Gunslinger's Dilemma

I'm behind in my podcasts. I operate this way on purpose. Not sure if that's rational, but my rationalization for it is this: news of the day is charged with a sense of immediacy that interferes with understanding the content. The really big events are reported on for weeks. Blips on the chart might occupy an entire news cast, but not be remembered past three or even two days.

(Photo: Stephen King's Gunslinger Series)

Anyway, I uncovered one from the BBC newscast that I thought was interesting. I've linked to the article it was based on. Basically, some UK researchers wanted to examine whether or not a gunslinger from the old American west would be more likely to survive if he drew first, or if he drew second. The article pointed out two important concepts: 1) Securing the moral highground, that is: shooting second becomes an act of self-defense, and 2) the logical imperative of a preemptive strike, meaning: logically you'd think you're more likely to survive if you shoot first..

What the study, though completely idiotic, was sort of interesting to me because I thought it could help undermine theories of preemptive war. The study proved the following:

In a series of "laboratory gunfights" - with pistols replaced by electronic pressure pads - researchers found that participants who reacted to their
opponent's movement were on average 21 milliseconds faster to the draw.

If the reaction is faster than the action, why act at all?

As many young men, I grew enamored of the philosophies of Machiavelli and the German Chancellor Otto von Bismark. So moved was I, by these warlike ideas, that I saved two quotes to my quote book:

No government, if it regards war as inevitable even if it does not want it, would be so foolish as to leave to the enemy the choice of time and occasion and to wait for the moment which is most convenient for the enemy--Bismark

Men must be either pampered or annihilated. They avenge light offenses; they cannot avenge severe ones; hence, the harm one does to a man must be such as to obviate any fear of revenge.--Machiavelli

Well, I was young then, and not the biggest boy in the playground. I was eager to prove my manhood, and infatuated by G.I. Joe and action films. I was a child. I began to reject these ideas as a teenager, but even until recently, I held privately, that these ideas must be true. I was a pacifist, but--were there a need, it would make more sense to strike first, and strike hard. it is hard to escape this logic, particularly in personal encounters. The few fights I've had would seem to encourage this thinking. Most people, or most men I should say, are all talk. All bluster and bravado. Therefore a good drubbing would end the need for further conflict. Maybe.

However, personal encounters aside, I think that this rational for preemptive war is repugnant. And though this study in no way discusses, nor purports to support any policy rationale, I'm going to draw one anyway.

It might be, that were the United States to fire off it's entire arsenal of nuclear weapons at a potential aggressor they would "obviate any fear of revenge." However, such a treatment, even by war mongers is so unlikely as to be sheer grandiose, pompous, nonsense. Far more likely, we would engage in wars like Iraq. Which, while the preemptive strike did eliminate the Saddam Regime, might well end up permanently losing for the United States, the war on terror. As we have permanently ceded the moral highground, there can be no victory--short of genocide--which is most definitely NOT a victory. Furthermore, the aggressor was not, in fact, Saddam, or Iraq, but a worldwide terrorist agency.

Which is to say, preemptive war is not sound policy, but sheer idiocy. I think a good example of the reaction speed of retaliatory attacks would be the American build up and entry into World War II. Despite moves by FDR to motivate the U.S. entry into the war--the country wasn't sold, and may well never have been had the Japanese not attacked us at Pearl Harbor. The reaction speed of the U.S. to the attack is consigned to history.

Another more thorny example would be the Cold War. There you had a terrifying arms race, and side battles fought in extraneous nations, but no preemptive direct attack by either nation. And when that armsrace bankrupted the U.S.S.R, it collapsed, averting war altogether. That would be another argument against preemptive war.

Interestingly, as someone who has played a variety of war games over the years--Heroes of Might and Magic, Age of Empires, and StarCraft*. Preemptive war was always the way to win. However--and this is an important point to note: War Gamers are an interesting breed. The real players, not dabblers like myself, would spend hours timing the collection of resources, the build times for war factories, and the best number and type of units for use in a preemptive attack. Naturally, they did the same for defense. Amateurs like myself would read their collected data and attempt to put it to use. This worked well on other amateurs, including myself. But if that attack failed--as it inevitably would when you fought more skilled players--the preemptive attacker was so overexposed and depleted that a successful counter attack could annihilate the attacker.

(Photo: Here the marines run a preemptive attack on the Zerg base. By sending in troops before the other side has fully mobilized they are afforded the opportunity to destroy the resource gathering units of the enemy, crippling his production capabilities)

But think about this. A video game is programmed by a team, and has a very specific set of rules--that never alter. That preemptive attacks could work, were basically manipulations of chance by a clever use of statistics in a static world. Needless to say, (but saying it anyway) this not a static world. There are no rules for engagement, and statistics are merely a guide for what's possible, not a set regime for reality.

I'd love for any gamers to chime in here. Like I said, I was an amateur gamer, and would love a more practiced player to comment.

*Here's a shoutout to the 710 alliance. The group me and my old roomies formed to battle the other denizens of the seventh floor of our dorm.

Thomas Friedman's - Op-Ed Today

Two blogs in one day! I know crazy! I must have nothing to do!

Hardly.

So Tom Friedman is an interesting columnist at the Times. He's liberally minded, but has an independent streak, and for several years during the Bush era, was pretty uncritical at a time when that sort of thing could have really made a difference.

But he has a piece today which pretty much sums up my opinion on Afghanistan. And Iraq. This will piss off the gf--she's a you break it you, you buy it kind of gal. The buzz on Afghanistan this month from a ton of people ostensibly in the "know" is that the real reason Afghanistan isn't getting any better is that the American presence isn't large enough and that the only a solid, longterm commitment from the US can achieve any lasting stability. NPR and Charlie Rose have been beating that drum to death.

First point: America is a democracy, far far away from Afghanistan. Even if we sent them half a million troops tomorrow--there could never be a firm committment. It would come up every two years at the very least. Foreign policing actions are black holes with a very low rate of success, and are almost unilaterally rife with corruption. So if the venture cannot succeed without a firm committment, and such a commitment is genuinely, logically, impossible--then it stands to reason that we should leave.

Second point: To those that say leaving Afghanistan and Iraq in such a terrible way would inflict a terrible human cost--you're right. But is it so much better now? Sure there may not be any massacres, but the bombs keep blowing up, and the taliban doesn't quit--and I'm not sure that a firm commitment would change that, so what's to gain but more death, and waste.

I spend a lot of time on these pages talking about caring for other people, and so I want you to understand that I do not think I am being hypocritical. But religous fundamentalism is beyond my ken. The handmaidens of fundamentalism, poverty, ignorance and cynicism, are too strong in these places.

The United States needs to regroup at the very least. This half ass continued engagement will be the end of us.

Baath Revisited

Sigh. We've yet to see how serious this is, but the fact that the Maliki administration is concerned about a Baath Party resurgence is pretty frightening, That said, the Maliki administration is probably corrupt to the bone. It just goes to prove another of my long standing maxims--this from Robert M. Pirsig of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance fame:

"There’s no villain, no ‘mean guy’ who wants them to live meaningless
lives, it’s just that the structure, the system demands it and no one is
willing to take on the formidable task of changing the structure just
because it is meaningless ... The true system, the real system, is our
present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and
if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left
standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory."

It's just that simple. And the reason, Middle East experts were saying before we ever invaded, what a stupid idea it was. Democracy came to Europe after two thousand years of war. Democracy was exported to the Americas by the Europeans. If the Middle East wanted democracy they'd have moved to it generations ago. Eastern civilization is much older than ours in many respects. Even so, let's hope they don't produce another factory. Enlightened leadership is what they need-whether or not its democratic.

Iraqi War Coverage Sucks Purple Toes

I wrote this letter to the Washington Post Ombudsman


Two U.S. Soldiers Killed as Iraqi Council Member Opens Fire After Meeting

By Ernesto LondoñoWashington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 24, 2008; Page A08


Please look into this story. I have several complaints with it. First of all, the story isn't on just this one incidence of violence. About half-way down through the story, it turns about to be a hodgepodge of news of violence over the last few days. While I certainly have no problem with this type of story, (obviously there is enough violence to go around) I tuned into the story because the headline makes it sound like a city council member shot U.S. soldiers. If Christine Quinn went on a killing rampage, it would be a full story, not a news blurb. Obviously, New York and Baghdad are in no way comparable but the story does not purport to answer any of the basic questions. In fact, the story is terribly written. None of the paragraphs follow and it seems, that the author might just be mad if this is his idea of a narrative.

The lead is straight forward enough: "BAGHDAD, June 23 -- Two U.S. soldiers were killed and three were wounded Monday when a council member opened fire on them after a meeting in a small town south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said." But the sentence uses the term "council member" to denote...what? A City Council member? Do they even have such things in Baghdad? The story NEVER reports on this, instead going off on a aimless meandering trail of blood and gore throughout the Iraq. I had to go to the CNN report to find out more information, only to find out that their own reporting is actually worse http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.main/index.html. The Post story does say that the council member was local tribal leader, but it says nothing about the distinction between the two. It is entirely likely that local religious, ethnic groups have put people on the city council, but then the story should indicate upfront, that the council is a farce, and that council members are often AK-47 wielding madmen (freedom fighters) out for vengeance. I read the story expecting to hear outrage from Maliki, and the U.S. government. Admittedly, it is silly of me to expect that City Council Members in Baghdad should be held to the same reporting standards as Council Members in Baghdad, but making the difference clear is the job of the reporter and the paper.

Instead the story goes on a three paragraph tear about a Canadian man who has nothing to do with the story at all. The very next sentence, made into a shiny new paragraph indicates that "The FBI sent a team of agents to Baghdad to investigate the shooting. None of the guards has been charged." Aside from the spectacular use of grammar (which I can't prove isn't correct, but seems highly unnecessary regardless) the sentence doesn't tell us which shooting! The shooting in the headline would be nice--but I think he's actually talking about a Blackwater shooting in September.

The last few paragraphs of the story are verbal diarhea of random reports and statements that have NOTHING to do with the headline. Or if they do--it certainly isn't explained. I mean, maybe I've critically misunderstood the issue. Maybe somewhere it's clear that this is not a news story, but that's also not my fault. I am a young man of average intelligence, with the documents to prove it, if I can't read this story, then there's something wrong.

I feel for your reporters there, really I do, but its your name in "Journalism" at issue -- and journalism that ain't. Fortunately for you most people don't read anything about the Iraq war. However, this story was picked up by several bloggers, and passed around. All announcing the same bizarre half-baked headline.

For your information the CNN report is worse, they spend less then fifty words describing the headline
"Officials: Iraqi councilman kills U.S. soldiers"
then launch into a mortar attack that occurred on Sunday. What's worse is that this event killed 10 Awakening Council members. A quick read of their story would indicate that it was one of these Awakening Council members who shot the U.S. soldiers. However, it's an entirely different attack. They might be linked but the reporter certainly doesn't say. The point is--I think that this is not a news story: It's a disbatch. So bill it that way. Eliminate the headline, make it News at the front. Put large bullet points between each one so that the reader can easily ascertain that the items are not connected.