dagblog - Comments for "Misusing The Ring of Gyges"

Yes, the intention to throw

moat — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 03:11:40 +0000

In reply to Al-Qaeda is the offspring of

Yes, the intention to throw off occupations and cause wars where they are not happening yet is central to what Al Qaida wants to do. I don't think that element cancels my observation that they go where conflicts give them a chance to play a part in actual war. War opens up opportunities.

The point made by the "Taliban commander" you link to supports the idea that Al Qaida can't play their game in their own countries. Saudi Arabia and Egypt exported those people and kept them exported. The argument Al Qaida made for the "far war" was based on the idea of the local wars were being completely canceled by the powers that be.

I take your point that Al Qaida has been weakened by the drone attacks and that there is a concerted effort underway to eliminate them. My objection is that there doesn't seem to be anything going on but this singling out of a certain group and killing them. In this sense, we are meeting them on their own terms. This willingness to play their game gives them something I would rather take away from them.

Al-Qaeda is the offspring of

artappraiser — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:24:51 +0000

In reply to Al-Qaeda is the offspring of

Al-Qaeda is the offspring of War and can only reproduce within the incubator of War.

I don't agree. I think it is all about situations perceived as occupation of Islamic populations by "infidels." And that includes not just what most people would call an occupation, like the USSR of Afghanistan or Israel of Palestine, but other things such as a US military base in Saudi Arabia, or secular rule of an Islamic country, or even such things as secular rule over an Islamic community in say, France or the UK, or cultural infiltration via media.

I think that rather than being a reaction to war, al Qaeda ideology sought to/seeks to provoke war with a perceived occupier. That is precisely why the invasion of Iraq was a colossal ideological blunder if argued to be a response to 9/11. The intent of 9/11 was to provoke full scale war.

As far as the continual attraction issue is concerned, I think that in being about purity and pride of tribe, al Qaeda et.al. spoke to the eternal character of "humiliated young male," just like any other gang does.

As far as targeted assassination in response, here in the form of drone strikes, the question about effectiveness is: is it seen as more humiliation, or does it just take us back to a place which is basically status quo for civilization, a problem that has always been with us: a large number of humiliated young men looking for leadership and tribe?

I am not sure, but I do see evidence it might be working, where, in conjunction with "Arab spring," Al Qaeda et.al. are starting to look like a bunch of losers that no self-respecting angry young Islamic male would want to join/follow. Some quickly picked examples:

The militants had come to realize that the increasingly effective drone strikes made them look weak, and they began getting rid of the evidence as fast as they could

and

"At least 70% of the Taliban are angry at al-Qaida. Our people consider al-Qaida to be a plague that was sent down to us by the heavens," the commander says. "To tell the truth, I was relieved at the death of Osama [bin Laden]. Through his policies, he destroyed Afghanistan. If he really believed in jihad he should have gone to Saudi Arabia and done jihad there, rather than wrecking our country."

I do think Mohammed Bouazizi and Khaled Said stole a lot of al Qaeda's thunder, and it's mostly serendipity that targeted assassinations at the same time made sure there were few of leadership quality left to co-opt those effects.

Al-Qaeda is the offspring of

moat — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 03:25:06 +0000

In reply to I think you're right.

Al-Qaeda is the offspring of War and can only reproduce within the incubator of War. They insert themselves into as many conflicts as they can, providing resources to this or that side of countless disputes because they gain something every time they can co-opt some portion of a local conflict as another battleground for their fight. They don't care about who they lose in a battle if they keep expanding the network of their brand. They explicitly talk about their losses in terms of a system of exchange.

Just killing these people is not changing the ecology of why they keep reproducing.

When looked at as an available verb in the vocabulary of using force, I wouldn't propose "ignoring" or "sidelining" the use of drones. But there seems to be little strategic understanding that the weapon is being used against an organization built upon acts of martyrdom and self sacrifice.

On that level, these strikes help Al Qaeda prove that America is everywhere and ready to kill anyone who would oppose their will.

I would prefer the strategy to work more in the direction of why these people have money and how they distribute it. You can't do that work as a gangster. You have to be a powerful nation willing to spend political capital in order to attain a certain end.

I think you're right.

Michael Maiello — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:29:00 +0000

In reply to I agree that claiming the

I think you're right. Although, "our gang can take out your gang," was always the Al-Qaeda message. If technology has afforded the U.S. an asymmetrical counter to asymmetrical warfare, I'm not sure it can be ignored or sidelined.

I agree that claiming the

moat — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 02:01:10 +0000

In reply to It's a good point. These

I agree that claiming the strikes are without consequences undermines arguments against their use.

As a tactical weapon, used against a known enemy who strives to use every means to destroy us, the strikes seem like simple war. But we are not actually fighting a war in that sense. We are engaged in a thousand wars that are mostly not understood by "us."

Whether it is intended or not, the extensive use of drone warfare undermines the idea of an international system of law. Its use can't help making a very simple statement:

Our gang will take out your gang. Be afraid.

It's a good point. These

Michael Maiello — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:48:52 +0000

In reply to Kaag's and Krep's referral to

It's a good point. These attacks aren't actually without consequence. And claiming that they are kind of undermines arguments against them. Though I have to admit that though I have a lot of reservations about how this program is administered, I am finding that I'm not as against it as I might have expected to be.

Kaag's and Krep's referral to

moat — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:28:52 +0000

In reply to Misusing The Ring of Gyges

Kaag's and Krep's referral to Gyges getting away with actions without consequence possibly has bearing on the Platonic narrative but they omit the central claim Plato is making about the impossibility of invisible action.

It is not as if the the people who survive on the perimeter of a drone attack wonder about what just happened to them and who did it.

Thanks. A rare opportunity to

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:40:13 +0000

In reply to Your summary is excellent.

Thanks. A rare opportunity to put my philosophy degree to work.

I agree that the impact of drone technology on military intervention is an interesting question, despite the Gyges crap. But my feeling is that the catastrophic impact of military invasion is so much greater than the drones themselves that the real question is whether the drone attacks encourage or discourage invasion. That is, if drones help us to avoid the horrible U.S. invasions that have characterized the post-WWII era, they might serve a far more valuable purpose than say, fighting terrorism. On the other hand, they may become just the first phase in more military escalations. Either way, I think the drones' effect on the probability of full-scale war weighs heavier than the death and destruction they directly produce.

Your summary is excellent.

Dan Kervick — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:30:32 +0000

In reply to Just rewriting my silly

Your summary is excellent. The mention of the Gyges story in this context is a red herring, and the authors misrepresent its role in The Republic.

There is an interesting issue about whether or not the ability to conduct military attacks from a distance, and without direct risk to one's own combatants, will make military leaders more likely to act irresponsibly or immorally. That seems plausible. But it has little to do with anything Plato was writing about.

Thank you, Mr. Common Sense.

artappraiser — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:46:44 +0000

In reply to Just rewriting my silly

Thank you, Mr. Common Sense.