Iraq and Palestine have had elections. Elections are now promised in Egypt. Lebanon is showing signs of shaking free from under the thumb of Syria. Peace in Israel appears at hand. Many people, including myself have been asking the question, "is the Bush Doctrine bearing fruit already?"
This is a very dangerous thought. The danger is that Bush might conclude, "this is working so well, lets invade Iran or Syria." Neocons are already chomping at the bit to do just that. There appears already to be an extensive black operation going on in Iran for months.
Its always dangerous to look for simple solutions to complex problems. The fact is, peace has been at hand in Israel several times before, only to have it fall apart. In fact, it appeared to me that when the US invaded Iraq, Arafat hardened his position on Jerusalem hoping to capitalize on a Arab backlash that never came. The Intifada appears to have been prolonged by Iraq. The only reason there is a chance for peace is because Arafat is dead and Abbas was elected. Abbas was the one man who has a history of success negotiating with Israel.
Economics have a much more powerful effect in the Middle East than the invasion of Iraq. Saudi Arabian and Egyptian are largely dependent on the good will of America to maintain their economies. Both have considerable debt to the US and they are reliant on American technical support to modernize their economies. Both have been looking seriously at loosening the dictatorial ties for years. Saudi Arabian just held local level government elections. Bush's bully pulpit has done little more than focus press attention on what was happening already.
Until the 1980's, Syria had significant plurality in its government system. Elections continue to be regular, but since the 80s, candidates have to pass a rigorous loyalty screening to the central government. Iran was a democracy in the 1950's until the US assisted the Shah of Iran in overthrowing the government and installing a dictatorship.
The US also undermined the democratic process in Lebanon in favor of the Maronite Christians to ensure an anti-communist government. Then Israel created a civil war in Lebanon by invading hoping to finish off the PLO, only to inspire the quiet Shiites to enlist the help of Iran to create Hizbolla. Hizbolla was inspired by the Dawa party in Iraq, who now holds the prime ministership.
Democracy in the Middle East will not favor America in terms of oil. Will the US tolerate that?
March 02, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It is conventional wisdom to see the complexity of issues, however I can't think of any complex problem being solved or even mitigated by a complex solution. The reason is simple (humor or irony). Complex solutions are to hard to implement by large organizations like governments. Simple solutions actually can improve things, kind of like how democracy is a poor form of government but better than the alternatives. DDT use will save millions from malaris. Limiting public assistance benefits saw millions get jobs that brought home more money. Limits on pollutants has almost entirely cleaned up rivers and lakes. Invading Iraq toppled Saddam. Cause - effect. BUt then since all human systems are complex their are extended consequences - Lybia, Lebanon, Egypt, ?? Deploy Pershing II missiles and call USSR what it was, an evil empire - Lech Walesa says they owe it all to Reagan for he emboldened them and supported them. Simple approach, great result. Not always of course, but sometimes. Complex solutions never work.
Your examples make my point. DDT did incalculable damaged to multiple ecosystems, including appearing in breast milk and causing birth defects.
AFDC was a disaster. Limiting public assistance only made sense, but without a more complex solution we have millions of homeless and malnourished children in America. The only solution Counties have to this problem is to take custody of the children and institutionalise the children at $30000 a year. Or let them grow up on the streets to lay in wait for your daughter or wife? There is a reason why the US has a greater proportion of people in prison than any other country in the world: ask any behavioral scientist if punishment works, he'll say "only while you're looking." And it costs $50000 a year for each inmate. How many more can we lock up? Ask any neuropathologist what could account for the largest proportion of dysfunction that landed so many in jail. He'll say diet. And the behavior scientist will add drug and alcohol abuse leading to child abuse.
Ron Reagan's so-called simple solution had hundreds of active parts and cost probably trillions of dollars. See just a glimpse of it in the "Gipper's" own words.
The whole problem with the theory of "simple solutions" is that it requires the user to think in simple terms. In other words, you have to ignore the complexity of reality and pretend the outcome desired is achieved without consequences.
An update from Juan Cole:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/regime-change-mafia-style-syria-1957.html
Regime Change, Mafia Style: Syria 1957Settling scores department: Some bloggers or commentators expressed skepticism about my allegation of US shaping of the Middle East in the 1950s and after. Gilbert Achcar reminded me of this report of the discovery of documents proving a US and British assassination plot against Syrian leaders in 1957. Kermit Roosevelt, who overthrew the last democratically elected parliamentary government in Iran in 1953, also had a hand in planning the whacking of the Syrian leadership. The plan was never implemented, in large part because other Arab countries refused to cooperate.
Well, you are just plain wrong about DDT. I don't think you have examined the actual scientific data about DDT. Check here http://www.junkscience.com/foxnews/fn072800.htm, and there are many other such easily found. As to welfare reform, which is much more than AFDC, you take one aspect and criticize it, but it was started by Clinton, and continued with bi-partisan support under Bush, and has drastically reduced those dependent on welfare by getting them into the work force. I'd have to see actual references to judge your claim about AFDC, but I suspect it is just one side of the story.
As to Reagan, I would say his solution was simple, "Just win". But if you wnat to talk about cost or "moving parts" then nothing is simple. The manufacture and use of DDT is complex if you have so loose a definition.
I would ask you to name one complex solution that has worked, but If you think how Reagan won the cold war is not an example then we can't really have a
discussion. My point would be that only simple or fairly simple solutions produce any good, even if far
from perfect. THe simple solutions are difficult enough, and rarely are implemented correctly, probably the cause of the AFDC problems, I'll bet that wasn't the intent of the law, if what you describe is typical. Complex solutions are bound to fail. Take a look at the record of major software projects, and that is within a group dedicated to a single purpose.
Right now I don't have the time to dig up the sources for DDT and AFDC, but I will come back and put something together, probably for a frontpage post.
But the challenge about complex solutions ever working is from my use of the word pretty easy to demonstrate. I suspect from your comment about software development, you are talking about strategic goals being clear focused and understandable. From those "simple" goals, complex (meaning multiple statements that requires testing and toil to develop) software was written.
The evolution of football strategy is a good example of increasing complexity. The idea behind the T formation was relatively simple. From that formation the quarterback had two backs to offer running plays to or he could drop back to pass. The Wishbone offered many more options to the quarterback. The I formation increased the possibilities even more so. Now each play has multiple formations and steps in execution. All is to keep the defence from guessing what is wrong.
Another example is the history of computers playing humans at chess. Humans could always beat the computer for two reasons. Humans could hold multiple strategies in their heads using metaphors of play. Computers chunked out every possibility of every possible move out to a certain number. The efficiency of the human brain was superior to the speed and capacity of computers until Deep Blue. Finally the speed and capacity or complexity of the computer works better.
The general principle is that simple solutions may well be easier to implement but unless you can see all the consequences of the simple solution or at least be sure that the consequences are minimal, there is probably a more complex solution available. I concede to you, the more complex the solution, the more difficult it is politically and logistically to implement. However, the more complex the strategy, the more likely the opponent will not anticipate your move.
There are certainly situations where complexity will not work. I would not want too many strategies on a battlefield. However, the regional and global strategies have to be very complex to be effective. Most military strategists admit today that the approach to Iraq was too simple. They had a great plan to win the war, but winning the peace is the harder and more delicate and complex process that got too little attention.
Witness Bush's campaign machine now grinding out the message about Social Security. The message is simple, but the strategy and philosophy behind the message and the intended outcome of the mission is very complex.
Here is an article on increasing numbers of homeless children that addresses the issue of welfare reform: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/families.html
My comment about AFDC being a disaster was referring to its well known tendancy to create dependency on the welfare system among a limited number of chronic users.
Here is the Center for Disease Control information on DDT: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts35.html
I'm more inclined to believe CDC than Fox News.
Here is the best explanation I've seen about complex systems, prediction and intervention:
Control Collapse
Late in the 20th Century we began to realise that linear prediction, far from being the ubiquitous panacea of success imagined in the past, was only a simplified viewpoint applicable to relatively few systems. Most of the world about us is nonlinear, and this has vast implications on our views of control. In nonlinear systems we find that knowing the exact equation for their behaviour is of little help in predicting the outcome. Sensitivity to initial conditions, in systems containing chaotic interactions, precludes accuracy in long term predictions. The implications for plans are obvious, we cannot set out plans that will come true as expected, except in very specific cases. Real world systems, especially those involving people, are generally too nonlinear to qualify. Management by imposed control, in other words top-down rule in the way practiced for two and a half millennia, is ineffective or at best inefficient.
Distributed Systems
To overcome this problem we can only do one thing, and that is to move the control from the past to the present. Instead of planning an action in advance we specify constraints and then allow the local conditions at the time to determine how the task will be done. This is the essence of distributed systems, each task responds to the local environment in real time, the interactions between the system and environment allow an emergent solution to arise. Power is localised, not concentrated and this allows fast responses to unforeseeable events, a flexibility that removes the rework costs inherent in more static plans. This is a open, parallel mode of operation, where multiple options can be tried simultaneously, compared to the closed, serial mode of conventional management where decisions move linearly up and down fixed command chains.
Post a Comment