off topic The politics of terrorism

[Doohickie]

You may joke, but I did, in fact, literally fall asleep in philosophy class.  Started snoring and everything.  Woke up when the class made noise while they were leaving, and left with them.  Next class the teacher noted my, um, absence of consciousness.

Edited November 17, 2015 by The Big Johnson

[darksabre]

You may joke, but I did, in fact, literally fall asleep in philosophy class. Started snoring and everything. Woke up when the class made noise while they were leaving, and left with them. Next class the teacher noticed my, um, absence of consciousness.

To be fair, philosophy really isn't classroom material. I don't blame you. :lol:

[Neo]

A few thoughts:

 

Referring to these terrorists as masterminds is a little wacky. All it really took was munitions and ill intent.

I'm not going to call the kids who attacked the Columbine school masterminds either.

 

 

There was nothing relatively clever or innovated about these things other than it is possible to do,

and they showed a rudimentary synchronization.

It is not sophisticated.

 

Terrorists really have little ability to project power over time.

ISIS as a movement is weak. But they have the capability to do things like this.

 

France is set to vote next month. Enter Marine Le Pen of the National Front. :(

 

I spent the morning consoling a French friend.

Her family is well. Her sister was walking the Champs Elysee when it happened - safe but rattled.

I had the profound sense from her that it is hard to be here (in the US), when your heart is there.

They will close the borders even if it means pulling out of the EU she thinks.

When the French say enough, it happens all at once, she said. You'll see, she said with some sadness. You'll see.

 

Glad her family is well, of course.

 

I'd never heard of Marine Le Pen until yesterday. NPR did an in depth view on France and its thoughts about possible direction. Le Pen didn't appear, but commentators mentioned her. She may find fertile ground in which to campaign. I am under informed, but I believe she represents a strong stance, at least domestically, with regard to viewing radical Islam as a threat and advocates policy in that regard. Interesting to me - France may be more nationalistic than I'd known. There are already laws with regard to clothing and symbols that go further than I understood. Several commentators used the word apartheid. Again, I am on thin ice with regard to expertise.

 

 

To others: I haven't formed a refugee conclusion, yet. I share all of the humanitarian, philanthropic and leadership arguments. My reserve, though, stems not from fear. I've read that word, here and elsewhere, on a number of occasions. I'm not afraid of refugees. I'm an assumption of risk guy. My reserve is steeped in pragmatism, state interests, and economics. Making donations is nice. Borrowing on a credit card to do so is not very smart.

Edited November 17, 2015 by N'eo

[MattPie]

Glad her family is well, of course.

 

I'd never heard of Marine Le Pen until yesterday. NPR did an in depth view on France and its thoughts about possible direction. Le Pen didn't appear, but commentators mentioned her. She may find fertile ground in which to campaign. I am under informed, but I believe she represents a strong stance, at least domestically, with regard to viewing radical Islam as a threat and advocates policy in that regard. Interesting to me - France may be more nationalistic than I'd known. There are already laws with regard to clothing and symbols that go further than I understood. Several commentators used the word apartheid. Again, I am on thin ice with regard to expertise.

 

 

To others: I haven't formed a refugee conclusion, yet. I share all of the humanitarian, philanthropic and leadership arguments. My reserve, though, stems not from fear. I've read that word, here and elsewhere, on a number of occasions. I'm not afraid of refugees. I'm an assumption of risk guy. My reserve is steeped in pragmatism, state interests, and economics. Making donations is nice. Borrowing on a credit card to do so is not very smart.

 

I am too, but I do know there have been riots in France over the perceived treatment of Muslims. We kind of "know" the French look down on Americans, there's no reason to think that disdain wouldn't extend to immigrants in their own country. I assume Le Pen is similar to the people in the English Defence League, essentially, "immigrants are destroying the country". Xenophobia is alive and well around the globe.

[Neo]

Xenophobic is an intriguing word, too. I'm not a xenophobe. When someone says "they are destroying our country" the day after "they" slaughtered 140 of them, I understand where their thought is born. I may counter argue that their "they" is too broadly defined, but I understand. That's intrigue number one.

 

Number two is the concept of country. What is France if not French? What obligation do transplants have to conform, if any?

 

I'm not offering answers. Instead, I'm giving insight into how I frame my internal debate.

 

I see what we call xenophobia on several levels and understand the underlying emotions beyond simply "bad".

 

If I believe in the concept of France, am I xenophobic for expecting fellow French citizens to have or adopt some common understanding? If you answer "no", what does France or being "French" mean? I'm not at the point where I can emphatically argue one way or the other. I am at the point where I know I can consider the options without fear.

Edited November 17, 2015 by N'eo

[JJFIVEOH]

We've spent well over a decade trying to assist these nations that are harboring terrorists in dealing with said terrorists all while protecting their own people. We've even spent billions building schools, neighborhoods, utilities........ It's not working. The only thing that has been accomplished is we're worse off because we've spent trillions of dollars over there while we get nickel and dimed to death over here. At this point we really need to withdraw our troops and leave them to fend for themselves. We've tried to train their own troops and police force and for the most part they've wanted no part of it.

 

We can be a peaceful nation, we need to tell these Middle Eastern countries that we're backing out. After that we need to tell them we'll stay over here and you stay over there. We're a peaceful nation but it's up to you whether we remain that way. If we leave these terrorist groups should subside. It's up to these nations to keep it that way if they want to protect their people. If they decide to ignore it and continue to attack our allies and possibly us again, then there should be swift repercussions. What is wrong with this strategy? Is this really about the morality of killing civilians?

[bcsaberks]

A few thoughts:

 

Referring to these terrorists as masterminds is a little wacky. All it really took was munitions and ill intent. 

I'm not going to call the kids who attacked the Columbine school masterminds either.

 

There was nothing relatively clever or innovated about  these things other than it is possible to do,

and they showed a rudimentary synchronization. 

It is not sophisticated. 

 

100%  And the media / gov't presenting it as such further erodes their credibility.  

 

I think former CIA Director, now CBS consultant, Michael Morell was the primary culprit.  Also Mattew Olsen, former direct of National Counterterrorism Center.  Media outlets don't challenge it, instead just regurgitate, doing extremely limited service to the people / journalism.  

[Doohickie]

My knee-jerk reaction is that, yes, someone who settles in France should become French, just as someone who settles in America should become American. 

 

But I also know that's not how it works.  Even people who abandon a country (especially a country experiencing what Syria is) can still long for the familiarity of their homeland.  For your own particular ethnic group, an ethnic festival can provide a welcome respite from an unfamiliar country.  On a more frequent basis, a place of worship can do the same thing.  And celebrating one's culture can be shared and provide an introduction between neighbors.  I come from Polish blood but I enjoy the Italian, German, Czech, Greek, Indian, etc., festivals too.

 

Also, from the point of view of the U.S., a continuous infusion of foreign intellectual capital (including cultural practices and knowledge) has shaped the country that we are today, and that hasn't stopped with the status quo.  Cultures continue to evolve.  Our language and government may be clearly developed from English sentiments, but our proud nature and inventiveness comes just as much from German culture as English.

 

France has a longer heritage of what it's like to be French, and from that viewpoint I can understand the desire to keep the culture pure, but that's just not how it works.  The U.S. was founded on a conglomeration of cultures.  The British absorbed various cultural traits from the Empire.  And France once ruled over a (largely Muslim) Algerian colony.  For a country that's supposed to be all about Liberty, they sure seem to like to squash other cultures.

 

Where did this come from?  Oh, right, xenophobia.  I wonder how much of it is truly "fear of other" versus not wanting to change?

[Claude_Verret]

 

We can be a peaceful nation, we need to tell these Middle Eastern countries that we're backing out. After that we need to tell them we'll stay over here and you stay over there. We're a peaceful nation but it's up to you whether we remain that way. If we leave these terrorist groups should subside. It's up to these nations to keep it that way if they want to protect their people. If they decide to ignore it and continue to attack our allies and possibly us again, then there should be swift repercussions. What is wrong with this strategy? Is this really about the morality of killing civilians?

 

Impossible because oil.

[Doohickie]

After that we need to tell them we'll stay over here and you stay over there.

Oh, I'm sure ISIS will be good with that, right?

 

We're a peaceful nation but it's up to you whether we remain that way. If we leave these terrorist groups should subside. It's up to these nations to keep it that way if they want to protect their people. If they decide to ignore it and continue to attack our allies and possibly us again, then there should be swift repercussions. What is wrong with this strategy? Is this really about the morality of killing civilians?

I think we've demonstrated time and time again that we're not a very peaceful nation.  And you just said you want to be peaceful and to stay out, but now you want to jump right back in with the "swift repercussions"?  Come on... which do you want?

 

The truth is that "swift repercussions" is exactly what ISIS wants.  They want to appear the victim of the big, bad West while the West alienates millions of Muslims, then get those Muslims to cleave onto ISIS's cause.  Terrorism is psychological warfare, and they're using it against us.... and we're too stupid to see it.  To attack them en masse is to play right into their hands.

 

And what Claude_Verret said.

[JJFIVEOH]

Oh, I'm sure ISIS will be good with that, right?

 

I think we've demonstrated time and time again that we're not a very peaceful nation.  And you just said you want to be peaceful and to stay out, but now you want to jump right back in with the "swift repercussions"?  Come on... which do you want?

 

The truth is that "swift repercussions" is exactly what ISIS wants.  They want to appear the victim of the big, bad West while the West alienates millions of Muslims, then get those Muslims to cleave onto ISIS's cause.  Terrorism is psychological warfare, and they're using it against us.... and we're too stupid to see it.  To attack them en masse is to play right into their hands.

 

And what Claude_Verret said.

 

It's part of the ultimatum. Yes I do want to stay out, I don't want to be over there, I don't want another dime spent over there, I don't want another American life lost over there. The "swift repercussions" happens if they decide they don't want to play nice. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone............. it's up to you whether or not we remain peaceful. Not sure how attacking them en masse plays into their hands. So far everything else we've done is playing right into their hands because nothing has been accomplished in the last 10-15 years.

 

I'm still not convinced this has any impact on oil. As of right now it's the only thing propping up their economy. They can only go so long before they need to sell again.

Point is, using this strategy, it can be easy and painless. It's up to them how it turns out.

[Doohickie]

They simply don't care about easy and painless.  They fervently believe it is their role in the world to bring on an apocalypse that will lead to a worldwide caliphate.  It has nothing to do with live and let live.

 

The problem in dealing with them is we project that they are just like us. They're not.  Their worldview has decidedly different underpinnings.

[MattPie]

Xenophobic is an intriguing word, too. I'm not a xenophobe. When someone says "they are destroying our country" the day after "they" slaughtered 140 of them, I understand where their thought is born. I may counter argue that their "they" is too broadly defined, but I understand. That's intrigue number one.

 

Number two is the concept of country. What is France if not French? What obligation do transplants have to conform, if any?

 

I'm not offering answers. Instead, I'm giving insight into how I frame my internal debate.

 

I see what we call xenophobia on several levels and understand the underlying emotions beyond simply "bad".

 

If I believe in the concept of France, am I xenophobic for expecting fellow French citizens to have or adopt some common understanding? If you answer "no", what does France or being "French" mean? I'm not at the point where I can emphatically argue one way or the other. I am at the point where I know I can consider the options without fear.

 

Another thoughtful post, thanks. I'm not sure where xenophobia starts in terms of "can I just not like someone?" vs. "I hate all those brown people". I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be expected to at least somewhat assimilate into he culture they live in. That doesn't mean they have to become completely immersed into that culture though. In the long run, though, the children of the immigrants will become at least somewhat integrated. Their children will probably be almost indistinguishable from everyone else (in terms of social norms).

 

It's part of the ultimatum. Yes I do want to stay out, I don't want to be over there, I don't want another dime spent over there, I don't want another American life lost over there. The "swift repercussions" happens if they decide they don't want to play nice. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone............. it's up to you whether or not we remain peaceful. Not sure how attacking them en masse plays into their hands. So far everything else we've done is playing right into their hands because nothing has been accomplished in the last 10-15 years.

 

I'm still not convinced this has any impact on oil. As of right now it's the only thing propping up their economy. They can only go so long before they need to sell again.

Point is, using this strategy, it can be easy and painless. It's up to them how it turns out.

 

Well, attacking them serves to radicalize not only people "over there", but also in other places. Including here. Jihadi John, for instance. It's the "circle of violence" that Israel is locked in, one side attacks the other, they strike back, side one gets mad at that and attacks again, and so on. Your plan essentially says, we're going to keep things the same (periodic attacks) forever. Now, that may be the only way this ends up, but if there are other avenues, shouldn't we be exploring them? You will probably argue that it's pointless to do anything other than attack because they won't stop. That may be true. Let's find out if there are other ways before settling in on that one. And it's not going to be a couple year process. A couple years is a blip on the 100s this has been going on.

[JJFIVEOH]

They simply don't care about easy and painless.  They fervently believe it is their role in the world to bring on an apocalypse that will lead to a worldwide caliphate.  It has nothing to do with live and let live.

 

The problem in dealing with them is we project that they are just like us. They're not.  Their worldview has decidedly different underpinnings.

 

I agree with you, but they wouldn't be able to say we didn't give them a choice.

 

And I wouldn't even consider it an ultimatum because we're not asking for anything in return.

Another thoughtful post, thanks. I'm not sure where xenophobia starts in terms of "can I just not like someone?" vs. "I hate all those brown people". I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be expected to at least somewhat assimilate into he culture they live in. That doesn't mean they have to become completely immersed into that culture though. In the long run, though, the children of the immigrants will become at least somewhat integrated. Their children will probably be almost indistinguishable from everyone else (in terms of social norms).

 

 

Well, attacking them serves to radicalize not only people "over there", but also in other places. Including here. Jihadi John, for instance. It's the "circle of violence" that Israel is locked in, one side attacks the other, they strike back, side one gets mad at that and attacks again, and so on. Your plan essentially says, we're going to keep things the same (periodic attacks) forever. Now, that may be the only way this ends up, but if there are other avenues, shouldn't we be exploring them? You will probably argue that it's pointless to do anything other than attack because they won't stop. That may be true. Let's find out if there are other ways before settling in on that one. And it's not going to be a couple year process. A couple years is a blip on the 100s this has been going on.

 

The avenue we're currently on isn't working. Another avenue is what has been proposed on here which is to rebuild their nations, instill Enlightenment and teach them about peaceful religion. That won't work either because it is totally impractical to expect us to foot the bill to rebuild nations for 200,000,000+ people in places where the framework doesn't even exist (and may not even work in the first place since we're already trying to do it on a small scale).

 

Aside from not providing them with weapons, I'm open to other avenues but there aren't many left.

[Doohickie]

I think it's time to go back to the strategy of the last century.  Once ISIS is taken care of, simply allow the countries to have a harsh dictator that deals consistently with the outside world.  As long as they don't look outward let them do whatever they want.  Seems to work with the Saudis.

 

This is only partly tongue in cheek.

[JJFIVEOH]

Good discussion, I gots to run.

[Neo]

I think it's time to go back to the strategy of the last century.  Once ISIS is taken care of, simply allow the countries to have a harsh dictator that deals consistently with the outside world.  As long as they don't look outward let them do whatever they want.  Seems to work with the Saudis.

 

This is only partly tongue in cheek.

One thing that the events of the past 35 years have done is lift the veil that covered the horror of dictatorship, no matter how convenient it may have been for the west. I understand the indigenous anger. That absolves no misbehavior, but it partially explains its birth.

 

I understood your partial tongue.

[Doohickie]

We know what works but is not humane to the citizens of the region.  We know what we've done to be humane to the citizens but it doesn't work.

[TrueBlueGED]

Glad her family is well, of course.

 

I'd never heard of Marine Le Pen until yesterday. NPR did an in depth view on France and its thoughts about possible direction. Le Pen didn't appear, but commentators mentioned her. She may find fertile ground in which to campaign. I am under informed, but I believe she represents a strong stance, at least domestically, with regard to viewing radical Islam as a threat and advocates policy in that regard. Interesting to me - France may be more nationalistic than I'd known. There are already laws with regard to clothing and symbols that go further than I understood. Several commentators used the word apartheid. Again, I am on thin ice with regard to expertise.

 

 

To others: I haven't formed a refugee conclusion, yet. I share all of the humanitarian, philanthropic and leadership arguments. My reserve, though, stems not from fear. I've read that word, here and elsewhere, on a number of occasions. I'm not afraid of refugees. I'm an assumption of risk guy. My reserve is steeped in pragmatism, state interests, and economics. Making donations is nice. Borrowing on a credit card to do so is not very smart.

That's the rub with basically every proposal in this thread, right? From military use, to foreign aid, to nation building, to a decades long commitment. How much are we willing to pay (both in dollar figure and in human, particularly military casualties, terms), for what tradeoff in safety and resources used on other things, to what ends, and for what probability of success.

 

Simplified: How much do we give for what we get, and with what range of potential outcomes? I think the mistake many make is assuming certainty where there is none.

 

I've stayed out of this thread because I have way more questions than answers, but this is the calculus I keep running through in my head. I think sticking our head in the sand and pretending nothing is wrong is a poor solution, but I think "win at all costs" is equally as bad.

 

At the extreme, is saving several thousand American civilians per decade worth tens of thousands of military lives and trillions of dollars? I'm not saying it would cost that much (I have no clue), but it's a thought experiment about tradeoffs. One I struggle with. On the one hand, no amount of deaths due to terrorism is acceptable, in the theoretical sense. But with a host of domestic issues we accept unacceptable outcomes because the means of correcting them is, for lack of a better way of putting it, more costly than we as a society are willing to endure. I think a similar debate and decision has to be made with terrorism writ large (yes, I'm deliberately broadening this out beyond ISIS). The problem, of course, is every avenue is so rife with uncertainty and incomplete information, that any decision we come to is going to be prone to a high degree of error. Let's face it, our history of trying to engineer positive geopolitical outcomes is spotty at best. I think we'd all be better if, regardless of ultimate action, we cooled the emotions and recognized the complexity and difficulty of solving these insanely complicated problems.

 

TLDR: On the continuum between extreme solutions there should be some optimal solution that properly balances investment and outcome, but it's almost inherently unknowable and even if we knew it, it may fail. Maybe, at the end of the day, all it really comes down to a lot of bad options and we have to choose the least bad, and hope things break our way. Or maybe we're all just tangential to this whole thing, and time and history will end up where it will. I don't know, and I am actively wrestling with all of this.

[darksabre]

That's the rub with basically every proposal in this thread, right? From military use, to foreign aid, to nation building, to a decades long commitment. How much are we willing to pay (both in dollar figure and in human, particularly military casualties, terms), for what tradeoff in safety and resources used on other things, to what ends, and for what probability of success.

 

Simplified: How much do we give for what we get, and with what range of potential outcomes? I think the mistake many make is assuming certainty where there is none.

 

I've stayed out of this thread because I have way more questions than answers, but this is the calculus I keep running through in my head. I think sticking our head in the sand and pretending nothing is wrong is a poor solution, but I think "win at all costs" is equally as bad.

 

At the extreme, is saving several thousand American civilians per decade worth tens of thousands of military lives and trillions of dollars? I'm not saying it would cost that much (I have no clue), but it's a thought experiment about tradeoffs. One I struggle with. On the one hand, no amount of deaths due to terrorism is acceptable, in the theoretical sense. But with a host of domestic issues we accept unacceptable outcomes because the means of correcting them is, for lack of a better way of putting it, more costly than we as a society are willing to endure. I think a similar debate and decision has to be made with terrorism writ large (yes, I'm deliberately broadening this out beyond ISIS). The problem, of course, is every avenue is so rife with uncertainty and incomplete information, that any decision we come to is going to be prone to a high degree of error. Let's face it, our history of trying to engineer positive geopolitical outcomes is spotty at best. I think we'd all be better if, regardless of ultimate action, we cooled the emotions and recognized the complexity and difficulty of solving these insanely complicated problems.

 

TLDR: On the continuum between extreme solutions there should be some optimal solution that properly balances investment and outcome, but it's almost inherently unknowable and even if we knew it, it may fail. Maybe, at the end of the day, all it really comes down to a lot of bad options and we have to choose the least bad, and hope things break our way. Or maybe we're all just tangential to this whole thing, and time and history will end up where it will. I don't know, and I am actively wrestling with all of this.

I'm right where you are. I swing back and forth from isolationist to world police advocate regularly, sometimes in the same day. I have no idea what the right answer is. But I think we need our leaders to be more pragmatic and frank about how we as a nation involve ourselves in this stuff. I think the American people would be able to live with certain costs. But we have to know what those costs might be, and then agree to them. 

Edited November 17, 2015 by d4rksabre

[Neo]

Some great posting.

 

Optimization Methods

Let f(x) be a given real-valued function on Rp. The general optimization problem is to find an xεRp at which f(x) attain a maximum or a minimum. It is of great interest to statisticians because both maximum likelihood estimation and estimation by least-squares method are special optimization problems. The function f is called the objective function. Since a maximum of f(x) is a minimum of −f(x), discussion can be restricted to function minimization only . In the following discussion it will be assumed that f is twice differentiable and has continuous derivatives with respect to each of the x’s over its range.

If the function f is differentiable at its minimum value with continuous derivatives, then

its gradient vector

f′(x) = ∂f , ∂f ,···, ∂f T ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂xp

(sometimes denoted by ∇f(x) in the optimization literature) has a zero at this minimum value. Hence, solving the minimization problem is equivalent to solving the nonlinear system of equations f′(x) = 0. Therefore, methods available for the solution of nonlinear systems of equations become a special class of optimization methods.

However, those methods may not solve the minimization problem for several reasons. One of these is that, although at a stationery point of f the gradient function f′(x) vanishes, a necessary condition for the solution to f′(x) = 0 to be a minimum is that the Hessian matrix H = f′′(x) (sometimes denoted by ∇2f(x)), where

f′′(x) = ∂2f ∂xi∂xj p×p

be positive definite when evaluated at that solution.

 

I'm only an undergrad. I have to cut and paste. Attribution: Iowa State University, Stats 580, Optimization Models.

[Doohickie]

That's the rub with basically every proposal in this thread, right? From military use, to foreign aid, to nation building, to a decades long commitment. How much are we willing to pay (both in dollar figure and in human, particularly military casualties, terms), for what tradeoff in safety and resources used on other things, to what ends, and for what probability of success.

Also, there is the trust one has in the solution.  Even if Obama convened a closed panel with top senators and congressmen from each party and they came up with a clear consensus, would the American public be able to support it?  I think the answer is no; they don't want effective solutions, they want immediate gratification.  Even if all major politicians in the country approved a course of action, the country would never stay the course and see it through.

 

Simplified: How much do we give for what we get, and with what range of potential outcomes?

 

But there's also blood lust, the desire for a quick solution, the mixing of the presidential race with national security.  You're boiling this down to a dispassionate cost effectiveness analysis but in the media age everyone wants to have their say, to disagree, to prove the leadership wrong. 

[Weave]

I think it's time to go back to the strategy of the last century.  Once ISIS is taken care of, simply allow the countries to have a harsh dictator that deals consistently with the outside world.  As long as they don't look outward let them do whatever they want.  Seems to work with the Saudis.

 

This is only partly tongue in cheek.

 

We keep wanting to push what we value as a nation onto them.  Those men joining ISIS because they want stability?  They are OK with a dictator as long as they get the stability they crave.  They don't want democracy. If we are speaking specifically of those drawn to ISIS, voting is against their beliefs.

[Doohickie]

I'm right where you are. I swing back and forth from isolationist to world police advocate regularly, sometimes in the same day. I have no idea what the right answer is. But I think we need our leaders to be more pragmatic and frank about how we as a nation involve ourselves in this stuff. I think the American people would be able to live with certain costs. But we have to know what those costs might be, and then agree to them. 

 

Unfortunately that's not how diplomacy/international relations works.  In fact, you can't let it work like that because if you let your motivations, goals and tactics be known, adversaries will take advantage of that information.

[TrueBlueGED]

We keep wanting to push what we value as a nation onto them. Those men joining ISIS because they want stability? They are OK with a dictator as long as they get the stability they crave. They don't want democracy. If we are speaking specifically of those drawn to ISIS, voting is against their beliefs.

There's also the non-trivial possibility that a democratically elected leader would be worse for US interests than a dictator.