Americans understand that this is a threat that seeks to destroy us from the inside, they may understand how to deal with its external manifestations as well.

Maybe the word we need is something more akin to “Viral Extremism” since a virus is insidious, spreads, corrupts, mutates, infects, masquerades, deceives, exploits, grows, and destroys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

My wife and I were having a discussion on what makes this war different. She asked “Since we are at war, how should people act different?” The thought had never really occurred to me, other then the criticism me as a serving soldier had considered when dealing with the idea of “America goes shopping”. Even though she has a husband who just got back, she really did not understand the threat. She asked, “what would happen if we just pulled out of Iraq?” For her, like many Americans I suspect, the war is confined to the geography of the Middle East. She does understand that terrorism is a threat, but even that is somewhat remote – it primarily affects icon like super cities, capitols, and mass transit systems such as air-planes & cruise ships.

This idea of communicating the threat present in the war bothers me to no end. It is the key to engaging the public and allowing the politicians to take the political risk that accounts for political leadership. I know that sounds cynical, but as was pointed out, “all politics truly are local”.

You often hear that this threat is most dire for free and open societies, but how do we account for that. I think we tend to consider in light of our borders and immigration process. We naturally link it to something physical. We sort of understand the connection between the information age and violent extremism – lets call that the physical act of coercing others to abandon their beliefs in favor of yours through terror and intimidation. We also wrestle with the idea of ideology by trying to link political and religious philosophies together such as “Islamo-fascism”. I’m not sure the term does a good job at describing the threat, and probably does a poorer job at communicating the threat because for most of today’s Americans, the terror and threat of Hitler is too far removed.

So what would be a good description? What is a good way to communicate the threat? I’m not sure about the description, but I am willing to take a look at the threat. The danger of the threat is that it does not need to penetrate a border, or immigrate. In fact, the best way for it to achieve its purpose is to attack us from the inside out. Because we are a free and open society that recognizes, encourages and draws strength from pluralism we are susceptible to organisms that masquerade as just another pluralistic component seeking to provide diversity and fit in. It attempts to show us one face when we see it on the street, but in private attacks those freedoms which allow it to prosper. It is viral in nature in that it hunts similar types of healthy cells (those people who are moderate and tolerant in their religious views and seek to prosper in the pluralistic corporate whole.) It infects those cells gradually, by identifying ways to encourage divisiveness and incite passions such as racism, prejudices, and feelings of community isolationism). It knows where to look – passion and energy are most readily found in a population’s youth, which as luck would have it is also where the least amount of balancing responsibilities is found.

This is they type of judo that I think others have applied to economics, etc, but in this case its applied toward our national philosophy. The enemy seeks to use the weight of our most defining convictions against us. The part of the equation that seems to be missing most from our strategy of homeland defense is not the wall at the border or the comprehensive immigration reform, but the strengthening of our social institutions that bind us together and give us strength. I’m not talking about the ones a government might create as they are artificial. I’m talking about the ones we engage in willingly to build and sustain communities. You might be talking churches/mosques/synagogues, social clubs, CoPs such as SWJ/SWC, scouting, VFW, rotary clubs, civic groups or the multitude of community building/strengthening organizations.

The next step would be to link those communities together. There has to be a catalyst that brings new people into existing organizations and convinces existing organizations to link with others. This means a sober communication of the threat that does not breed exclusion, but focuses on inclusion. The goal is to make the links to our society stronger and less easy for extremists to slice away members who they can then exploit to conduct acts of terrorism. This means American leaders regardless of faith or philosophy must first believe and acknowledge the threat to their American way of life.

By doing this we’ll find the unity to accomplish our goals where we truly need it. We’ll have more informed and better decisions about how we move forward in the world. When Americans understand that this is a threat that seeks to destroy us from the inside, they may understand how to deal with its external manifestations as well.

Maybe the word we need is something more akin to “Viral Extremism” since a virus is insidious, spreads, corrupts, mutates, infects, masquerades, deceives, exploits, grows, and destroys.

---

I like the phrase. Have you read Brian Jenkins' Unconquerable Nation: Knowing Our Enemy, Strengthening Ourselves? It's one of the best general overviews I've come across.

Steve,
Maybe sometime we could have lunch after I get out of BSAP. We could hit the Mexican place out the gate. I'll link to the Jenkins article later today - the title sounds very relevant.
Best Regards, Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

Steve,
Maybe sometime we could have lunch after I get out of BSAP. We could hit the Mexican place out the gate. I'll link to the Jenkins article later today - the title sounds very relevant.
Best Regards, Rob

---

Sure. I'm in Root Hall, A224. Will spend tomorrow in the heart of evil. Not the Sunni Triangle, but the State Department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

(snipped for brevity)

The next step would be to link those communities together. There has to be a catalyst that brings new people into existing organizations and convinces existing organizations to link with others. This means a sober communication of the threat that does not breed exclusion, but focuses on inclusion. The goal is to make the links to our society stronger and less easy for extremists to slice away members who they can then exploit to conduct acts of terrorism. This means American leaders regardless of faith or philosophy must first believe and acknowledge the threat to their American way of life.

By doing this we’ll find the unity to accomplish our goals where we truly need it. We’ll have more informed and better decisions about how we move forward in the world. When Americans understand that this is a threat that seeks to destroy us from the inside, they may understand how to deal with its external manifestations as well.

Maybe the word we need is something more akin to “Viral Extremism” since a virus is insidious, spreads, corrupts, mutates, infects, masquerades, deceives, exploits, grows, and destroys.

---

Rob, this is truly excellent advice. Terrorism flourishes in chaotic, combative environments. Building unity is a perfect deterrent. It's too bad that the U.S. is becoming more devisive, and growing worse as we get closer to the 2008 elections.

I love the term and I agree with the concept of immunization, if you will. The problem is, as you allude to, that some of our strengths make us weak (or at least appear so).

If you sound the klaxon, you'll be accused of fear mongering.

If you espouse traditional values -- school, religion, family, etc, you're just not post modern enough for this country.

Can't wait to see some of the great ideas on how we progress from here.

Well - it seems the first step would have to be bi-partisan - so the urgency has to transcend party lines - to me this means the 2008 candidates basically provide the same answers to:

1) the nature of the threat
2) the ways we can respond domestically to the threat
3) the Average American must play a role in those responses by strengthening our social fabric.

All of those can be answered without trading any of the political beliefs which define the Democratic or Republican parties.

The second step is a bit harder. It would mean linking the issue of domestic security policy and foreign security policy in ways we have not been very successful at communicating yet. This linkage would have to run both ways. In a very broad sense our foreign policy actions matter to our domestic policies, and our domestic actions matter to our foreign policy.

Even though we have windows on the outside world in every household, I still think the average American does not contemplate why International events matter, or how they impact them and their families at home - I also don't think leaders ask them to. Conversely, many people who spend their time in the military live on base, or FS/FP types who work in D.C. don't really understand why the average American can't see the threats. Americans want to know why they should be involved and why they should sacrifice, but we have done a poor job of explaining how it matters as much in Memphis, Little Rock, or San Antonio as it does in D.C., Boston or New York.

Equally we have done little to help Americans understand the threats of pandemics, the effects of global warming, global poverty and other non-war type threats, or how those threats impact the average U.S. citizen. Ex. - in the Democratic debate last week the question was posed to the candidates’ ref. the impact of Aids in minority communities & how they would address it. The response by NY Sen. Clinton was (paraphrased) "If AIDS was killing white women between ages 25-35 at the same rate we'd see action" was IMHO a poor job of answering the question. AIDS is a social disease; to address AIDS requires discussing the conditions which give rise to it. If tackling poverty, lack of dignity and self respect, ignorance from lack of education combined with greater R&D $$s, clinic out reach, etc. in neighborhoods/cities with high rates of infection had been pitched she'd have demonstrated she understood the problem.

The domestic & foreign problems we face today are multi-faceted and require multi-faceted solutions. We require leaders who can communicate that and we require a public who understands and demands it. If you substitute viral extremism for AIDS you have the same type problem.

The political leadership must espouse enough of a bipartisan message to communicate the need for domestic sacrifice and involvement as needed to provide a clear direction for the future domestic and foreign policy actions. I believe here also there is room enough to accomodate their peculiar party views and strategies to pursue foreign policy, but there are key points the Americans must at least acknowledge

1) The world has changed since the the fall of the Berlin Wall, the disolution of the USSR, the Internet, and Sept 11, 2001 (and a host of other multi-causal events).

2) That change requires us to acknowledge it, reflect upon it, and change the way we thought about how we see America's role in the world, and just as important how the World sees America's role.

3) No matter what we do, there is no going back to the 1980s. The only direction we can move is forward.

4) What goes on internationally does effect us domestically.

The rest is probably debatable, but at least by acknowledging those points Americans can begin to view the world as it is, not as we wish it were.

Does anybody else have the sense of irony that we have declared that Iraq requires a political solution, but in a very real sense - to be be successful - we also are going to have to implement a political solution.

I always liked the adage of teaching a guy to fish so he can feed himself but the part about people who take other people's fish always gets left out and our folk adages seldom address reality. I think our real-time world and instant access to what is happening all over the world does nothing to alter the intrinsic need to live a rather insular existence. We can all agree that people want the basics, they want some degree of justice and security in their lives, they want a reasonable amount of peace and quiet. I just think it's a tough sell for the average earth inhabitant to believe they must learn and know more about other cultures and in so doing, some problems and complications can be headed off. We are more reactive and always will be in this respect. I think that is why COIN is a tough sell. People are not that interested in learning that much about other people in other parts of the world. There is not going to be a one world community. That is not to say people aren't curious and aren't gregarious and social but in the work-a-day world of the aveage earth inhabitant, the luxary of knowlege and experience we here are privy to is notably absent. We sometimes forget that. Just as we know intelligent, successful, traveled, good people who are not really that interested in other cultures and don't make the connection between understanding and reaching out cross culturally as a means of problem resolution, so too do they wonder why we are doing what their knowledge and experience tells them is not necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

I always liked the adage of teaching a guy to fish so he can feed himself but the part about people who take other people's fish always gets left out and our folk adages seldom address reality. I think our real-time world and instant access to what is happening all over the world does nothing to alter the intrinsic need to live a rather insular existence. We can all agree that people want the basics, they want some degree of justice and security in their lives, they want a reasonable amount of peace and quiet. I just think it's a tough sell for the average earth inhabitant to believe they must learn and know more about other cultures and in so doing, some problems and complications can be headed off. We are more reactive and always will be in this respect. I think that is why COIN is a tough sell. People are not that interested in learning that much about other people in other parts of the world. There is not going to be a one world community. That is not to say people aren't curious and aren't gregarious and social but in the work-a-day world of the aveage earth inhabitant, the luxary of knowlege and experience we here are privy to is notably absent. We sometimes forget that. Just as we know intelligent, successful, traveled, good people who are not really that interested in other cultures and don't make the connection between understanding and reaching out cross culturally as a means of problem resolution, so too do they wonder why we are doing what their knowledge and experience tells them is not necessary.

---

We do need to update that adage. Something like:

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Teach a man how to form a fish farming industry in China using labor that is paid a slave wage and after the IPO he'll fly his bloody Gulfstream to wherever he wants to eat.

As far as names go some guy named Metz:) came with "Spiritual Insurgency" Which I think is pretty descriptive of what we dealing with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

As far as names go some guy named Metz:) came with "Spiritual Insurgency" Which I think is pretty descriptive of what we dealing with.

---

But I keep telling you, he was on drugs. Probably free basing Nyquil or something.

What was that quote about Sherman being a drunk and Lincoln said send him a case of whiskey because he is winning. Send him a case a Nyquil. A spiritual Insurgency goes nicely with the concept of High Jacking a religion to control a country inside out, almost like a political party except it is a religious party but the effect can turn out to be the same.

- it just seems the insular folks get more air time. I saw the CNN special by Christiane Amanpour last night that addressed the internal conflict within Islam as manifesting in England. Here were 2 viral Clerics with their hate message being strongly, even vehemently debated/countered by a fair number of regualr Joe Islams who also happened to be Clerics, yet the show aired around 10:00 PM, about the time most Joe Citizens are getting ready to pack it in for the night. This special should have been shown on prime time, not tucked away late. That's my beef for the morning.

goesh, I saw that last night to. Agree that should be prime time viewing.

It's my morning to keep harping on a particular subject. When good news emerges from the Islamic world, it doesn't seem to make much print and get many vibes on the air. Take this article about Egypt from BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251426.stm

"Egypt forbids female circumcision
By Magdi Abdelhadi
BBC Arab Affairs Analyst

Suzanne Mubarak campaigned to ban the practice

Egypt has announced that it is imposing a complete ban on female circumcision, also known as genital mutilation"

The article goes on to say: "Recent studies have shown that some 90% of Egyptian women have been circumcised. "

I for one have been skeptical and even resistant to the assertion that Islam is evolving and changing and progressing, then along comes an article like this that I haven't yet seen making any kind of headlines. So, there are anti-COIN elements that won't spread the news on what COIN can and has done and it seems the same elements don't want news like this splashing across any headlines. What's afoot?

I guess that is the problem - if you can't get people involved until after the fact, you cede the initiative. Can you find a balance? Only if you convince them the consequences of not doing so puts them at risk. How do you convince them of the risk? That one is tough because people prefer to believe bad things will only happen to other people - the greater their disassociation with those other people, the more probable the bad thing will strike there and not elsewhere.

The alternative approach may be to approach involvement as a "good" thing. A duty or obligation like in President Kennedy's speech. These days however we've bred an insular society with tools that promote individualism to nth degree.

It will require charismatic, political leadership to shake people loose from i-pods, game boys, and self-absorbtion as long as things are perceived as being good enough.

last night on the CNN special it also showed women being locked out of Mosques and made to pray outside. We should be exploiting things like this to the nth degree. And support the Joe Islam types willing to stand up to the radicals. We should consistently look for opportunities like this to exploit but as everyone points out it just doesn't play well on TV. It is intellectual warfare of the highest order and offers the best chance to strategically overthrow the enemy without alot of bloodshed, all to the betterment of Muslims and Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Thornton

It will require charismatic, political leadership to shake people loose from i-pods, game boys, and self-absorbtion as long as things are perceived as being good enough.

---

I don't think leadership is going to do the trick; the problem is with the fundamental values the young generation learn as they grow up. The households are too often broken, and it produces selfish, materialistic, people stuck permanently in adolescence. Our society seems to have shed all the necessary beliefs and ideas that form good citizens. Good soldiers (and citizens) are made at the hearth first, not on the drill field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevely

I don't think leadership is going to do the trick; the problem is with the fundamental values the young generation learn as they grow up. The households are too often broken, and it produces selfish, materialistic, people stuck permanently in adolescence. Our society seems to have shed all the necessary beliefs and ideas that form good citizens. Good soldiers (and citizens) are made at the hearth first, not on the drill field.

---

I actually think they learn those values from their parents, and in some cases react against them. Many of them have lost faith in larger institutions (especially governmental ones), and given the example that many of the Boomers have "set" it's hard to blame them. But they can believe and rise to very high ethical standards. I see this at our Det every semester. Sure there are some slackers, but show me a generation that didn't have them.

Most of the people (ranging in age from 18 to 35...and some well past that) I've met who were stuck in selfish adolescence came from intact families that had indulged their every whim and fancy. It's an interesting question, and not one with a ready or simple answer.

I think that frames a fair question - what creates our values and what changes them? We sometimes say that an issue requires leadership - we're really substituting leadership for attention in that sense. In truth a leader leads regardless of the issue. This should certainly be true of political leadership which impacts us on so many levels.

We can't approach social apathy (Individualism ??) from a mono-causal relationship. It is correct to point out social deficiencies in America's youth, but I don't think its written in stone. However, if we can say that society changed one way (for the worse), then we should be able to say that unless there is some physical impediment, we should be able to say society can change again (for the better). What is needed is the will to do so. This is where leadership is critical. The ability for a leader to recognize the problem and the causes of the problem, and then lead in finding and applying a solution is what leadership is all about.

We have a diverse population. We must find a way to invigorate our national identity and build strength in that amongst our pluralism so that there is a valid, attractive alternative to individualism taken too far. We must re-build inclusive groups at the local and national level. Right now we are probably too exclusive - look at how we constrain ourselves to specific groups, parties, views, etc - we even name TV shows to express it - "The View" - and when we get mad at the other person's view - we quit:rolleyes:. We have taken our pursuit of individual freedoms to a point where we have difficulty building consensus. We don't need to strip those freedoms, but we do need to convince ourselves its OK to both value your freedom and compromise on issues that must be addressed to perpetuate a cohesive society that groups like AQ and other threats seek to undermine. We must convince ourselves that a cohesive, pluralistic society is a benefit and not a burden, that it requires participation to function, and that it will not mend itself - its not a self-healing server.

Gentlemen,

The CNN special has been played several times over the past few weeks, and its initial showing was during prime time (2000hrs, or 8:00PM), but unfortunately I think Joe and Jane public at large aren't interested in real news stories, but will spend hours watching news of Paris Hilton's adventure in court and jail. Even she was surprised.

We talk about our youth being lost, but who the hell is guiding them? I think our adult population is just as lost. What type of example do we really set for our kids and the world at large? The media moguls are not young wayward kids, but greedy individuals with incredible power to shape popular opinion. The fact that the music media CEOs support select criminal rappers who endorse cop killing, girlfriend beating, killing folks who talk to the police, and drug use for the higher purpose of profit is telling. Wouldn't a responsible adult say not on my watch?

If I lived in a society that still had values, such as many Muslim societies (regardless if we agree with them), and I saw the type of culture that the West was promoting, I would be worried that if left unchallenged the West would corrupt my society, and my sense of identity. We tend to focus on the good that democracy, freedom, and free markets bring, and conveniently ignore the ugly side of it, but our enemies do not ignore it, and we need to address it honestly in our message if we're going to have credibility.

Of course the question is how do you get the media, which will remain the largest opinion shaper, to support more "Chicken Soup for the Soul" type entertainment where values are demonstrated? There is no profit in this, why watch the Waltons if I can turn the channel and watch 24, sports, Fox Entertainment, etc. We tend to bottom feed, and if bottom feed is available there will be a large market for it. Step one, we need to get off our high horse and face reality about ourselves, and express that we're all concerned about the loss of values (a point in common). This isn't a war, it is a social revolution, and in many ways we're feeding it with our talk of war. Muslims in England just don't opt to drive a car into an airport and set it on fire, then pour gasoline on themselves. The message of extremist is powerful, and we won't counter it with simple red, white, and blue slogans. We must take a hard and honest look in the mirror and try to see what our enemy sees when he looks at us. Winning the IO war is more than messages, but demonstrated behavior.

Rob,
like you perhaps, I see a considerable difference in the public’s mood between the months following September 11 and today. American sense of unity against the threat faded substantially.
For, no significant and particularly threatening and dramatic event, except some tornadoes, happened since the terrible event.
While trying to put the layman’s shoes it is not that difficult, in my own opinion, to imagine how strange it may be for him to see the government so concerned with Iraq--a far away country that has no historical record of particular friendship with the United States--whereas things definitely calmed down at home since September 11 and since the U.S. forces raided Afghanistan and Iraq. In this sense, the government, or the President, if you prefer, brilliantly accomplished its/his mission. Then, why sending our sons to Iraq?

The problem was nearly identical until 1940 when public opinion knew a rapid shift. Until the fall of Paris in May 1940, isolationism prevailed. Why sending our sons in Europe? In which way are we supposed to feel concerned? Still said the layman.

Isolationists warned that Roosevelt would get the nation into an unnecessary war with Germany. The argument was full of good sense from the layman point of view, but Roosevelt had slowly begun re-armament in 1938, already, because he wasn’t a layman.
As Roosevelt took a firmer stance against the Axis Powers, American isolationists attacked the President as an irresponsible warmonger. Doesn’t sound familiar?

Roosevelt felt obliged to promise American housewives that he wouldn’t send their sons to war. The attack on Pearl Harbor turned the general mood upside down. Suddenly, America had an enemy and this changed everything.

Well, I stop here and let talk Samuel Huntington who expresses my opinion better than I would do myself in Who Are We? America’s Great Debate, page 25.

“To define themselves, people need an other. Do they also need an enemy? Some people clearly do. 'Oh, how wonderful it is to hate,' said Joseph Goebbels. 'Oh, what a relief to fight, enemies who defend themselves, enemies who are awake,' said André Malraux.
These are extreme articulations of a generally more subdued but widespread human need, as acknowledged by two of the twentieth century greatest minds. Writing to Sigmund Freud in 1933, Albert Einstein argued that every attempt to eliminate war had 'ended in a lamentable breakdown…man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction.'
Freud agreed: people are like animals, he wrote back, they solve problems through the use of force and only an all-powerful world state could prevent this from happening. Humans, Freud argued, have only two types of instinct, 'those which seek to preserve and unite…and those which seek to destroy and kill.' Both are essential and they operate in conjunction with each other. Hence, 'there is no use trying to get rid of men’s aggressive inclination."

The end of the Soviet threat, in 1989, eliminated one powerful reason for giving preeminence to national identity and thus this event opened the way for people to find greater salience in other identities. Perhaps shall you think that it is sad to say that, but the existence of enmity engenders nationalism, unity, and a sense of personal involvement.

American national identity and unity peaked politically with the rallying of Americans to their country and its cause in WWII. It peaked symbolically with President Kennedy’s 1961 famous summons: “Ask not what your country can do or you; ask what you can do or your country,” as you rightly underline it at some point.

We, who are talking on SWJ are able to identify the threat and the enemy because we use to look toward the future with the mind of a warrior. We trained ourselves to smell the enemy from distance. We are quick to see things coming. We have even a special hermetic jargon to design what we see. We reason in terms of “patterns,” “trends,” “cognitive consistency,” “alert fatigue,” etc. The layman does not. It’s none of his business and we retreated with a feeling a frustration each time we attempted to enlighten him; to get him seeing what we see, in vain, always.

Rob, your wife just doesn’t see any enemy because she is unable to see one, exactly as my wife doesn’t and is. I agree with you on nearly each and every of your points in your third post you titled Base Lines, but, I am afraid, without immediate danger, without clearly defined enemy any layman can perceive we are unlikely to strengthen the social fabric the way you expect it. The layman is unable to see the future and, particularly, this kind of future. So, our task is to find a striking present danger to show him.

Georgi Arbatov, a brilliant Soviet strategist we can somehow compare to the counterpart of Henry Kissinger understood very well all this. It is he who made this well known threathening statement when the Cold War ended: “We are going to do something terrible to you: you will no longer have an enemy.”

Though Arbatov was our enemy, he was right, indeed.

Dominique, is that Jean-Paul Sarte?

From where I sit, the mood is not so much public apathy or ignorance. It is a pervasive sense of cynicism. If I was to ask neighbors, friends, family, and coworkers what they thought about the current state of affairs I would hear the following:

"It is just a matter of when, not if, until the next terrorists attack here. The government is incompetent and corrupt. They have no idea what these terrorists are up to. Raising these alert levels and those stupid questions they ask you at the airport… just bureaucrats trying to protect their backsides for the next time around and make you think they are doing something. "

"These folks in the Middle East have been killing each other since Biblical times. That'll never change, no matter what we do. Putting our fighting men in between them is just stupid. We're losing good men, and nothing good is gonna come out of it. I don't trust any of those people over there, calling some factions our "friends" is just P.C. nonsense. Who do they think they are fooling?"

"This whole thing is really just about oil. We wouldn't be doing all this over there if there wasn't oil involved. This democracy talk is just to give it a high-minded cover, when really it is about oil and money. Everybody knows what this is really all about."

People are just really cynical about the actions of our own government. It is difficult to make some call for service and sacrifice when people think this way. Particularly when they don't see any bigshots in our political establishment or society sacrificing anything.

After the 9/11 attacks, we had a unified public, which lasted through the Afghan war. That ended with this Iraq war. That was controversial before it was launched, and has only gotten more so as the insurgency heated up. Our government chose to risk that unity for the Iraqi democracy project, which they presumably thought would be quick and easy. Back to the old public cynicism.

I wouldn't blame our younger folks for the current state of affairs. They aren't the ones who've been calling the shots. Something tells me that things are going to have to get worse in this war with these terrorists before we can turn this ship around. Just a gut feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

Dominique, is that Jean-Paul Sarte?

---

Slapout9,
not exactly. It's rather relevant to behaviorism, although I missed to present things under this angle.

In other words, and to reduce my point to the simplest equation: for want of immediate danger there is no action or “combat behavior,” which allows survival by facing and fighting threats.

For inormation, combat behavior originates in the first one of our three brains Paul McLean calls the “R-Complex,” (aka “Reptilian Brain.”)
The term "Reptilian brain" came from the fact that a reptile's brain is dominated by the brain stem and cerebellum which controls instinctive survival behavior and thinking. This is similar in humans. This Reptilian Brain controls muscles, balance and autonomic functions (i.e. breathing and heartbeat); also, it triggers immediate survival responses without which no animal can survive. Drinking and eating, by which it preserves its structure; and copulation, by which it reproduces. (The Triune Brain in Evolution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions, by P.D. MacLean, New York : Plenum Press, - Jan 31, 1990)

However, you may be right at some point since Jean Paul Sartre, as human being, would react exactly the same way as, say, John Fitzgerald Kennedy would do when facing threat.
Actually, political opinion is of no relevance here. It is just what Henry Laborit calls “alibi,” when we are reasoning at the physiological level (L’agressivité détournée : Introduction à une biologie du comportement social, 1970; and, La Nouvelle grille, 1974; and also, L’Éloge de la fuite, 1976, by P.D. Henry Laborit.)

Thus language only serves to hide the cause of dominance, to mask the mechanism that established it and to convince the individual that, in working for the group, he is gratifying himself. But usually all he is doing is preserving hierarchical situations, which hide behind linguistic alibis, alibis furnished by language, as an excuse.

Of the three brains, the first two (the Reptilian Brain and the “memory brain”) function unconsciously beneath our level of awareness and drives socially-conditioned reactions. The third, the neocortex (aka “cerebral cortex”), furnishes an explanatory language which provides reasons, excuses, alibis for the unconscious working of the first two. We can compare the unconscious to a deep sea, and what we call consciousness is the foam that appears sporadically on the crest of the waves. It is the most superficial part of the sea, buffeted by the wind.

Now, you agree or disagree with my explaination, depending whether your set of beliefs is based upon a creationist or a darwinist perception of things. Mine is based upon darwinism. Subsequently, here, and here only, may lie your possible disagreement.

Tacitus,
On national (youth or otherwise) cynicism.

When I look at the cynicism today, I seldom spot much conviction. I would not call it ‘cynicism’ without caveat; perhaps cynicism of convenience or cynic boredom (what is most easily available to rebel against with the least effort required). While I am not a professional student of human behavior, I believe “the battle” calls everyone; it is only the subject and flavor of it that differs individually. So, when the 17 year-old in Seattle picks up a placard with the president’s image amid swastikas, the factual nature of what exactly they are ‘protesting’ is almost secondary to their marching in some sort of cause. You often see late-night talk show comic openings of questions posed to these protesters; the joke being more often than not that they can’t answer the most cursory question about what they protest. The case above only morphs at older ages into more intricate, but no less fictitious causes. I believe in total, they are still not the majority.

Then there are those who have seen, experienced, or have otherwise come to understand that facts matter and neither politics nor fashion (for some it is fashionable to be the neo-bohemian throw-back 60’s protestor) do not change facts. These people would no more bang a placard down main street than throw a tantrum in Walmart; and so the placard bangers and more outrageous of the older versions who shout, wave fists into cameras, and make outrageous statements for shock value get the most press, and are often times knowingly and disingenuously represented as reflective of the majority in our country.

I still have confidence they are not the majority. I am fully aware you may easily construct a ‘poll’ to get the answers you seek (i.e. a question of “How long do you believe the surge should be given: 2 months, 3 months.. etc”, becomes a front page statement that “80% of Americans believe we should only give the surge months to succeed”). I do not believe I’m unrealistically optimistic in feeling the majority of the country do fully understand what we are up against, but are ill represented in the media and by government representatives. The aptly named “silent majority” exist.

I do not buy that this country is in the horrible state of angst and self-loathing often portrayed by the media. The fix is in getting that grounded, sane majority (dem or rep.. doesn’t matter) to, frankly, overrule the minority who treasure red cockaded woodpeckers having undisturbed sex over national defense competence. How many would truly care if we subtracted 1/10,000th of the wilderness available to Polar Bears in exchange for less reliance on foreign oil? Politics is catering, and unless the grounded public majority begin to make it clear that they exist, the catering will default to the bohemian with the bad excuse for a goatee on the front page of the Washington Post.