Sunday, October 29, 2023

Your Immediate Threat

 









Your immediate threat is not some vaguely drawn demon or cascading evil that remains years away from doing its worst -- eventually. Your immediate threat is what kills you first. The closer it gets, the more indisputable its intentions.

What prevents otherwise sentient beings from identifying such approaching threats? Some friends and colleagues marinated in the same brine of graduate work in homeland security through the Naval Postgraduate School recently traded observations on such matters while discussing at length the evils of the times. In the process of our iterative discourse, certain themes surfaced, including these:

1.  Popular fixation on distant, intractable dilemmas (at times reflexively characterized as "wicked problems" so frequently that the most blatant sign of wickedness has become wearing out this cliché). By concentrating on problems which may indeed be real but remain years or decades away from producing their apocalyptic impact, we fall into a trap that yields near term gain at a price.

The gain is bureaucratic insulation from accountability. In other words, the end of the world may eventually arrive according to whatever model projects its ETA, but as long as it does not get here on our watch, no one will hold us accountable for what we do about it. This liberation from consequences frees us to pursue prudent and wrongheaded strategies with equal gusto. And if we cloak our actions with popular, emotive resonance, there is seldom a penalty to face for wasting resources or getting it wrong. Such is the cost of doing business when one calls one's business saving the world.

The price for succumbing to such fixations extends beyond waste of resources. A big price is intentional narrowing of defensive focus to the point of losing the capacity to detect more deadly threats approaching obliquely, in flanking maneuvers. After all, an adversary bent on your destruction seldom neglects the value of surprise if he can catch you unawares and lower his risk by dealing a death blow while you are directing your attention elsewhere. 

2.  Diminished capacity to distinguish imminent threats to life from confected, outrage du jour that people styling themselves as victims rail against, whether their cause of the moment is some perceived social injustice or no longer having free meals at the company cafeteria.

3.  Loss of predator-resistant defenses. People now accustomed to having their stated preferences accommodated and their self-definitions validated see the world differently than their recent predecessors did. The latter had to fight. They grew up without expecting the world to go their way. The requirement to struggle, to compete, and to be ready to engage in combat for both advancement and survival imparted certain programming beneficial to defense. That programming included constant horizon scanning for predators and a premium on early threat detection, effective threat avoidance, and vigorous self-defense. When you have to fight for what you have, you optimize for keeping it and for thwarting attackers who contrive to take it away.

So What?

A distant threat becomes a disembodied abstraction, a topic more suited to debate than action. People obsessed exclusively with eventual and apocalyptic threats spend more energy talking about them and exploiting them for personal advantage than preparing to grapple with them on their own. Making this society's problem takes it off the My Problems list.

The net result is vulnerability that invites ruthless adversaries to strike such self-neutered targets. This situation favors those willing to slit throats over those programmed to see no fast-moving evil. And so, your greatest threat becomes whatever is willing and able to kill you first, because that threat will deny you the luxury of being around when the eventual threat comes to pass.

Perhaps Hilaire Belloc best captured the image of this kind of threat when observing,

"We sit by and watch the barbarian, we  tolerate him; in the long  stretches of peace  we are not afraid.  We are tickled by his  irreverence; his comic  inversion of our  old certitudes  and our fixed creeds  refreshes us; we  laugh. But as we laugh  we are watched by large and awful faces  from  beyond; and on these faces there is no smile."

Tuesday, October 10, 2023

Another Possible Aim of Barbaric Attack

It is already fresh in murmur that one likely aim of the mass slaughter of defenseless Israeli citizens last weekend was to undermine Saudi Arabia’s impending rapprochement with Israel. The news that the Saudis put their planned deal on hold appears to bear testimony to some instrumental value the attackers realized from the carnage. 


What else? Is there a long game in which Hamas contrived to accumulate points? Consider: The terrorist playbook may accommodate a good deal of improvisation, but its individual plays tend to be limited to asymmetric options and geared to maximizing publicity through shock. There is one more factor to consider. 

In the Atrocity Olympics, points go on the scorecard for luring one’s opponent to sink to the same level by instigating reciprocal savagery. 

- - - - - - - - - 

As Dev Sol* showed the world when murdering unsuspecting police and other authorities in Turkey during the 1990s, terrorists perceive value in such actions because they (a) undermine public confidence in government’s ability to protect citizens, and (b) bait responding forces into brutal over reaction that ultimately costs the responder popular support and an erstwhile reputation as the good guy in a given conflict.  

The net result, and a strategic aim, is to heap reputational attack on top of a barbaric body count. And in the case of Hamas, that objective may appear worth the cost in loss of life and livelihood for Gaza-based Palestinians whose lot is already miserable and showing no signs of improving under an authoritarian Palestinian regime. In 15 years of autonomous rule sanctioned by Israel, that regime has delivered 70% unemployment amid unbridled railing against Israel and Israelis. In the calculation of Hamas leaders, what do they have to lose by sacrificing this abject population of unfortunates to a greater aim of striking a political and reputational blow against Israel, while basking in the publicized infamy attending the historic carnage they carried out?

This is by no means a rationalization or even a remotely justifiable objective for any civilized leadership to champion. But does it align with the agenda of barbarians? One has to wonder. 

* For an overview of Dev Sol's evolution over time, see https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/dev_sol.htm


Friday, October 6, 2023

Why Insight Matters

 Bottom Line Up Front: It's not so much that people don't know what they want; it's that people can't tell you what they want.

This was the epiphany that data scientist Howard Moskowitz realized after exhaustive surveys and focus groups and taste tests when he was trying to understand the secret behind how consumers choose spaghetti sauce. Malcolm Gladwell, in turn, immortalized this epiphany by showcasing it in a TED Talk that became so popular, it sometimes steals his own thunder when he attempts to promote his new projects. 


An enduring lesson to harvest from this epiphany is that social science research, which has never approached the precision of mathematics, must remain ever humble once recognizing its inherent limitations, no matter how impressive its methodology or presentation. Hence the need for continuing to question, to explore, and to examine alternative hypotheses -- rather than to succumb to the social sciences researcher's fatal flaw of presumptive omniscience.


Not only are there times when we don't know what we want. There are also times when we just cannot explain it.


Look here for Gladwell's talk, which has aged better than many:  https://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce