ext_360878 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
mahnmut.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2016-09-11 01:01 pm
mahnmut.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2016-09-11 01:01 pm
Entry tags:
An extreme way of dealing with terrorism
On this dark anniversary, let's talk about terrorism - more specifically, the possible ways of defeating terrorism, or at least suffocating it. Which of course passes through detecting the root cause for terrorism, and hitting it where it would hurt most. In other words, extinguishing the very reason for terrorism.
Many have argued that the best way to defeat terrorism is to educate the populace from which it draws its energy. Bring prosperity to a people, keep them occupied with entrepreneurship, business, social life - and they wouldn't think of getting radicalized. Include them in the political life of their society, do not marginalize them, and they won't have a reason to hate people, want to kill people, and want to even sacrifice themselves for hurting people.
Others have argued that in the most extreme circumstances, like the ones existing today in the ISIS-controlled territories, this wouldn't really work.
It's evident, though, that bombing the shit out of stuff is more likely to generate more extremism and terrorism than not - this has become patently evident in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. As they say, in the place of every dead terrorist, two more pop up. Still, most governments keep following this approach: conduct air raids, send spec op units, blow some stuff up, or arm some friendly groups to defeat other hostile groups - only to take their place in turn.
What, then? Well, I came across the 1st episode of the new season of Through The Wormhole, a documentary series starring Morgan Freeman as a narrator that I've thoroughly enjoyed in recent years (I especially like their physics and astronomy episodes; the ones about psychology, like this one about terrorism, seem more defocused, but anyway). There in the last part of the episode, the show featured an Israeli psychologist called Eran Halperin, who made some really intriguing social experiments in his endeavors to find the "cure" to terrorism. Basically, he argues that instead of trying to counter terrorism with either violent or peaceful means, your best option is to... agree with it (?!)
This tactic is called "extreme reasoning". The point is this. When you argue with people who hold views different from yours, you have your opinions and they have theirs - and it's very likely that by countering their position with yours, the reaction would rather be the further entrenchment of their views. Instead of convincing people of the superiority of your view, you'd end up making them even more convinced in their own correctness. That's how the human mind usually operates. So this researcher argues that we should agree with people's opinion, instead. Or more precisely, create the initial impression that we agree with them. And then take it to the next step, and bring their own view to a new extreme. The example he used was with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His team of researchers chose a town mostly inhabited by conservative Israelis who were convinced they were in their right in that conflict - and he started bombarding them with messages that were essentially preaching to the choir, but then brought their view one step further. He told them that not only were they in their right in that conflict, but that the conflict was actually necessary for Israel, because it brought social cohesion to the Israeli society, and demonstrated their moral superiority. He displayed the ugliness and stupidity of their own argument to them by presenting an even more extreme version of it.
The result was shocking. After the initial confirmation bias stage, the respondents actually started to review their own convictions, and showed tremendous proneness to question their own beliefs. Seeing the new extremes that their own worldview could get to, they became gradually repulsed by it, and at the end of the experiment, they were more open to peaceful solutions and compromise in that conflict than before it.
I'm not sure if this could translate into a similar outcome with radical extremists like ISIS, or any other terrorists - but he basically argues that this tactic should be used on them, too. Appear to agree with their Jihadist views, then bring it to the extreme.
Another proposal that was made in that episode was to disengage from the war with ISIS. As shocking and defeatist as that may sound, because leaving them on their own and just containing them there, and allowing them to do their "thing", would have dire consequences for the people who happen to inhabit the territories they control, that may actually be the best option at this point. For the same reasons stated in the beginning of this post: because simply bombing terrorists and killing terrorists is only dealing with the symptom. And even trying to dig a bit deeper, by engaging the terrorist base through education and "bringing reason" to them essentially, you'd likely encounter the above-described proneness of people to respond with hostility to any attempts to change their mind, even in the most reasonable and constructive way. You'd just encounter a wall of "frozen" minds.
So just disengage. Pack your things and leave. Turn your back on them completely. Stop feeding the troll. Except, of course, they'd likely try to follow you home, and try to hurt you in your own backyard (Paris, Brussels, and yes, 9-11 too, are good examples). But that may seem like the best option right now, anyway. Because all other options are more likely to cause more shit-storm than there already is.
This proposal was made by another researcher (historian) on that show, who argued that warfare and continuous conflict between two or more groups tends to "harden" them, and the group that emerges victorious, becomes very coherent, capable, competent, and viable. It survives, and becomes either a nation-state, or another form of long-lasting force. The examples are many. ISIS is one - it emerged after a prolonged period of chaos in Iraq and Syria, where various groups were competing against each other. And in result of all this conflict, the toughest and most adaptable group, the one that was most ruthless and which could use their resources most efficiently, emerged victorious, and stronger than ever: ISIS. So the best way to pull the rug from under the feet of such groups would be to deprive them of their main source for evolvement: conflict. Pack your things and go home. Let them rot from within on their own, like any empire usually does, especially when war is followed by a long period of stability. Let them try to actually manage a territory with people in it - let the local people see how well they do. And the problems will start appearing, the cracks will start opening. Because so far they've relied on total war, constant conflict, to keep themselves afloat. Allow them some space to destroy themselves from within - because it's one thing to conquer, it's quite another to rule. They've been on the rise ever since they're at war. Let them to slide back down into oblivion by actually giving them peace.
Of course this sounds insensitive, inhumane, sociopathic, cruel even. Millions of people will have to live in a ruthless oppressive Caliphate for many years (although fewer would likely die and suffer under ISIS rule than during ISIS expansion, granted). The problem is, there's no guarantee that ISIS wouldn't evolve in some way yet unforeseen, and adapt to the new realities, and prove more viable than anticipated - and become impossible to defeat by any means, both military and economic, once it has cast deeper roots. But it's at least an idea worth considering - especially given the fact that the options currently available are even worse. Perpetual full-out war would only bring the continuation of terrorism, and fuel it until no end. And half-assed efforts would only occasionally stir up the nest, as opposed to achieving anything meaningful against ISIS.
So these are the two ideas that stick out from that episode, and made me think. One, disengage from terrorism, just contain it where it is (while protecting yourself at home, of course), and allow it to rot from within under the pressure of its new responsibilities. And two, use extreme reasoning to get under the skin and into the minds of the base from which terrorism draws its energy: convince them that you agree with them at first, but then bring their own radical views to new extremes, and rub them into their own faces for them to see how ridiculous they are. And hope that it works.
Alternatively, it could create a monster even more horrible than the ones we've already created.
You can watch Through The Wormhole: Episode 1 What Makes a Terrorist here:
[Error: unknown template video]
The really interesting part starts at 34:10.
Many have argued that the best way to defeat terrorism is to educate the populace from which it draws its energy. Bring prosperity to a people, keep them occupied with entrepreneurship, business, social life - and they wouldn't think of getting radicalized. Include them in the political life of their society, do not marginalize them, and they won't have a reason to hate people, want to kill people, and want to even sacrifice themselves for hurting people.
Others have argued that in the most extreme circumstances, like the ones existing today in the ISIS-controlled territories, this wouldn't really work.
It's evident, though, that bombing the shit out of stuff is more likely to generate more extremism and terrorism than not - this has become patently evident in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. As they say, in the place of every dead terrorist, two more pop up. Still, most governments keep following this approach: conduct air raids, send spec op units, blow some stuff up, or arm some friendly groups to defeat other hostile groups - only to take their place in turn.
What, then? Well, I came across the 1st episode of the new season of Through The Wormhole, a documentary series starring Morgan Freeman as a narrator that I've thoroughly enjoyed in recent years (I especially like their physics and astronomy episodes; the ones about psychology, like this one about terrorism, seem more defocused, but anyway). There in the last part of the episode, the show featured an Israeli psychologist called Eran Halperin, who made some really intriguing social experiments in his endeavors to find the "cure" to terrorism. Basically, he argues that instead of trying to counter terrorism with either violent or peaceful means, your best option is to... agree with it (?!)
This tactic is called "extreme reasoning". The point is this. When you argue with people who hold views different from yours, you have your opinions and they have theirs - and it's very likely that by countering their position with yours, the reaction would rather be the further entrenchment of their views. Instead of convincing people of the superiority of your view, you'd end up making them even more convinced in their own correctness. That's how the human mind usually operates. So this researcher argues that we should agree with people's opinion, instead. Or more precisely, create the initial impression that we agree with them. And then take it to the next step, and bring their own view to a new extreme. The example he used was with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His team of researchers chose a town mostly inhabited by conservative Israelis who were convinced they were in their right in that conflict - and he started bombarding them with messages that were essentially preaching to the choir, but then brought their view one step further. He told them that not only were they in their right in that conflict, but that the conflict was actually necessary for Israel, because it brought social cohesion to the Israeli society, and demonstrated their moral superiority. He displayed the ugliness and stupidity of their own argument to them by presenting an even more extreme version of it.
The result was shocking. After the initial confirmation bias stage, the respondents actually started to review their own convictions, and showed tremendous proneness to question their own beliefs. Seeing the new extremes that their own worldview could get to, they became gradually repulsed by it, and at the end of the experiment, they were more open to peaceful solutions and compromise in that conflict than before it.
I'm not sure if this could translate into a similar outcome with radical extremists like ISIS, or any other terrorists - but he basically argues that this tactic should be used on them, too. Appear to agree with their Jihadist views, then bring it to the extreme.
Another proposal that was made in that episode was to disengage from the war with ISIS. As shocking and defeatist as that may sound, because leaving them on their own and just containing them there, and allowing them to do their "thing", would have dire consequences for the people who happen to inhabit the territories they control, that may actually be the best option at this point. For the same reasons stated in the beginning of this post: because simply bombing terrorists and killing terrorists is only dealing with the symptom. And even trying to dig a bit deeper, by engaging the terrorist base through education and "bringing reason" to them essentially, you'd likely encounter the above-described proneness of people to respond with hostility to any attempts to change their mind, even in the most reasonable and constructive way. You'd just encounter a wall of "frozen" minds.
So just disengage. Pack your things and leave. Turn your back on them completely. Stop feeding the troll. Except, of course, they'd likely try to follow you home, and try to hurt you in your own backyard (Paris, Brussels, and yes, 9-11 too, are good examples). But that may seem like the best option right now, anyway. Because all other options are more likely to cause more shit-storm than there already is.
This proposal was made by another researcher (historian) on that show, who argued that warfare and continuous conflict between two or more groups tends to "harden" them, and the group that emerges victorious, becomes very coherent, capable, competent, and viable. It survives, and becomes either a nation-state, or another form of long-lasting force. The examples are many. ISIS is one - it emerged after a prolonged period of chaos in Iraq and Syria, where various groups were competing against each other. And in result of all this conflict, the toughest and most adaptable group, the one that was most ruthless and which could use their resources most efficiently, emerged victorious, and stronger than ever: ISIS. So the best way to pull the rug from under the feet of such groups would be to deprive them of their main source for evolvement: conflict. Pack your things and go home. Let them rot from within on their own, like any empire usually does, especially when war is followed by a long period of stability. Let them try to actually manage a territory with people in it - let the local people see how well they do. And the problems will start appearing, the cracks will start opening. Because so far they've relied on total war, constant conflict, to keep themselves afloat. Allow them some space to destroy themselves from within - because it's one thing to conquer, it's quite another to rule. They've been on the rise ever since they're at war. Let them to slide back down into oblivion by actually giving them peace.
Of course this sounds insensitive, inhumane, sociopathic, cruel even. Millions of people will have to live in a ruthless oppressive Caliphate for many years (although fewer would likely die and suffer under ISIS rule than during ISIS expansion, granted). The problem is, there's no guarantee that ISIS wouldn't evolve in some way yet unforeseen, and adapt to the new realities, and prove more viable than anticipated - and become impossible to defeat by any means, both military and economic, once it has cast deeper roots. But it's at least an idea worth considering - especially given the fact that the options currently available are even worse. Perpetual full-out war would only bring the continuation of terrorism, and fuel it until no end. And half-assed efforts would only occasionally stir up the nest, as opposed to achieving anything meaningful against ISIS.
So these are the two ideas that stick out from that episode, and made me think. One, disengage from terrorism, just contain it where it is (while protecting yourself at home, of course), and allow it to rot from within under the pressure of its new responsibilities. And two, use extreme reasoning to get under the skin and into the minds of the base from which terrorism draws its energy: convince them that you agree with them at first, but then bring their own radical views to new extremes, and rub them into their own faces for them to see how ridiculous they are. And hope that it works.
Alternatively, it could create a monster even more horrible than the ones we've already created.
You can watch Through The Wormhole: Episode 1 What Makes a Terrorist here:
[Error: unknown template video]
The really interesting part starts at 34:10.
no subject
Sounds intriguing.
no subject
It'll turn them from a mostly regional phenomenon into a global one. They'll transcend their current territories, and spread like cancer in all corners of the world. Because we'll have given them the opportunity, and basically "accepted" them by turning our back on the problem.
"Bringing reason" to their people still remains like the best option. I'm aware it's a long and painful process, and a path full of pitfalls. But it has to be done, and in a meaningful way.
We have forgotten and refuse to remember.
…
They forget that in time of danger, in the face of the Enemy, they must trust and confide in each other, or perish.
They forget, in short, that there has ever been a category of human experience called the Enemy. And that, before 9/11, was what had happened to us. The very concept of the Enemy had been banished from our moral and political vocabulary. An enemy was just a friend we hadn’t done enough for — yet. Or perhaps there had been a misunderstanding, or an oversight on our part — something that we could correct. And this means that that our first task is that we must try to grasp what the concept of the Enemy really means.
The Enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while it is true that the Enemy always hates us for a reason — it is his reason, and not ours. -- Civilization and Its Enemies.
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. -- W T Sherman
No war is over until the enemy says it's over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote. -- Gen. James Mattis
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. -- Trotsky.
I have a lot of quotes swarming around in my head, for some reason your post has just precipitated a cascade of accumulated wisdom that is, by no stretch of the imagination, my own.
In short, we have lost our way in this whole affair. As a civilization we are tired of doing things that are hard and don't have simple, permanent solutions we can see and celebrate plainly on CNN. As a civilization we are simultaneously rich enough and secure enough in our riches that we think that we can just walk away and chalk it up as a mistake. Perhaps, we think, it would be best that we even admit defeat, salve our wounds with a mea culpa and a few billion dollars. Maybe, if we just ignore it the problem will solve itself and we won't have to dirty our hands or our consciences with what can only be a dirty business, it is better left to those who are brown and poor and far away.
Maybe.
no subject
What are you talking about, CNN revels in war. The only time CNN is relevant is when those bombs start falling. I'm sure Wolf Blitzer can't wait to have his fancy 3D Situation Room.
no subject
But that also is what wears on Americans, and I guess other post-modern cultures, too. What the public wants is a denouement, a nice coda for a difficult story that sums up the plot and ties up all the loose ends. That is why "why can't you find Osama?" resonated so much contra Bush and why it was so easy to cast a hard fight in a complicated place as a lost fight in impossible place. It is also why there was such disproportionate celebration when Osama was finally "found" and why it was so powerful to say "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive," even though both statements said next to nothing about the bigger problems behind the soundbite.
We are not a civilization who embraces the hard choices. We think there are right answers and simple solutions to every problem and that no problem exists that can't be solved by more money and more "expertise." We don't want to hear that the answer a problem involves a lot of innocent people dying , one way or the other.
RE: We have forgotten and refuse to remember.
RE: We have forgotten and refuse to remember.
This is the internet, after all.
no subject
no subject
no subject
the sad truth behind the middle east
According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Interview 1998 globalresearch.ca