fear and coercion
Laura asks
If the terrorists cannot win, then can you explain the environment and the terms of their success? Or is their success merely psychological, "fear and coercion"? Or is there a specific reaction they hope to produce through their fear and coersion? Your example of the Doolittle Raid showed the use of Psychological methods as a catalyst for a specific reaction. Is there a specific response or is the goal an erosion of the country?
Now--keeping in mind that I do not believe that they are this smart or sophisticate--which does not mean that they might not stumble into victory--but an intelligent and strategically minded foe, who did not have the military might to attack the US directly, would seek to unbalance us. This can be achieved by luring us into focusing to much of our effort on protection rather than progression---and it is a difficult thing to mentally accept, but simply put--the nation is better served by investment in the future vice protection of the present.
Laura "Speaking of "apocolyptic events" you say "During the First Continental Congress there was a smallpox plague in Philadelphia—in a crowded city with nothing resembling the health care that we enjoy today the death toll ran into the "hundreds."" What percentage of the population did this represent at the time?" Somewhere just under 2% I believe
laura "The fundamental argument of this book is that since terrorists are inconsequential in real terms and operationally inept, they should not receive the level of attention or funding that they currently enjoy." Is there a viable external threat to the US at this time? What/who is this threat? Should we fight this threat, how?" I believe that the biggest threats to the United States are currently internal---our nearest external rival is China, but in fact they are more of an economic threat than a military one. I believe that we should fight the internal threat--but frankly believe that we no longer have the capability to do so.
Laura "Although you have repeatedly said the terrorists are inept, you have also described a mode of action that would undermine the US that dovetails with the current climate. Sow discord with other nations, form allies, instill fear. Can you explain why the very setup you describe is not a threat to us...or is it?" It is a very real threat but again, it is not because the terrorists are smart or capable, but because we refuse to prioritize the challenges facing our future and act accordingly. So instead of strategically thinking about what we actually need to start doing to have the 2025 that we want, we are conducting a series of disconnected tactical actions.
Laura "To whom do you believe the task of preparing a national strategic plan should be given? You pointed out the short terms of politicians and the foibles of partisanship. Should the entire US citizenship vote for the acceptance of the plan?" Me!-----I do not know----at this time I do not believe it is possible. That, I suppose, was my hope for FTC--that much like "Common Sense" it would slap America and get enough people to say "I want to live courageously and I want a leader(s) who will help me do that."
Laura "And finally (for now anyway), what role do you believe the media has played concerning terrorism and divisiveness in the US?" I think it has more to do with the speed of communication vice the media---the instantaneousness of communication is a double edge sword---a term I generally hate. It cause, for some reason, a propensity to hear the fringe and outliers first. So in FTC, I discuss that we should not deal with the extremes--instead we should focus on the majority and have the majority in mind while conducting our strategic planning. But we don't--similarly, we are fixated on the extremes in the media--instead of really focusing on the majority concerns. Don't believe--two words "Paris Hilton"
If the terrorists cannot win, then can you explain the environment and the terms of their success? Or is their success merely psychological, "fear and coercion"? Or is there a specific reaction they hope to produce through their fear and coersion? Your example of the Doolittle Raid showed the use of Psychological methods as a catalyst for a specific reaction. Is there a specific response or is the goal an erosion of the country?
Now--keeping in mind that I do not believe that they are this smart or sophisticate--which does not mean that they might not stumble into victory--but an intelligent and strategically minded foe, who did not have the military might to attack the US directly, would seek to unbalance us. This can be achieved by luring us into focusing to much of our effort on protection rather than progression---and it is a difficult thing to mentally accept, but simply put--the nation is better served by investment in the future vice protection of the present.
Laura "Speaking of "apocolyptic events" you say "During the First Continental Congress there was a smallpox plague in Philadelphia—in a crowded city with nothing resembling the health care that we enjoy today the death toll ran into the "hundreds."" What percentage of the population did this represent at the time?" Somewhere just under 2% I believe
laura "The fundamental argument of this book is that since terrorists are inconsequential in real terms and operationally inept, they should not receive the level of attention or funding that they currently enjoy." Is there a viable external threat to the US at this time? What/who is this threat? Should we fight this threat, how?" I believe that the biggest threats to the United States are currently internal---our nearest external rival is China, but in fact they are more of an economic threat than a military one. I believe that we should fight the internal threat--but frankly believe that we no longer have the capability to do so.
Laura "Although you have repeatedly said the terrorists are inept, you have also described a mode of action that would undermine the US that dovetails with the current climate. Sow discord with other nations, form allies, instill fear. Can you explain why the very setup you describe is not a threat to us...or is it?" It is a very real threat but again, it is not because the terrorists are smart or capable, but because we refuse to prioritize the challenges facing our future and act accordingly. So instead of strategically thinking about what we actually need to start doing to have the 2025 that we want, we are conducting a series of disconnected tactical actions.
Laura "To whom do you believe the task of preparing a national strategic plan should be given? You pointed out the short terms of politicians and the foibles of partisanship. Should the entire US citizenship vote for the acceptance of the plan?" Me!-----I do not know----at this time I do not believe it is possible. That, I suppose, was my hope for FTC--that much like "Common Sense" it would slap America and get enough people to say "I want to live courageously and I want a leader(s) who will help me do that."
Laura "And finally (for now anyway), what role do you believe the media has played concerning terrorism and divisiveness in the US?" I think it has more to do with the speed of communication vice the media---the instantaneousness of communication is a double edge sword---a term I generally hate. It cause, for some reason, a propensity to hear the fringe and outliers first. So in FTC, I discuss that we should not deal with the extremes--instead we should focus on the majority and have the majority in mind while conducting our strategic planning. But we don't--similarly, we are fixated on the extremes in the media--instead of really focusing on the majority concerns. Don't believe--two words "Paris Hilton"
posted by Tom at 10:47 AM
5 Comments:
You're doing the right thing...getting your message out there, getting people to give your analysis some thought. I think it takes time to process what you are saying, and yes it takes courage too :) Because what we have been thinking since 9/11 is why worry about 2025 when we might not be alive because of terrorists attacks. We bought into the apocalyptic terror attack. And you are absolutely spot on when you bring up that currently there are no popular national leaders saying that terrorist are inept, but you know many a good campaign started at the grass roots level. And although you might have been the only one thinking and saying this in 2003 there are a few voices that are starting to chime in and say on a superficial level what your manuscript says in-depth. Perhaps they read your manuscript :) Mayor Bloomberg in Rolling Stones magazine last fall said lifestyle choices ( smoking, etc.) was a greater threat then terrorism to a person's well being. And in the August 2007 issue of Oprah magazine there is an article titled "Seven Things You Can Stop Worrying About Right Now!" and question seven is a terrorism question. The terror expert who answers yhe question concurs with your example that a US Citizen has a much, much, much greater chance of being injured and killed in a car accident , or even being murdered by a friend or relative, then our chance of getting killed by a terrorist.
So it's not like we are risk adverse, we get in our cars and hang with our friends and relatives every day. It's just that we don't say when we get into our cars to drive to the store..." Hey, I might not make it home." We don't dwell on it, I often wonder why motor vehicle fatalities get so little attention in the media and in politics on all levels. I recently heard that motor vehicles deaths were down last year...yet,over 42,000 people died in motor vehicle accidents in the United States That is a staggering figure!! And, we give it so very little attention. So, while you may have been the first to say we need to put terrorism into respective, and that "" terrorists are inconsequential in real terms and operationally inept, they should not receive the level of attention or funding that they currently enjoy."
You are no longer alone in your message that we are giving terrorism way too much emphasis... 2008 is an election year, there is still time to make this an issue!
Tom - I believe that we should fight the inernal threat - but frankly believe that we no longer have the capability to do so. What is that threat?(If the answer to that question is really obvious I'm claiming the fact that I'm not American as my excuse).
Lisa a - you are a far nicer person than me, you are crediting society with a far less selfish view than I do. With regard to not being concerned when driving a motor vehicle, I think part of it is because we feel a level of control when driving and understand the potential issues. Terrorists we don't generally understand, especially suicide bombers, so we have a greater reaction.
Land or life?
It seems to me that one of the greatest divides between the 1st and 3rd world is what we hold valuable. What still puzzles me if why one would choose to kill a man rather than take his land: would the hatred endure longer if land was taken? Not in North America, thinking of the Middle East, perhaps. As you have said, "land stands as a constant and enduring reminder to everyone of the unjust taking--particularly to the ancestors of the rightful owner." And in Part II, you wrote "The death of innocents is second only to the theft of land in the breeding of hate and fortitude."
America is such a "young country": are we capable of using of using an historical compass, to understand the type of hate and fortitude that extends over centuries?
On page 90 you say: The annual remembrance of 9/11 means something entirely different to us than to our enemy--to us it is a time to reflect and honor--to the enemy an anniversary of a great victory. This part of the discussion began: identify United States reactions that can feed the terrorist cause. It did not say that the enemy could not receive any benefit from our reactions. That would be at least implausible if not impossible. [ ] However, it is essential to consider our actions/reactions from her perspective and how it can be used to benefit him. This leads to conscious decisions regarding those potential positive affects.
What do you suggest? Your implication is that what we do now is perhaps not the best approach. This one passage stuck with me and I've really thought about how best to honour the men and women who died on 9/11. Memorial Day doesn't work, nor does Remembrance Day. What I decided is that if I could "choose" how I spent 9/11 going forward, I would deliberately do something that strengthens our democracy, our system of law, if that doesn't sound too Pollyanna. I decided to be part of a jury summons on this upcoming 9/11. More than anything, just thinking a little more critically about some of the changes in our lives since 9/11 ~ sorry to flog a dead horse, but airport security: if one was really to think it was overkill, to say the least, maybe 9/11 would be a good day to send an email to a congressman. I truly hope 9/11 devolves into more of a personal memorial for the families and their friends rather than the way it is treated now.
But I'm really interested in your thoughts. I hate to think of a day of memorials and speeches is being used as a pass-the-hat recruiting/fund raising video by our enemies.
Tom you wrote ”The fundamental argument of this book is that since terrorists are inconsequential in real terms and operationally inept, they should not receive the level of attention or funding that they currently enjoy. So bin Laden (I know the audio has been verified not sure about the video part) released his own video tape and his news coverage surpasses that of some of the most powerful leaders of the world ! The video was released in the middle of the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC) meeting in Sydney where President Bush has met with President Hu Jintao of China, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia John, President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, President Arroyo of Manilla, etc. President Bush has also met informally with all 21 leaders of APEC. Yet, our media led not with what was discussed by China's President Hu Jintao and President Bush but with the Bin Laden tape. Granted the afore mentioned leaders did not release a tape of their conversations but still the 9:00 PM cable news shows commenced with 15 minutes on Osama bin Laden and the release of his tape. Larry King assembled a panel of “experts” on bin Laden, one of which noted bin Laden has said that 90% of this war will be fought in the media! In contrast I didn't see any panels of China “experts” discussing what transpired, or was discussed at the APEC meeting. Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind how much more powerful China is then Bin Laden? We know the majority of our TV news shows focus on the sensational and not substance but I can see how the terrorists use this to their advantage.
Also I read the beginning of Bin Laden's transcript, this part stood out for me, bin Laden says...
“to preface, I say: despite America being the greatest economic power and possessing the most powerful and up-to –date- military arsenal as well; and despite it spending on this war and is army more than the entire world spends on it’s armies; and despite it being the major state influencing the policies of the world, as if it has a monopoly on the unjust right of veto; despite all of this , 19 you men were able- by the grace of Allah , the Most High –to change the direction of it’s compass, and in fact , the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader, and the effects and signs of that are not hidden.
Since the 11th, many of America’s policies have come under the influence of the Mujahideen…”.
When I read that part I was immediately reminded of the advice you offered in one of your YouTube videos., and how accurate your advice was! Tom, you said... “ Terrorism is an effects based operation, they simply can't defeat us militarily they are trying to effect the way we use our force, our political willpower” and “You are enabling them to continue meeting their organizational immperatives, And ”They still have to recruit and fund their organization and in order to do those two things they need to be able to show successes… those recruiters can go back to their money people and say look, when you bomb the Cole and the US Navy never goes into Yemen again those guys are sitting there going look if we would have had 2 more guys , two more of your sons we could have gotten them entirely out the region .. you have to stop at every turn feeding them those successes “ … In FOR THE COURAGE OF THE FOUNDERS you talk about our relationship with the terrorist. You wrote “ An interesting question is would the attacks of 9/11 have occurred if we had developed a different relationship with terrorists ? What if the attacks on U. S. interests increased the presence of those interests? “ What if there was a casino on the pier in Yemen?” I laughed out loud at the thought of a casino on the pier in Yemen ... it was one of my favorites :) What an EXCELLENT question and a persuasive point!!
I know I read Osama bin Laden's transcript differently as a result of having read FOR THE COURAGE OF THE FOUNDERS and hearing your advice on your YouTube video. I had a different insight..thanks Tom! Any thoughts on the bin laden tape other then we are giving it too much attention ?
Post a Comment
<< Home