The Myth of Competence

[theaustinescorts]

Every age has considered that it's state of knowledge was the apex, and there was nothing much further to be known. In each of those times people looked to the prevailing authorities as competent, although time demonstrated them to be otherwise.

Technology and science has advanced dramatically in the last hundred years, leading this generation in particular to believe it's leaders and institutions are more competent than ever. But could it be the reverse?

Could it be that the reason why skyrocketing medical payments are bankrupting America is because Doctors don't know how to prevent or treat much of anything despite their claims to the contrary? Could it be that new remedies such as additional vaccines, statins, prozac, and Embril are either useless or bear more risks than they do benefits?

Could it be that the incredible complexity advanced within finance and banking is a smokescreen for simple greed, emotion and incompetence? Is there any real reason for the financial calamity in which we are now mired other than bankers who don't know their job?

What can be said for the science of economics given that none of their utopian forecasts attendant with free trade has come about?

What has happened to the hard sciences of physics and astronomy when we're told that to make sense of the universe all we have to do is add 23 or so additional dimensions of existence into the equation so therefore it must be so.....

Does anyone really believe that any of the wars of the past ten years were really necessary, that anyone involved with criminal justice or national security in this country does anything that protects anyone from harm?

Could it be that what causes this to persist is the erosion in skepticism brought about by the veneer of advancing technology?

[nuglet]

$$$$$$$ is the main incentive for the events / circumstances you mentioned. I think it was Cheny that said.. war is good for business.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Does anyone really believe that any of the wars of the past ten years were really necessary, that anyone involved with criminal justice or national security in this country does anything that protects anyone from harm?

Afghanistan-Yes
Iraq-No
Libya-Definitely No

and Yes to the last question of "protecting anyone from harm".

[Eros418]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Technology and science has advanced dramatically in the last hundred years, leading this generation in particular to believe it's leaders and institutions are more competent than ever. But could it be the reverse?

I think this process has already started to some level. Established epistemology - whether it been scientific, political, or academic - have BEEN questioned. Look at the troubling of normative scientific ideas about race or sex over the last half of the 20th century. Look at how all of a sudden evolution is questionable for some despite the science. Look at the absolute lack of trust towards the government or media or business leaders or Wall Street. Up until the 1960s, everyone was invested in the project of modernity, and the idea that civilizational advancement was leading us to a utopia. Now we see that things aren't so tidy and not only might things fail, but our cultural imagination is fixated on the idea that things will fail BECAUSE of our ways.

Could it be that the reason why skyrocketing medical payments are bankrupting America is because Doctors don't know how to prevent or treat much of anything despite their claims to the contrary? Could it be that new remedies such as additional vaccines, statins, prozac, and Embril are either useless or bear more risks than they do benefits?

Again, questioning and troubling of the medical establishment's authority is part of the broader trend identified above. I would link this to three factors: Popularity of non-Western medicines, a recognition of the negative role capitalism (Big Pharma and HMOs) plays in the administration of health care, and a growing ability to find your own information and form your own (perhaps uninformed) perspective on your health through the Internet.

Could it be that the incredible complexity advanced within finance and banking is a smokescreen for simple greed, emotion and incompetence? Is there any real reason for the financial calamity in which we are now mired other than bankers who don't know their job?

Yes, greed and incompetence are rampant. But at the same time, many of the complexities, such as derivatives, are/were also smokescreens for the fundamental problems in our economy. We've lived on credit and created economic products over the past two decades to keep the wool over Americans' eyes that the US does not have the economy to sustain the middle class. So while individual or institutional greed may have caused the fire, the state of our economy was creating a large pile of fuel soaked wood.

What can be said for the science of economics given that none of their utopian forecasts attendant with free trade has come about?

Well, I'm sure not all economist subscribe to the free trade fundamentalism prevalent. Especially when when think about economists all over the world. You know, there has to be a recognition that not all things belong in the free market, but - as in the case of the debates about drilling in Alaska or a Wal-Mart in the middle of the city - we're so fixated currently on economic survival and jobs that it's hard to put forward that point.

What has happened to the hard sciences of physics and astronomy when we're told that to make sense of the universe all we have to do is add 23 or so additional dimensions of existence into the equation so therefore it must be so.....

Well, at this point, that's what you can say about the hard sciences: As you get into really small (quarks, quantum mechanics) or really big (dimensions, origins) issues, science relies on faith at this point just as much as religion, only it's faith in science instead of faith in God.

[theaustinescorts]

Eros418,

I agree with all your analysis. There is substaintial skepticism about institutions, but it is not enough to countervail the persisting mainstream perception that our authorities know what they're doing and that when shit happens it's because of circumstances outside of anyone's control.

The only scientific point you mentioned regarding which I'd differ regards evolution. My prediction is that there will be more skepticism about variation and natural selection as the drivers of it.

D'Torchia,

Instead of invading Afghanistan and seeking to control it wouldn't it have been better to selectively target individuals there covertly? We'll never control it or prevent hostiles from operating against us from there if that's what they want to do. Our presence there creates hostility towards us among many throughout the Arab world, particularly in Saudi Arabia from which it's now coming to public awareness 90% of militant support against us arises.*

The problems of Afghanistan and Pakistan are profound and would best have been addressed through CA, not boots on the ground or ever-hated drones.

A silent knife in the back from time to time to our enemies there by parties unknown would have been my choice [let it look like they're doing it to each other].

Regarding Libya - It's not a perfect situation by any means, but let me share with you what I think lies behind it.

There has been unspeakable humiliation that's been endured by intl and foreign policy figures during the recent period of rapproachment. The rapproachment was a charade managed for cynically pragmatic reasons, but everyone was disgusted with having to cooperate with it.

When the opportunity arose to break with it everyone jumped at the chance.

Personally I think our interests will be better served with the rebels in charge. It will be challenging to influence them, but the fact that we've been able to find at least this common ground I think is positive.

I believe we should seek to understand why Arab opinion is so much opposed to us, and seek to learn from it where we can.

*For the last ten years I've been saying that Pakistan is the main origin of islamic terrorism, so it came as no surprise when this problem finally became obvious to American politicians in the last year.
Similarly I'm convinced that 90% of material and human support for islamic militancy arises from within the Saudi population. Now the first inklings of this are starting to emerge publicly due to the un-masking of the Libyan rebels' militant roots.

The simple truth is that it's the populations of the countries most closely allied to us who harbor the greatest animosity towards us. This is now playing out in Egypt, where the peace treaty with Israel is now threatened.

Alliances between governments are not enough.

[Eros418]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Eros418,

I agree with all your analysis. There is substaintial skepticism about institutions, but it is not enough to countervail the persisting mainstream perception that our authorities know what they're doing and that when shit happens it's because of circumstances outside of anyone's control.

Certainly. But again, we must distinguish discourse from reality. The discourse is that authority is here, everything is under control, everyone go back to shopping. But I think that most people understand that that's a lie but have no solution to the problems at hand. It's similar to the arena, we're talking in actually: the discourse around this "hobby" is that it's exploitative to women, that abuse is rampant, that no one chooses to do this, that commodification of the body can never lead to anything but bad. But despite that "persisting mainstream perception," there are streams of alternative discourse like what happens here, and that's ultimately what we'll have to go with. As Audre Lorde said, "The Master's tools will never dismantle the Master's house."

[budman33]

I agree on the knife in the back. Instead of trillions we could have given Mossad a few Billion. Osama dead. they'd have killed the top 10 next in line as a bonus.

[theaustinescorts]

Thank you, however Mossad's resources in the muslim world are even more limited than our own, and they're interests do not always coincide with ours.

CIA has not done that good of a job in CA or humint in this war.

The reason for this is that the analysts there think like I do and are pretty much opposed to the way the war on terror has been prosecuted.

The history of CIA has been one of white hats and black hats. The white hats oppose what the politicians insist on doing against the advise of the experts, and the black hats are those guys who go along with the politicians to further their careers.

In this situation the CIA performed miserably in the Cold War, and now is performing even worse in the war on terror.

If however CIA were given a mission that everyone there could get behind it would be a different story.

If they were given a mission of CA against selective targets while maintaining a benign image in the mulsim world I think we could have attracted some outstanding case officers and assets to impliment it.

[DTorrchia]

As you and I have discussed before TAE, we differ on what the causes and motivations of radical Islam are.
When we've had these discussions in the past you went back to the 1950's and our involvement in Iran's affairs.
I've argued that we can go much further back then that with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Wahhabi and other followers of radical Islam's ambitions and objectives.
Yes, many in Saudi Arabia support terrorist causes against us. That's really not surprising though considering that Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. It advocates purging Islam of what it considers to be impurities and innovations.
Therefor any moderate or secular Government we support in this part of the world will be in conflict with the aims of Wahhabism and those who support radical Islam.
It goes without saying that our support of a Jewish state will forever be a point of contention as well. That is why I believe it's nearly impossible for peace to flourish in this part of the world. Whether we invaded Afghanistan or not, Iraq or not, the radical followers who believe that the West is the cause of all their problems, that the West is trying to undermine their religion, that the West is corrupting the morals of their people, those beliefs will ALWAYS make us a target for their attacks.
Utilizing CA vs troops on ground won't change their radical beliefs. It would perhaps be more cost effective for our country but it won't change their views or aims against us.
Peace between us and them, and amongst themselves can only be achieved when their desire to become part of the modern world and to have a better future for their children, outweighs their religious ideology.

[irishlad]

Technology has disrupted everything and the chips have yet to fall. Realize that at the same time and probably as the other side of the same coin we have also cast off thousands of years of social structure. For thousands of years of western history women were breeders and rearers, men were providers and protectors (and for all intents and purposes owners of the women), religion and government were one and the same, peasants were peasants and nobles were nobles, different races were seen more like different species. Better, sure. But the new order has yet to materialize and in the transition there's a lot of chaos and injustice.

On the wars - all a terrible idea. War is about killing people, including lots of non combatants, and if you assume some 16 year old shepherd girl's life is just as valuable as yours or mine, that choice is a really really big deal. Justified only by self defense. The military, in my mind, should exclusively be reserved for repelling foreign invaders on our soil. It is also the worst possible weapon for combating terror.

The bankers are greedy for sure. But that's a given. None of it would matter as capitalism nicely assigns consequences to failed business endeavors. The failure was when the government waded in. The government that we allowed the banks to corrupt.

Economists have no clue because they are trying to apply math to what is in the end a social science. It is the sociology of money and the social sciences, at this point in time, are very young and undeveloped. They are like medical doctors in the year 1000.

Hard science? That's a little better. The "scientific method" is the most objective thing we humans have ever come up with. It is the success of it in fact that makes it feel like religion to the average Joe, but it is NOT religion. The scientists have just gotten so far ahead of us. But nothing they claim is taken as true until it is shown to be true through empirical observation which is the "not religion" part...we are just learning some really crazy stuff about the universe we live in.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by irishlad

On the wars - all a terrible idea. War is about killing people, including lots of non combatants, and if you assume some 16 year old shepherd girl's life is just as valuable as yours or mine, that choice is a really really big deal. Justified only by self defense. The military, in my mind, should exclusively be reserved for repelling foreign invaders on our soil. It is also the worst possible weapon for combating terror.

There is a flip side to that coin. Though war is terrible and the loss of innocent life is always regrettable and tragic, history has proven that at times it can literally change the course of the world, societies and shape the future for decades to come, sometimes for the positive other times for the negative.
TAE disagrees with me on this point but it is my belief that there are only two ways that people who are entrenched in a radical ideology change their behavior. Either so much pressure is put on them by a majority of their own people to conform and change their ways or they have to be forced to give up their ideology by having to choose between their beliefs and utter annihilation. The latter means war.
Few rational people would argue that once WWII started, Hitler could have been stopped by anything less than total war. Few people dispute that point with Japan as well during that time period. The fact that many civilians lost their lives was no deterrent to our goal of stopping Germany and Japan. In reality nothing has changed today in the fact that some groups, countries etc can only be stopped through their destruction. What has changed is our willingness to pay the price that comes along with that. Some will argue that it's a good thing that we've developed a "higher conscience" when it comes to waging war. I would argue that in the long run we may not be doing ourselves or those countries that harbor these individuals any favors by our unwillingness to do what it takes.
Radicals in Germany and Japan were forced through war to put away their ideologies and few would disagree that they both became better Countries for it. They both suffered massive amounts of civilian casualties, they both were utterly crushed, yet neither let that stop them from becoming economic and cultural successes. Neither has any further appetite for war with us or anyone else for that matter. The Arab world has never been put in that position. Until they do, I doubt their viewpoints or their desire to harm us will change.

[theaustinescorts]

D'Torchia,

You will never make them submit because you do not understand what motivates them. Your lack of understanding of their point of view, and your demonization of their beliefs, makes it impossible for you to ever reach an accomodation with them or let up the fight. You fail to understand that their convictions are BASED IN THE SAME IDEAS THAT MOTIVATE YOURSELF. Your views are emblematic of the tragedy of this situation....both sides are fighting for their sincerely-held ideals while demonizing the other side as evil.

My point is that there would be no conflict between "radical" Islam and the US if it were not for US policy.*

If the US would withdraw its forces from the muslim world, and withdraw its fleets to "over-the-horizon" [like it was in the 1980s when I worked in that part of the world] there would have been no 9-11 attack or WTC attack in the 1990s.**

The only reason why militant islam is opposed to our role is because we are over there with force, intervening in their affairs.

Please consider the following three points:

1.Michael Scheuer has articulated the CIA analysis consensus about this matter in several CIA-cleared publications [all of which have been published with CIA review] and which are clear indictments of present policy. Scheuer has articulated clearly the fact that UBL stated many times that the 9-11 attack was made necessary only because of the basing of US troops on the Arabian penninsula.

2.What would we do if another great power invaded and occupied us?
Why is so easy to think other peoples' SHOULD welcome our "benevolant" uniformed troops, tanks and artillary in their country when we would NEVER tolerate it ourselves? How would you feel if a hundred years from now CHINESE TROOPS INTERVENED IN MONTANA AND WYOMING and stayed there for decades......
How would you feel if we had an internal crisis and the international community SENT MEXICAN TROOPS INTO THE UNITED STATES to "help stablize the situation....."
Consider things from the point of view of those under occupation for a change....

3.The west, and the US in particular, has an imperial history in the middle east. If your home were a place where the US and it's allies had practiced direct imperialism, or had toppled governments, wouldn't you be offended?

Consider their history.


The simple fact is that all these points are the consensus of the analytic side of CIA as well as the State Department Intelligence Bureau and the ENTIRE US INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INVOLVED WITH ANALYSIS.

The notion that there are muslims in the world who want to topple the American government merely because we are not muslim is a politically-derived doctrine which has no basis in fact, and is not shared by any scholar or analyist anywhere in acedemia or analytic government work.




*In my opinion only a minority of muslims support terror tactics, but I believe the entire muslim population is opposed to the basing of western troops anywhere in their countries, collaboration with zionists, American resources used to kill anyone for any reason in their lands, etc.

By the American media's point of view the entire muslim world would be defined as "radical" in that there is not one single muslim anywhere on the planet who agrees with American goals. You can find a few that say that they do, but these are like the Vietnamese when the US was there who SAID they agreed with what we were doing but were actually working behind our backs to undermine everything we were seeking to do.

**The US used to have an "over-the-horizon" military policy in the middle east which served us well for a long time. Unfortunately this policy was ditched by politicians and neo-con pundits who thought it would be better to try to intimidate the muslim world by shows of military might. That's the sole reason for this entire conflict.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

**The US used to have an "over-the-horizon" military policy in the middle east which served us well for a long time. Unfortunately this policy was ditched by politicians and neo-con pundits who thought it would be better to try to intimidate the muslim world by shows of military might. That's the sole reason for this entire conflict.

As I stated, this is why I'm really not interested in getting too deep into this subject with you again. We went over all these points a year ago on this board.

When you make statements like:
"Unfortunately this policy was ditched by politicians and neo-con pundits who thought it would be better to try to intimidate the muslim world by shows of military might. That's the sole reason for this entire conflict"

or that it was our deployment of U.S. troops that led to this "entire conflict", you completely ignore the radicalization of Islam that was taking place in the Muslim world ever since the creation of Israel.
You have made clear many times your views on Israel, despite pandering with lines such as..."I've visited there on business many times, talked to people there"....but deep down you are opposed to the State of Israel. It's clear from your postings.
You side with the Palestinian cause and that's certainly your right. I don't agree with the way they've gone about trying to resolve the issue nor do I agree with the way the Arabs, Persians and others have used the Palestinian issue as an excuse to do harm to us.

Sorry we simply won't see eye to eye on this, nor on your views on WWII.

You once said (and I'm paraphrasing), 'despite what Hitler said in public and wrote in "Mein Kampf" his real intentions differed greatly from his propaganda'. I would propose that the same holds true for Osama Bin Laden and his kind. While he may have said in certain interviews that it was our deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia that caused him to take up arms, there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. One only need to look at the ideology of Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri and others that influenced Bin Laden greatly to know that they would have eventually gone down the road they chose whether or not the first Gulf War had taken place with the subsequent posting of some of our troops in Saudi Arabia.

Been down that road with you, not interested in rehashing battles already fought.

[theaustinescorts]

Why do you insist on reaching all the way back to what Ayman thought or said?

He's not Osama bin-Ladin.

Osama bin-Ladin said many times what his motives were for all his attacks.

You can chose to ignore him, and to ignore the entire scholarly and analytic consensus about this matter, but please put forward some cogent arguments. So far all I've seen is ideology used to motivate grunts to do this dirty work over there.

Why is Scheuer wrong? Why is the CIA wrong?

Why is the State Dept. Bureau of Intelligence wrong?

Please don't say it's because of some tract by some Muslim brotherhood leader decades ago or something Ayman wrote twenty years ago.....

Enough of ideology and selective artifacts for evidence. Can we rely on what the actual players today say and do?

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Why do you insist on reaching all the way back to what Ayman thought or said?

LOL, so one of the men who mentored Bin Laden, furthered his religious zeal and literally helped him build what we know today as Al-Qaeda is inconsequential???

He's not Osama bin-Ladin.

You're right, he's not. He WAS his number 2 and today is only the new confirmed leader of Al-Qaeda. Yeah, you're absolutely right, why should I possibly bring him up?!!!


Enough of ideology and selective artifacts for evidence. Can we rely on what the actual players today say and do?

Hmmm, let's see. So Al-Zawahiri is the confirmed new head of Al-Qaeda. As recently as December 14, 2009 in an audio recording he renewed calls to establish an Islamic state in Israel and urged his followers to “seek jihad against Jews” and their supporters. He also called for jihad against America and the West, and labeled Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia as the “brothers of Satan”

Oh, maybe that wasn't recent enough!
How about June of 2011 when he released his first video since the death of Osama bin Laden, praising bin Laden and warning the USA of reprisal attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

And you say I'm "reaching back" by bringing him up? He's the CURRENT leader of Al-Qaeda!!!!

But you say this is....what did you call it...ideology fed to grunts so they'll do our dirty work?

Ok, I guess that's what it is.