Another smackdown of USA Today’s Baghdad Bureau Chief;
The folks who have screamed the loudest about the biased and negative media coverage of the Iraq War are by and large people like myself, servicemembers who have spent their time in the dustbowl of Iraq and know firsthand what an exceptionally poor job the media has done covering our actions. How poor do those who have been to Iraq perceive the coverage? Well, speaking for myself, there have been many times I have wondered if the reporters in Iraq were on the payroll of the insurgency.
[…]
Considering that it is those who have been there in uniform spreading the word of the negative media coverage, I also take great exception to you talking about the ‘Chairborne Rangers advancing the vast “negative media” conspiracy from the safety and comfort of their parents’ basements’. Chairborne Rangers is a term used by those in the military, and since you are not there laying your ass on the line fighting it out every day, I don’t think you have any business using that term. I know, I know, you’re at risk, you’re in Iraq, so you are laying your ass on the line, but really, what do you do? You go to a briefing everyday in the Green Zone. You ignore all the good news and report on the negative. You spread the message for the terrorists better than they can. You want to use military terms and be one of the cool kids? Put on 100 pounds of gear and go chase terrorists through the streets and down alleyways. Be the first one through the door chasing a terrorist into a house.
Via Instapundit, where Glenn also points to this WaPo item;
The researchers counted direct references to terrorism between 1998 and 2005 in the New York Times and Neue Zuercher Zeitung, a respected Swiss newspaper. They also collected data on terrorist attacks around the world during that period. Using a statistical procedure called the Granger Causality Test, they attempted to determine whether more coverage directly led to more attacks.
The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage — a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.
That helps to illustrate why it is not unfair to accuse some in the western media of being “on the other side”. What has been obvious to so many uniformed soldiers reporting directly from the field must be known to those who make the decisions about what’s fit to print. Yet, they continue to be willing manipulants.
To quote Reynolds – “Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military operation. The press plays a symbiotic role, and isn’t willing to address that.”
David Warren corroborates;
So much of the credit for [Zarqawi’s] murderous successes, and those of other terrorists like him, must be given to the mainstream media — both East and West. Journalists assiduously advance the terrorist cause, by reporting almost exclusively on allied setbacks and mistakes, and by their ceaseless improvisation of destructive criticism against “Bush” and other Western leaders and allies. Heroic, and largely successful reconstruction efforts in Iraq have been ignored; instead we have an endless spool of meticulously-reported terror hits. The Western media attention to, and celebration of, such unstable characters as Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg, make their alliances obvious. The New York Times has been the bellwether for this. Almost every news item touching Iraq is spun to maximize its demoralizing effect on the allied war effort. And across America itself, editors look to the Times nightly front-page line-up for clues on how to slant their own coverage.
Many thanks for the excellent post. You are exactly right. We are living in a modern world, a world that is informationally networked, a world that operates via an integrated information network that ignores spatial and temporal restrictions.
This war against terrorism isn’t a war about resources, it isn’t a war about territory. It’s a war about political authority. Which political mode will rule in the Middle East, and creep its way through Europe and America? Will it be a regressive, fundamentalist closed society, or will it be an open society, a democratic and progressive mode?
Since it is about political authority, then, it is a war, not simply of physical might, but of intellectual might. Which political mode is best suited for the future centuries? Obviously, I will choose the open society, the democratic mode. But, the regressive fascist mode of tribalism, which is based around emotions rather than reason, and based around a mythic notion of Purity of Origin, is emotionally seductive to many people. Only when it is too late, do people seduced by the songs of Purity, realize that they are trapped in its repressive tyranny.
The MSM is a basic component of this information network. If they select images and events to promote constant scenarios of emotional hyperbole, if they refuse to acknowledge the reality of progress and focus only on the difficulties, then they are obviously seduced by the romanticism of tribal Original Purity and ignore its tyranny.
If they are ‘stuck on stupid’ and think only in a pre-WWII manner, then they are ignoring the current reality of our world as a complex global network. They focus on the irrelevant and invalid reasons for the war(resources, territory)and refuse to consider the effects of a network taken over by a dysfunctional system. Their refusal, assists the terrorists.
This goes way beyond the MSM all the way to the news consumer.
We are a society that likes to ingest bad news. A 12 car pile up that kills 20 people is big headlines.
It’s difficult to blame the MSM, they’re providing a product that we crave…murder, catastrophe, explosions, fires and dramatic death just to name a few.
The happiness of a rebuilding nation does not sell papers let alone advertising revenue that gets print published.
Want change, start at home by craving news that relates to the happiness of others.
“and isn’t willing to address that”
And never will. Even when it is revealed that terrorist planned to blow up the blow-hards–er–journalists in their own lair–er–building.
I again strongly reccomend reading Fjordman’s essay on the unholy alliance between Leftist PC, Totalitarian Fascism, Marxism, Islam and all the other cults of death:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html
David, I think you’re right on the money there. ET, as uncomfortable as it is, the truth is that if two piles of newpapers are sitting at a stand, one showing the aftermath of a great explosion, with death and guts all over the place (excuse the coarse description – I’m in a bit of a hurry here) and another with a shot of a new housing development in Afghanistan, I’d be willing to bet way more money than I’ll ever have which of the two stacks will sell first. I do not beleive that the MSM is seduced by the romanticism of tribal Original Purity.
grasshopper – we are talking about two different types of news reporting.
The ‘crisis’ report, about the accident, the hurricane, the whatever – will always be given prime space. That’s natural, because it is referring to a ‘break in the normal mode of events’. We accept the normal mode of life, as normal. We don’t question it. So, when something happens to disrupt this normal pace – of course it’s news.
I’m talking about the focus of the reports on the war on terrorism. The war is not dealing with a ‘normal set of events, a normal mode of life’. It’s dealing with something far more serious, namely, a conflict between two ‘normative modes’ – an open society vs a closed society.
Should reporting about this battle only be similar to the above, ie. the ‘crisis report’ and ignore that the war is taking place within a deeper situation, a battle between normative modes?
If you report only the crises, and ignore the real situation (the battle of normative modes of life) then, people will ‘lift’ those crisis situations, examine them against ‘the normative mode’ of their own current at-home reality. They will ignore that these situations are not to be measured against ‘our home town’s way of life’ but against a battle between normative modes.
People will be angry about ‘all this fuss and bother’. People will accept a certain amount of crisis situations, but, after a while, they become angry at the causes, angry that there are ‘always crises’ in ‘our home town’.
So, reporting only crisis situations and ignoring the deeper reasons of the war, means that people will erroneously measure those crises against their home town life – and be upset with the war.
Certainly,in WWII, for example, people knew WHY the war was being fought. They didn’t compare D-Day with their hometown mode of life.
But now, since our reporters don’t discuss the real reasons, and instead, provide us with false reasons (resources, territory) and crises accounts – people are angry at the war.
Is it news when things are unfolding as they should be or as expected? No.
Does your partner tell you about the ordinary things that happen during the day or the extraordinary things? It is the human condition to be more interested in the anomaly than the ordinary.
The only difference between today and earlier times is that there are more ways than ever to plug in to the world and its events. I am sure that I have never seen a president get more coverage than this one. The cable news channels cover virtually every speech he gives. The media is being used by government more than ever and media with unlimited time to fill is more than happy to oblige.
As for coverage causing attacks. I think it is that attacks occur and coverage follows. If more attacks occur then more coverage will occur.
I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. The military went to war and the press is covering it. They are a little gun shy, but then they are journalists. This war has no line behind which the journalist can sit in relative safety and observe. The enemy is all around and can strike from anywhere. That environment is no place for an unarmed observer.
one…two…1,000 journalists! over 4 1/2 years… no freedom for the press?
MSM has now reported that the US military has blocked media access to Guantanamo.
Report also says that more than 1,000 journalists have visited there over the 4 1/2 years since the prison began to receive Muslim Islamist terrorists.
The usual suspects, liars, rights, and etc., are crying foul.
Keep the media out. They are stooges of the Taliban and the other Muslim Islamist terrorists. …-
freerepublic
Actually I would be more interested in reading about new housing developments etc. I like a good explosion as much as the next guy, but good news stories (Iraqis that are thankful for their freedom, rebuilt infrastructure, captured terrorists etc) are the anomaly and the explosions are the norm as reported by the media. Although these stories are not an accurate reflection of all that is really happening over there.
And lets be honest here…most students that go into journalism (or any of the fine arts/humanities) have a definite left wing bent and every story they print about soldiers getting killed is a sort of validation that they are correct in their belief that we should just “give peace a chance”.
johnboy
I have heard journalists say that they hear complaints about them not writing good news stories but they say its too dangerous to go out looking for them. When peace finally comes, as it must, then we will start getting some of these stories.
I think a lot of young journalists are idealistic. The war in Iraq is just too contrived and has had a bad smell about it from the beginning. The difference between what civilian leaders have said and the reality have been starkly divergent. To a young idealist, off to uncover evil, keeps being turned back to question his own leaders, and doesn’t get very good answers when he does.
I want to buy Jeff Schnieder a BEER!
johnboy; I’m with you. I don’t buy the line that the MM is just trying to present controversial of disaster stories. They are consistently “aiding and abetting” the enemy (hope I spelled that right)by always reporting our side in the conflict,in a derogitory light. Bush and Blair are always wrong and suspect and the military are never winning and never portraied as heroes.
It’s a major misteak to inplant Press in with soldiers unless the Brass has firm control of their stories and know who they are. Vietnam proved you can win the war in the battlefield but loose it at home. If we loose this one at home we will eventually bring the fight home.
steve d.: “I have heard journalists say that they hear complaints about them not writing good news stories but they say its too dangerous to go out looking for them. When peace finally comes, as it must, then we will start getting some of these stories.”
Funny, I’ve never heard any such complaints from reporters covering stories from the front lines of World War II. Heck, even that Kent fella managed to still look slick as SCUDs exploded a mere few miles behind him in the first Gulf War.
I would submit that (generally) journalists over there today are a bunch of milquetoast, limp-wristed, self-absorbed pansies whose idea of sacrifice for their craft is drinking the coffee made available at the four-star hotel they stay at instead of the Starbucks double-tall non-fat mocha latte to which they feel entitled.
As to the rest of your comment, the fact that they cannot distiguish between a misguided American administration and a group of Islamic Jihadists who believe that anyone who doesn’t believe what they do should die…well, that speaks more to their lack of character than their ‘idealism’.
I, too, would buy any newspaper with “good news” stories on the cover over all the “if it bleeds, it leads” stories in a heartbeat! I think many people are getting really sick of all bad news all the time since everyone knows that good things happen too but we never hear about them! How many of us look forward to the “success” stories at the end of the news for instance? I firmly believe that the first newspaper to change it’s “slant” would probably make a fortune (hey, maybe I should start a “Good news” paper!!). Just look at Oprah Winfrey, she changed her format from all the “crap” stories to things like Oprah’s Book Club, Angel Network, Dreams Come True etc.. and she’s never looked back! Just a thought….
Reluctant Ninja
Doesn’t it make you pause when you notice such a difference in the reporting?
You are correct there is a difference.
It is because there was a clear difference between our guys and their guys. Everyone wore uniforms. They were over there and we were over here. There was a certain security in knowing you were on one side and they were on the other.
In this war there is no front line. The enemy is in front one minute, then behind you the next, then both behind and in front. Then just as suddenly there is no enemy, only civilians. Then just as suddenly there is an IED or a mortar or both. The battlefield is everywhere and nowhere. It is unnerving if you have all the latest training and armaments. If you have no training and only a bulletproof vest and helmet then it is suicide. This is particularly true if you are a journalist. The enemy knows that if they kill you they will have a story with legs. If you kill a GI it gets a cursory notice on a news show. If you kill a journalist the story goes on for days, weeks or months.
Steve, please tell me you’re not suggesting that the current war is more dangerous than WWII. I don’t care if you know where the enemy is or not, or what the enemy looks like or not, there’s no way that walking the streets in Iraq or going out with a platoon of soldiers is any more dangerous than coming ashore during D-Day, covering the Battle of the Bulge, or hell, being anywhere in the vicinity of an artillery barrage, a Panzer tank battalion, or in the way of a trained German infantry Regiment. And yet there were still plenty of war correspondents on the front lines with the troops. Yet, I was in Iraq and Afghanistan for over 2 years combined, and I very rarely saw any reporters outside of the largest base camps in either place.
If you stop dropping crumbs on the floor and instead clean the place up, we won’t have a cockroach problem.
I for one am sick of the pests. Same old, same old.
Many thanks on these links Kate, great reading tonight.
combat jump start
I just don’t think people are different.
I think the war is though.
Hitler had a huge and efficient military machine with the production capacity of some of the largest corporations at his disposal.He was a great salesman with a great propagandist and he delivered for ten years, so his people went with him.
These terrorists have an idea with no machinery behind it. The idea doesn’t even have legs. The whole world agreed that Hitler had to be dealt with but most people think the present policy of America is making it worse.
Doug
Here’s a tip for you. Obviously you can’t figure this out for yourself. If you don’t like reading opposing opinions, if you just want back slapping agreement then don’t read my comment.
But,if you have a compulsive need to berate and belittle, I will try to understand.
And that completely avoids the point that journalists in this war are in no way, shape, or form in more danger than journalists in WWII. Perhaps you can say that journalists in WWII weren’t targetted specifically, while some today may be(if they ever ventured outside the wire, but anyway). But I’ve been there, and I’m sorry, as a soldier or journalist, I’d much rather WONDER if an IED or RPG might explode today, than KNOW that a few hundred artillery rounds will.
Kate
I’ve not read any of the other comments because I want to get my two cents in first. This is a point I’ve been making for the past two years.
They (the American MSM, the Democratic Party, BBC, CBC, The Toronto Star, NDP, LPC, 1/2 of The Globe & Mail, Old Europe and all of the know- nothing leftoids everywhere, with the exception of Hitchens and a handful of others ) ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THEY would rather see America lose than Iraqis be liberated at the impetus of an American Christian conservative. The idea that this guy (McChimp Bushitler) may be instrumental in helping Iraqis to establish democracy and the Rule of Law in Iraq is literally driving them crazy. Hence the proliferation of that most amusing psychological malady: Bush Derangement Syndrome
They are so politically correct, pacifist- clueless that they lie about “broad stratas” and “no common denominator”. While the heroes in Iraq risk their lives to save ours these morons don’t have the decency , common sense or intelligence to STFU and let them do the job. The WOT requires nothing of them but nothing is apparently too much to ask.
And so when we search for root causes as to why Muslims born in North Amererica were worked into such a frenzy that they wanted to attack innocents in their own countries let it be known who taught them that the liberation of 50 million Muslims was so grotesque and evil that it required nothing less than jihads to vent their righteous wrath and even the score.
As THEY refuse to acknowledge and as the captured documents in Zarqawi’s safe house reveal: Iraq is clearly a QUAGMIRE- for al Qaeda. May it also be a quagmire for the anti-liberation LEFT.
combat jump star
Well then, why would we have more dead journalists in this war than WW2?
Who do you mean by “we” steve?
The only Canadian murdered since 9/11 that I can think of is Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, who was tortured and murdered by her jailers in Iran for taking pictures inside Iran.
TEHRAN – Heshmatollah Tabarzadi will never forget Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi screaming in a nearby cell…
“They (the American MSM, the Democratic Party, BBC, CBC, The Toronto Star, NDP, LPC, 1/2 of The Globe & Mail, Old Europe and all of the know- nothing leftoids everywhere, with the exception of Hitchens and a handful of others ) ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE.”
Posted by: Terry Gain
Unfortunately, this is the typical thinking of most conservatives: everything is black and white; if you’re not for us, you’re against us, etc. What a load of crap. Give some examples of the MSM cheering for the terrorists. No sane person supports suicide bombings or any other kind of terrorist activity.
Bush’s middle east adventure got plenty of positive coverage for the first couple of years. However, when no WMDs were found; when Osama wasn’t caught; when”Mission Accomplished” became a big joke, that’s when the questioning of the war began in earnest. Only a hypocrite would say that “this war is all about freedom” then try and stifle the freedom of people who question that statement.
Well steve, I can’t seem to find the actual numbers anywhere, but I’d be willing to wager that, what with this war being covered more than any other war in history, it may have something to do with the possiblity that there have been a hell of alot more reporters in Iraq? I’d be interested to see how many were killed in each war as a percentage of the whole. I’d again be willing to bet it’s far lower here than in WWII.
Steve d must have a mouse in his pocket when he uses “we”. I’d also like to know how he knows more journalists were killed now than WW2? I mean besides the fact that every media reporter there has a camera man, sound man and producer. WW2 reporters either took pictures, dragged a typewriter around or both. A lot less overhead. but where are the stats?
“Since 2003, 71 journalists have been killed in Iraq, more than the 63 killed in Vietnam, 17 killed in Korea — and now the 69 killed in World War II, according to Freedom Forum.”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002577061
Thanks Iberia
Combat jump star
Additionally here is a quote from the may 28th article at editor and publisher;
The Iraq numbers do not include the 26 members of media support staff who have also died, as counted by the Committee to Protect Journalists.
“It is absolutely striking,” Ann Cooper, the executive director of the CPJ, said on Monday.
“We talk to veteran war correspondents who have covered everything going back to Vietnam and through Bosnia. Even those who have seen a number of different wars say they have never seen something like this conflict,” Cooper told The New York Times.
In addition to those killed, at least 42 journalists have been kidnapped, according to Reporters Without Borders.
“Bush’s middle east adventure got plenty of positive coverage for the first couple of years.”
Iberia,
Not so. Some of THEM, but not all, were all for the war until the first coalition casualty was sustained. You give yourself away as a partisan when you describe it as “Bush’s middle east adventure”. Why do you pretend Congress didn’t authorize the war?
The opposition has ignored the progress throughout and magnified every set back.
As for the significance no WMD was found it was hardly surprising Saddam used the time the U.S. went to the U.N. to hide, ship out or even destroy whatever stockpiles he had. The fact that he retained the ability to restart his programs as soon as the world turned its back on him is ignored. As is the fact al Qaeda has decided Iraq is where it will take its stand. (Not that the WOT will end there. But al Qaeda has been decimated and its reputation among Muslims dealt a severe blow. Deliberately killing innocent people to prevent a democracy from being formed hasn’t helped its reputation among its potential constituency -which THEY have also ignored)
No one supporting the mission or even half way objective would have described what was for the most part fraternity-like hazing as torture.
David Warren has it exactly right in the post above.
As it becomes clear to all that the war is being won the task for THEM will be to expalin how it “suddenly” got turned around.
BTW the reason journalists have been targeted is to encourage further negative coverage. The insurgents understand the propaganda value of these killings.
Here’s a simple equation showing biased coverage in Iraq:
1) Are there positive stories in Iraq? Schools opening, neighborhoods that are thriving? Undoubtedly.
2) Can you recall seeing any (let alone a balanced amount against the endless bad news) in the news?
No doubt there are difficulties in Iraq. But the “Iraq is a failure” meme is a complete concoction of Bush’s domestic enemies and their abettors in the liberal media.
Short Steve-d explanation of MSM ‘propaganda’ efforts which largely serve to further terrorist goals and destroy morale on the home front.
– We can’t really do our jobs correctly because it is so dangerous. Therefore we just focus on the obvious without any background details. After all there is only so much we can learn from poolside at the Green Zone Hotels. Explosions and killings allow us to fill up space for our bosses. It’s not OUR fault.-
So I guess this means that they should get a pass for becoming a de-facto arm of the ENEMY information War.
Not likely, Steve. Clueless, cowardly, or controlled. Their output is still disgraceful, and they are objectively giving aid and comfort to an insidious and ruthless anti-human ideology.
Frankly at this point I really don’t care how dangerous this conflict is for them or that 71 have been killed . Either report the news FAIRLY so that IMPORTANT decisions can be made HERE with accurate information, or simply confess you can’t and SHUT UP. When you choose sides by the slant of your coverage, you lose the right to claim to be merely doing your job.
Iberia – I think it’s the left perspective that is black and white. For the left, you are either against the US, Bush, the war – or else you are a ‘neo-con, a Bush-lover, a..whatever term that can be defined as perjorative’.
No discussion is allowed. And certainly, no different opinions are allowed.
How condescending to refer to the Iraq war as ‘Bush’s middle east adventure’. It isn’t simply by Bush; remember, not only Congress approved it, but, there’s a coalition of nations involved. The fact that Canada isn’t, is due to Chretien’s lack of principles and his involvement with Chirac’s oil deals with Hussein.
And, you utterly ignore that now, Iraq is free of a dictator, has elected its own government, written its own constitution. Such events are, I presume, trivial to the left.
The conservative perspective is that the world, due to its massive population and extreme variations of regional resources, is moving into what can be understood as a ‘networked world’, a world whose economy and social modes of behaviour are networked, capable of interaction, and adaptation. A system that is adaptive isn’t ‘black and white’. It is, however, completely democratic. You can’t have some regions that wish to participate in this global world, that are politically tribal and repressive.
With regard to the journalists killed in Iraq, what’s your point? The number killed is correlated to the numbers of journalists actually sent into the field, in comparison to the far fewer MSM of the WWII era, and, to the fact that this is a guerrilla rather than ‘platoon’ war. But, what’s your point? What does the number of journalists killed reveal about the war?
With regard to steve d’s statement of numbers of journalists kidnapped – what does that reveal, other than that raising money by kidnapping has become a lucrative source of funds for the terrorists?
ET – Could you be specific about what you mean by “…wish to participate in this global world…”?
ET:
I agree that both left and right are getting more extreme in their views, but to say that no discussion is allowed on the left is being wilfully blind: There is even an Iraq war supporter running for the Liberal leadership. On the other hand, look at all the “if you’re not for the war, you support terrorism/you are a traitor” comments on SMD; look at Ann Coulter’s comments about fragging John Murtha.
“How condescending to refer to the Iraq war as ‘Bush’s middle east adventure’. It isn’t simply by Bush; remember, not only Congress approved it, but, there’s a coalition of nations involved. The fact that Canada isn’t, is due to Chretien’s lack of principles and his involvement with Chirac’s oil deals with Hussein.”
Of course it isn’t simply Bush…I was being sarcastic by being simplistic. It’s just a comment , not a legal document. Your simplistic comment about Canada’s lack of participation in the war demonstrate that you don’t hold yourself to the same high standard that you expect from other commentators.
BTW, I had no comment on the number of journalists killed. I just provided a link.
I would venture the guess that the sheer volume of reporters over in Iraq is greater than in WW2 or any other war. A mere 20 years ago there were only 3 american networks. Now with cable, bloggers such as Michael Yon, independents, Al Jazeera and so on 100 times as many journalists? Not to mention being targeted specifically by the terrorists.
When is the last time you heard reports about Iraqis returning to Iraq since the war? Over 1.2 million refugees returned. Not refugees from the invasion but driven out by Saddams wars, ethnic cleansing, Saddams brutality etc. Things must be pretty bad for all those people to return….
enough
Steve,
As severaL others pointed out(and as I already pointed out, but you completely ignored), the number of journalists killed in Iraq vs WWII is a useless number without putting it in context. I have no doubt there have been hundreds, if not thousands. more journalists that have gone through Iraq than reported during WWII. If I’m the head of all the media in the world, and I send 64 journalists to one country, and they all get killed, and I send 5,000 journalists to another country, and 67 of them get killed, which area is more dangerous? To think that just because more people were killed it’s more dangerous is ridiculous and specious.
And unfortunately, this completely lets the media off the hook. They can sit in the Green zone and whine about how dangerous it is. They have a built in excuse now for using stringers and not checking their sources or facts. “Well, more reporters have died here than WWII! I can’t leave the wire”(imagine that in a really nasally, whiny voice, it makes it alot funnier)
iberia – because one Liberal contender supports the war in Iraq, doesn’t mean that the left has opened its ideology to dissent or questions.
I didn’t say that the ‘right’ is getting extreme in its views, so, your agreement is fallacious. I said that the left is locked into a mindset that rejects dissent. Period.
I don’t agree that my comment about Chretien’s refusal to participate in the Iraq War was due, not to any principles (he has none) but was due to his ties with Chirac – who was tied to Hussein – is simplistic. It’s simple fact. That’s different.
grasshopper – my comment about participation in the global world refers to the fact that, economically and informationally, the populations of the world are networked. Spatial and temporal walls are almost non-existent.
Plus, with the global population so large, the globe moves into what is termed a ‘complex adaptive system or network’. This means that it must be able to carry out ‘RAIS’ actions, or ‘rapid innovative anticipatory strategies’. Societies must be able to not merely plan ahead, but, be aware that the future will not be the same as the past (as it is in peasant agrarian tribal societies). This means that the modern society must plan for non-normal futures. Think of the problem with FEMA and its inability to respond rapidly in New Orleans. Think of the Ice Storm in Ontario-Quebec, where large numbers of people were without electricity for months. Think of the Canadian DART team, which is supposed to be rapid 48 hour response and took over two weeks to get off the ground.
To support a 6 billion to 9 billion global population, no nation or area is self-sufficient. That means that resources are extracted from various sites, shipped to other sites for manufacture, shipped to other sites for consumption.
No area of the globe is self-sufficient or able to, in isolation, support its population, nor is it able to generate and use new knowledge and innovative technologies and so on. When we are dealing with, for instance, disease, we must do so on a global data base (eg avian flu) and a global scientific response; when we are dealing with innovative research, it’s done on a global data base and a global response.
This means that all people on the globe, must be able to participate in these global processes of supporting a 6 billion population, reducing disease, developing new technologies and etc. This requirement means that people must be able to network, to collaborate, to work together.
If you have a large (not small) section of the global population that rejects science, rejects technology, rejects innovation – which all require freedom of thought and analysis – then, how is that population going to be maintained? This is the status is the Islamic world, which is tribal in belief and behaviour and rejects change and innovation. How can they support their populations, except by living off the innovative productions of the West? (At the moment, oil purchases these products). But, if they ‘move in’ to the West, and stifle innovation, then – the global world capacity for a continuous adaptive and anticipatory mode of behaviour, would collapse.
ET – I see what you’re getting at, but I’m asking what you mean by “wish” to participate…. Do you mean with respect to trade, for example? Is it possible to “wish not to participate”? I’m not trying to be difficult here – I’m only trying to get a sense of your presuppositions in the discussion. I wonder if your perceived contextual framework is different from mine.
grasshopper – sure it’s possible to ‘wish’ not to participate in the global network, but I don’t think that any large population nation has the luxury of non-participation.
The first basic reality is: population base. If it has increased beyond the carrying capacity of your local resources then you have to network. In my view, there is essentially no nation that can be self-sufficient in this modern era.
The second basic reality is geography. The earth’s ecological nature is not identical all over the world; you have, for instance, western Europe with the greatest percentage of arable land in the planet, plus, the benefits of water-without-work, i.e., mild rainfall, and a moderate temperature. Other parts of the globe have almost no arable land (eg Saudi Arabia), problems with water of too much or too little, with temperature, with thin, poor soil, with lack of domesticated plants etc.
All of these realities also require networking.
The global population has only increased in the last 150 years because industrial technology has enabled a massive increase in resource extraction (better crops, shipping), in energy resources (machine rather than animal or human labour). You can’t go back in time; you have to maintain that massive global population, so, this requires economic networking to deal with the diversity of ‘biomes’ or geographic areas of the world.
And, if you have to economic network, then this means you have to politically and socially collaborate and work together.
The only population that could opt out of this global network would be small (only in the few thousands), almost completely isolated in an area where they could be self-sufficient, no growth in population, and with a land base that would not be taken over by the larger populations. There’s almost no such area in our globe anymore. Fifty years ago, there were a few, in Africa, in the North. That’s gone.
So, in my view, there’s no possibility of opting out of global networking. And, along with the network requirement, there’s also a requirement to ‘do things faster’. That goes with the larger population, which moves a system into being ‘complex’ rather than ‘simple’. This means that the global world must be able to anticipate or ‘hypothetically model’ the future, and plan rapid reactive tactics.
The reason for this, is because of the networking. Information and ‘things’ such as bacteria, plant seeds, etc, etc all travel farther and faster than two, three hundred years ago. A germ in China two hundred years ago would have remained isolated there; now, one plane trip and it’s here in N. America. So, as a system increases its ‘content’, it requires a more sophisticated (complex) method of dealing with a greater variety of external ‘attacks’ and input.
Earlier, you had said (which originally saw me wander into this) “you can’t have some regions that wish to participate in this global world, that are politically tribal and repressive.” (9:39am). If no large population has the luxury of non-participation, then no large population can be politically tribal and repressive. Does this mean that in your view, no large population can follow Islam? I’m not clear on whether you would equate the two.
Yes, I actually mean that no large population can follow Islam, as it is now. It has to be, like Christianity and Judaism, reformed and changed to fit into a modern industrial economic and political mode. As it is now, it is dysfunctional within an industrial society.
The thing about Islam, as you read the Koran, is that it is actually a sociopolitical system of beliefs and behaviour, rather than a religion. I define a religion as referring to metaphysical forces. Its sociopolitical system, however, is firmly tribal, operating within a peasant agriculture. By tribal, I mean that economic and social interactions are defined by kinship links rather than contractual – as in a civic society. And, the problem is that since it self-defines itself as a religion, it has put its axioms beyond dissent and change.
Islam focuses on the group and denigrates the individual. That was the basic perspective in human history, and serves to stabilize a population and prevent ‘deviants’. But, if a society requires adaptive changes, a group-ideology prevents change. You have to privilege the individual, if you are going to enable change and progress.
My view of the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is that it has arisen as a result of the ‘tension’, the conflict, within a society which has increased its population base far beyond the limits of a peasant agricultural organization, beyond the limits of a society organized within tribes, beyond an economy focused around kin groups.
With that population base, it ought to have moved into a civic society, where citizenship is defined by contract rather than blood. That would empower all citizens in the economic, political and social activities of the society. It would focus on the individual rather than the group and would enable free thought.
Instead, the ME retained its sociopolitical mode, as outlined within Islam – and disempowered the majority of its population. The ‘head tribe’ retained power by moving into a military dictatorship and, asserting that the religion ordained such disempowerment of the population.
A lot of Muslims left for Europe, but, even though they found work there (not available in the ME) they didn’t change and mature their religion.
This conflict of tribalism, the insistence on group cohesion and obedience meant also that the citizens were ordered, by their religious leaders who are part of the Head Tribe, to be ‘True to Origin’. A society that rejects change, and focuses on defining its beliefs and behaviour only as copies of whatever was the way In Its Origin, sets up a notion of ‘Purity’. You have to do everything The Original Way’..or..you denigrate the society. That’s extremist Islam.
Islam, as a tribal ideology, functional only in a peasant no-change, no-growth economy, is disastrous for an industrial life-style. Industrialism requires a civic mode of behaviour, where interactions are by contract and work, not by kin ties. Industrialism requires rapid innovations, change, deviations from the norm. All of this is forbidden in a tribal no-change society.
You can see that, scientifically, Islam has produced nothing in the industrial period. No science, no Nobels, no patents. In Japan, there are 1,000 universities and colleges. In ALL of the Muslim nations, only 430. In all 57 states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, only 500 PHDs in the natural sciences per year.
In 1996, Egypt- produced only 3 patents.
At the moment, the Islamic world is purchasing the results of industrial technology. It is not, itself, researching or developing any. They are going to have to change Islam, to permit themselves as a people, to move out of a mindset that is operational only in the 10th century.
This is their big ‘river to cross’. The West has to refuse, absolutely refuse, to accomodate tribalism. It has to refuse to support a tribal ideology, for that means that it will invent, innovate – and the ME will purchase those innovations. BUT – what happens when the oil runs out? What will the ME use to purchase the goods it cannot invent and make? Opium? Kidnappings? Wars?
And, the West cannot, itself, accomodate tribalism. It cannot move into ‘political correctness’ where it rejects questions, dissent, free speech – which are all the basis of science and progress.
Found in safe house: apparently left behind when the owner departed in a hurry.
It’s either great news or great propaganda. In either case it’s interesting reading.
Translation of Al Zarqawi document
http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10047347.html
ET, a great BIG thank you for your clear-headed, knowledgeable analyses time and time again. I believe you hit the nail on the head every time.
Have you ever considered writing a column for some publication? I’ll bet you have–you’d be great!–but no (well, almost no) “self-respecting” Canadian publication would allow your true diversity of thought and opinion to see the light of day. (Your non PC intelligence would obviously be a strike against you.)
My forebears were in this country–from Ireland–in 1799. (They’re in the history books, re responsible government.) They left Ireland because of atrophied ways which led to the oppression of whole groups of people, which is why my ancestors fought so hard–politically–to enshrine the rights of the individual. In 2006 Canada, we seem to have come full circle: Ironically, the oppressed now seem to be the progeny of those who bought the freedoms with which certain minorities now beat us over the head.
Whoops! How dare I say such a thing? I’m now supposed to say I didn’t mean it.
But I do.
And, ET, you make it perfectly clear why Canadians had better wake up and stop being duped.
P.S. Could your ME thesis explain why the Liberals are imploding? Figuratively–and actually, re their machinations–aren’t they a perfect example of a corrupt, closed system based on tribalism and kinship?
ET, I want to agree with lookout.
I’ve learned an enormous amount from you over the years, especially in reference to Canada, its politics and its socioeconomic system.
Something that I want to mention to you that you might find amusing is that I have re-worked a couple of your arguments on occasion and placed them into an American context. I have then advanced this argument to my Congressman, my Senators, the Speaker of the House, and the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate.
So it might amuse you to know that some of your arguments have occasionally floated around Washington DC, and so you have an influence in American politics.
When you said “By tribal, I mean that economic and social interactions are defined by kinship links rather than contractual – as in a civic society,” it struck me that this comes very close to defining the relationship of Canada’s Liberal Party. And I don’t entirely mean this as a joke, particularly when one realizes that this is very much the way the mafia can be appreciated sociologically.
ET writes:
“I didn’t say that the ‘right’ is getting extreme in its views, so, your agreement is fallacious. I said that the left is locked into a mindset that rejects dissent. Period.
“I don’t agree that my comment about Chretien’s refusal to participate in the Iraq War was due, not to any principles (he has none) but was due to his ties with Chirac – who was tied to Hussein – is simplistic. It’s simple fact. That’s different.”
Thanks ET, for taking the bait and personally demonstrating how conservatives see things as extremely black and white.
Cheers.
Some recommended reading to get us back to the WOT from ET’s excursion into anthropolgy:
http://web0.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html
Iberia – so, dealing with facts is akin to a ‘black and white’ perspective? You need to study some science, sir, where, if you refuse to deal with facts, clearly understanding a fact as ‘this and not-that’, you’re in big trouble. If you prefer to live in a fuzzy world where YOU describe the fact according to your wishes (hmm, I guess this is an apple and not a grenade)… rather than objectively acknowledging the fact – that’s your life.
agitfact. I suggest you stop sneering at analysis of social structures using the variables of ecological reality, population base, and sociopolitical structures – and think.
Your link is empty. By that I mean that an article that refers to ‘100 experts’ is without validity, unless it provided the names and background of those ‘experts’ (according to whose definition?)
Note the answers – and 100 is not a scientific base. But note the answers.
There are 47% who were worried that nuclear weapons/WMD were the ‘single greatest threat to US national security’. Hmm. But, only 4% worried about Iran. Doesn’t make sense.
Then, 32% worried about AlQaeda/terrorism, but only 9% worried about the ME and Iraq. Hmm. Doesn’t make sense.
Only 3% worried about oil dependency.
So- that ‘survey’, of only 100 ‘unnamed so-called experts’ has no scientific validity. Because 100 people SAY that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is not going well, isn’t a reliable index of whether or not the war IS going well. Those are OPINIONS, not facts. I’m not interested in opinions; they belong in the coffee shops and bars.
For a reliable index, you have to go to the FACTS (I know you don’t like facts and prefer fuzziness) – which is, what is actually going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just what is reported in the MSM. This means the gov’t, the control by the gov’t, the economy, the education and so on.
Then, you must go to the facts of those actually involved in the war, who tell a very different story to the MSM thrill-seekers.
Then, to the fact that there has been no attack against the US since 9/11.
And don’t be naive. You have to analyze sociopolitical organization carefully – according to its ‘energy base’. That means, the land base, the resource base, the population base. Think of a society as a complex living entity. If it’s a low energy system – with a land base supporting only a small population, then, the organization of that small population is simple, ‘without hierarchies’ and no change.
If it’s a massive population – then, you have to organize that ‘energy base’ in a more complex fashion.
And, facts matter. How much food is available? How much water is available? etc, tec.
Cheers
ET:
I have no problem in dealing with facts. However, you seem to be willingly ignoring the fact that politics is not science, and therefore not black and white: for example, we can both agree that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius because that is a fact. We do not agree on politics because you (and indeed all people) filter “the facts” with personal opinions. Your opinion is not a fact just because you say it is.
ET,
thank you for introducing intellectual rigour to the blogosphere. Imagine a conservative blogger with your track record demanding evidence!
Just a couple of comments about your problems with the “100 experts.” If you have heard of small sample theory, 100 is not a bad population. You have no criticism there, Professor. As to the experts not being identified by name, “Foreign Policy” seems content to go with that constraint and take its lumps in peer review. You tell them that they don’t know what they are doing, and that their results are without merit. And I suggest in future that you hector all opinion surveys in which the participants are not identified by name, rank and serial number (including any launched by the side congenial to you.
I will take facts over propaganda any day, ET, so give me facts, give me the premises and not just purpose-driven conclusions. When you go into population growth and energy base, for instance, you might explain why the world’s greatest populations are in China, the Indian subcontinent and South America, those forefronts of industrialization and capitalism. But I have no interest in discussing anthropology and economics with you, since I admit to having no expertise in those fields, and I assume that a professor of anthropology would know what she is talking about – if she were not merely acting as a conservative propagandist.
I do not find it strange that people working in foreign affairs assess threats quite differently from lay bloggers. That only 4% of “experts” worry about Iran and 9% about Iraq might be a lot closer to a realistic threat assessment than playing up a threat for extraneous purposes, such as political support.
Evidence! Just look at the excerpt from David Warren’s column that Kate says “corroborates” the original post. That sample of Warren’s adjectival drivel corroborates only partisanship and intellectual dishonesty. Just look at the distribution of laudatory and derogatory adjectives.
After all that, I look forward to posts from you that preserve the courtesy that would be insisted upon in high school debates, and that are reasoned and convincing enough to be accepted by any professors I have experienced.
Cheers to you too, ET.
Our society is a violent one: among the most violent on earth. Individually, we need to cure and purge our own hearts from any violence in them. Each and every one of us has the responsibility of stopping our own violence and encouraging our children, friends and family members to do the same. Only then can we point at our leaders and demand that they stop their violence in our names. Or, even better, we can elect leaders who are advocating for a Ministry of Peace to be a much needed check and balance on the War Department. Gandhi said that all humanity has a “heart unity.” Our hearts are connected to everyone in this planet and when we allow our leaders to kill innocent people, it is like we are damaging or killing our own hearts like a smoker who can’t quit even though he/she knows what the poison is doing to his/her heart.