Anand Bhatt wrote (my comments infra):
> One, that explains a lot of American assertions, I always wonder as to
> how they could just keep ignoring their humiliations all over
> the world
> -- haven't they bled power for the last couple of decades or more?
>
> Two, no wonder everybody is into digging knives into American
> stuff, and
> it is not just the 9/11 events ("humans biting the dog's
> ears") I refer to.
The whole point behind terrorism is an attempt by the unimportant to gain
sufficient immediacy in the perspective frame of powerful decision-makers to
influence their behavior (terrorism, like teenage rebelliousness, is at
heart a desperate bid for attention and nothing more). This is why
terrorist acts are so often brutal, symbolic, and attempted on as large a
scale as possible as close to the interests of the powerful as possible.
The events of 9/11 are a classic example of this. The United States is a
major target of terrorism because we are very powerful and our attention is
difficult to get and keep (we have many and various interests, and tend to
ignore things which do not involve those interests). It has nothing to do
with the things we do in our own interests, but rather everything to do with
what others would ~like~ us to do in ~their~ interests, because we could if
we chose to (that being a large part of power).
Now, the ultimate problem with such acts of terrorism is that they fail to
the extent they succeed. The astonishing success of the 9/11 attack was of
such immediacy that the attention of a very powerful actor was suddenly
shifted en masse onto the threat posed by the perpetrators. The end result
has been almost uniformly disastrous to their goals and purposes, as this
actor now uses an anvil to smash a fly. That's part of the danger of
provoking a superpower. The provocation might actually ~work~, at which
point the terrorists' goals are ultimately undone.
Now, Bin Laden and company wanted this to occur to a certain extent. In any
asymmetric conflict, the goal of the weaker combatant is to provoke the more
powerful combatant into taking actions which dissipate its strength.
However, such provocations are only rarely successful in achieving this
result. Most powerful actors got to be powerful because they are smart
enough to avoid falling into the trap of letting minor actors provoke them
into wasting their strength tilting at windmills. In all the calculations
made by terrorists attacking the United States, the one consistent thread
is: for their plans to succeed, the United States has to act in a
consistently stupid manner. We have not done this in the past, and are not
likely to do this in the future. The only strategy that would succeed
against the United States (or ANY powerful actor, for that matter) is to
assume that we will be SMART and EFFECTIVE when we act, and plan
accordingly.
Humiliation is a matter of perspective (as is insult). Insults occur at the
target, not the source. So too shame and humiliation originate with the
person experiencing the emotions, not externally. What the rest of the
world may perceive as an American humiliation is perceived here as nothing
of the sort: either as inconsequential or as something to be ~proud~ of in
some instances. If you want to measure American humiliation, you can only
do so from the ~American~ perspective. Similarly, if I were to try and
measure Indian humiliation, I would only be able to do so from an Indian
perspective. The reason so few of our enemies succeed in humiliating us (or
even in getting our attention) is that they do not make any attempt to see
things from our perspective. They just get a bee in their bonnet about
something and try and get us to swing our weight in their direction through
a confrontational stance. As I believe I've mentioned before in this forum,
the rest of the world just plain does not understand the American
perspective on things (nor do they appear to be interested in discovering
what that perspective might be). That puts them at a decided disadvantage
when dealing with us.
My (substantial) time living outside the USA has only confirmed this for me
on a personal level by way of firsthand experience. For the rest of the
world, the only United States they pay attention to or try to understand is
Hollywood and CNN. Let me tell you: these things have little or nothing to
do with what makes us tick. They are fluff and noise. The reality of the
United States is very, very different from the illusions and stereotypes
imposed upon us by outsiders. If anything, the openness of our society
succeeds far better than Soviet-style stonewalling in masquerading our true
thought processes, desires and goals. The glut of information blends truth
and lies, and camouflages the important as the trivial. Everyone thinks
they know us, but few if any actually do. It's rather a brilliant piece of
misdirection when you think about it--hidden in plain sight.
This discussion is timely in that we have just passed Martin Luther King,
Jr. Day here in the United States. MLK was an individual who achieved a
stunning victory for an oppressed segment of our society in the face of
monumental opposition because he ~understood~ the people he was trying to
move to action and framed his own actions to that perspective. So too,
Mohandas Ghandi ~understood~ and ~empathized~ with his opponent (the
British, who are culturally so similar and so different from us at the same
time), and then took action framed in that perspective to achieve what he
wanted to achieve.
Conflict is a form of communication. Most terrorists speak a language only
they understand and respect--brutality--and make no effort whatsoever to
understand and empathize with their opponents. So they will ultimately
fail. On the one hand, brutality has no place in the interests and
discourse of any civilized nation and acts of brutality will be met with
overwhelming resistance and reprisals by the powerful. On the other hand,
uncivilized nations have no qualms about responding in kind, but in
infinitely greater magnitude and ferocity.
> Wish I had the time to get into a discussion over this,
> especially your
> concepts of value -- I will certainly refer it to the [non-American]
> people around me, they will find it of some use. Thanks ~g, most
> insightful, a picture of the thinking that fast drives your country to
> the status of the world's first post-powerful nation!
The relationship between events, importance, immediacy and values is
universal to human nature. It's as true for Americans as it is for Indians
as it is for Japanese. If American power is on the wane, it is not as a
function of these relationships themselves, but as a result of some more
systemic problem (again, these problems exist, but few if any Americans--let
alone outsiders--actually know what they might be).
~g
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.317 / Virus Database: 176 - Release Date: 1/21/2002
> One, that explains a lot of American assertions, I always wonder as to
> how they could just keep ignoring their humiliations all over
> the world
> -- haven't they bled power for the last couple of decades or more?
>
> Two, no wonder everybody is into digging knives into American
> stuff, and
> it is not just the 9/11 events ("humans biting the dog's
> ears") I refer to.
The whole point behind terrorism is an attempt by the unimportant to gain
sufficient immediacy in the perspective frame of powerful decision-makers to
influence their behavior (terrorism, like teenage rebelliousness, is at
heart a desperate bid for attention and nothing more). This is why
terrorist acts are so often brutal, symbolic, and attempted on as large a
scale as possible as close to the interests of the powerful as possible.
The events of 9/11 are a classic example of this. The United States is a
major target of terrorism because we are very powerful and our attention is
difficult to get and keep (we have many and various interests, and tend to
ignore things which do not involve those interests). It has nothing to do
with the things we do in our own interests, but rather everything to do with
what others would ~like~ us to do in ~their~ interests, because we could if
we chose to (that being a large part of power).
Now, the ultimate problem with such acts of terrorism is that they fail to
the extent they succeed. The astonishing success of the 9/11 attack was of
such immediacy that the attention of a very powerful actor was suddenly
shifted en masse onto the threat posed by the perpetrators. The end result
has been almost uniformly disastrous to their goals and purposes, as this
actor now uses an anvil to smash a fly. That's part of the danger of
provoking a superpower. The provocation might actually ~work~, at which
point the terrorists' goals are ultimately undone.
Now, Bin Laden and company wanted this to occur to a certain extent. In any
asymmetric conflict, the goal of the weaker combatant is to provoke the more
powerful combatant into taking actions which dissipate its strength.
However, such provocations are only rarely successful in achieving this
result. Most powerful actors got to be powerful because they are smart
enough to avoid falling into the trap of letting minor actors provoke them
into wasting their strength tilting at windmills. In all the calculations
made by terrorists attacking the United States, the one consistent thread
is: for their plans to succeed, the United States has to act in a
consistently stupid manner. We have not done this in the past, and are not
likely to do this in the future. The only strategy that would succeed
against the United States (or ANY powerful actor, for that matter) is to
assume that we will be SMART and EFFECTIVE when we act, and plan
accordingly.
Humiliation is a matter of perspective (as is insult). Insults occur at the
target, not the source. So too shame and humiliation originate with the
person experiencing the emotions, not externally. What the rest of the
world may perceive as an American humiliation is perceived here as nothing
of the sort: either as inconsequential or as something to be ~proud~ of in
some instances. If you want to measure American humiliation, you can only
do so from the ~American~ perspective. Similarly, if I were to try and
measure Indian humiliation, I would only be able to do so from an Indian
perspective. The reason so few of our enemies succeed in humiliating us (or
even in getting our attention) is that they do not make any attempt to see
things from our perspective. They just get a bee in their bonnet about
something and try and get us to swing our weight in their direction through
a confrontational stance. As I believe I've mentioned before in this forum,
the rest of the world just plain does not understand the American
perspective on things (nor do they appear to be interested in discovering
what that perspective might be). That puts them at a decided disadvantage
when dealing with us.
My (substantial) time living outside the USA has only confirmed this for me
on a personal level by way of firsthand experience. For the rest of the
world, the only United States they pay attention to or try to understand is
Hollywood and CNN. Let me tell you: these things have little or nothing to
do with what makes us tick. They are fluff and noise. The reality of the
United States is very, very different from the illusions and stereotypes
imposed upon us by outsiders. If anything, the openness of our society
succeeds far better than Soviet-style stonewalling in masquerading our true
thought processes, desires and goals. The glut of information blends truth
and lies, and camouflages the important as the trivial. Everyone thinks
they know us, but few if any actually do. It's rather a brilliant piece of
misdirection when you think about it--hidden in plain sight.
This discussion is timely in that we have just passed Martin Luther King,
Jr. Day here in the United States. MLK was an individual who achieved a
stunning victory for an oppressed segment of our society in the face of
monumental opposition because he ~understood~ the people he was trying to
move to action and framed his own actions to that perspective. So too,
Mohandas Ghandi ~understood~ and ~empathized~ with his opponent (the
British, who are culturally so similar and so different from us at the same
time), and then took action framed in that perspective to achieve what he
wanted to achieve.
Conflict is a form of communication. Most terrorists speak a language only
they understand and respect--brutality--and make no effort whatsoever to
understand and empathize with their opponents. So they will ultimately
fail. On the one hand, brutality has no place in the interests and
discourse of any civilized nation and acts of brutality will be met with
overwhelming resistance and reprisals by the powerful. On the other hand,
uncivilized nations have no qualms about responding in kind, but in
infinitely greater magnitude and ferocity.
> Wish I had the time to get into a discussion over this,
> especially your
> concepts of value -- I will certainly refer it to the [non-American]
> people around me, they will find it of some use. Thanks ~g, most
> insightful, a picture of the thinking that fast drives your country to
> the status of the world's first post-powerful nation!
The relationship between events, importance, immediacy and values is
universal to human nature. It's as true for Americans as it is for Indians
as it is for Japanese. If American power is on the wane, it is not as a
function of these relationships themselves, but as a result of some more
systemic problem (again, these problems exist, but few if any Americans--let
alone outsiders--actually know what they might be).
~g
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.317 / Virus Database: 176 - Release Date: 1/21/2002