The Lonely Sheepdog

One remarks easily one the vast philosophical gulf that separates people engaged in different professions even when there should be not reason for it.

Having dealt with a friend who chose to go into theater acting, I was not surprised that she was a pacifist but she was extremely surprised and horrified that I had joined the military. She simply could not folly the chain of logical arguments of why I believe killing is an acceptable and necessary part of civilized life. Here goes my stab at discerning why we differ so much.

Human beings live in a world of limited resources, attention span, and time. The need to act well before we can form a fully logical proof is clear and we do so whatever our consciousness says. Some people understand the limited nature of their experience and try to live according general principles and will only act if they have a logical reason to. That approach requires either a perfectly understood and applicable philosophy or one that is flexible enough to deal with the muddle of existence.

Our limits of attention (if you stare at the bird all day, you won't notice the bear creeping up on you) mean that we must theorize based on limited information. In most modern cases, the ubiquity of entertainment means that the drama of the screen is unconsciously taken be be close to reality. The result is that people form their understanding of military and police operations from movies that currently depict the "dirty Harry" archetype of a bad cop. Feeling that to be the most prevalent type of activity, most halfway decent and nice people will form an aversion to such activity and the professions of policing and arms by extension.

Given the largely unreflective nature of the very peaceful life in the West, people do not often think about violence and its place in society. The efforts to preserve the settled nature of society have been so successful that people now take it for granted.

Normally, I would reject the assumption people's different experiences lead to their philosophies but recently (with much shock) I have begun to realize apathy and boredom are two of the strongest forces in human psychology. She has always lived in a wealthy, safe, and free society. I did not. I grew up in the crime ridden neighborhoods of a major city. I did not believe all the fuss over tolerance due to seeing (up close and personal) the actual state of race relations where the supposed weaker minority was far from concerned with anything but their own power and wealth. Later dealings with such a bureaucracy have left me with a wonderful degree of cynicism.Conflict was all around me and I observed with a rational mind.

The essence of conflict is desire. The desires of two people or actors may be covering the same thing without conflict(both want a new street) but when what they want is exclusive (A wants the street, B wants pristine scrub) there is a conflict. That does not mean they will resort to violence but simply that one person acting on their desires will inhibit the others desires. It is the wonderful achievement of society and civilization that we are able to cooperate and limit our desires for a moment in order to achieve greater things.

This is a social arrangement that allows people to accomplish their desires or to be guided in them in such a way that people are mostly free but not unduly inconvenienced. Unfortunately, some will simply see people with things they want and will try by various ways to get what they want without complying to the ways permitted by society (e.g. a person just deciding to drain his company's account in order to buy a fancy car) in such a way that is harmful either specific people or to the society as a whole (often by presenting a bad example or humiliating the honest). There are many ways to deal with such people but the generally peaceful environment of society means that if a person uses threats of force to impose their will, few will resist as they do not have the experience, tools, or aggression to do so.

Both the violent offender and the preserver of order (police or soldiers) use violence as their tool. The most powerful type is killing. We humans are so inventive that often the easiest way of dealing violence is to kill and so the preparedness to do so is necessary to preserve society. Several people have explained it as Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves. The sheep are peaceful but are week and can stray into danger. A wolf can easily kill and eat a sheep and would meet its desires well by doing so. The Sheepdog may look like a wolf (both have fangs and aggression) but its job is to protect the sheep from themselves and wolves. The sheep may resent to oversight and hate the sheepdog but he keeps them safe.

To me, this is clear. To her, it is not.

I think that it is most largely due to people subconsciously assuming that that which is not necessary in their individual life is not necessary in public life and that all people think roughly the same way. Not everybody needs to be a cop but society needs somebody to do the job. People are free to choose their job so they don't often get exposed to the need for other jobs.

That effect is allowed to exist in relatively safe environments in which people have been disciplined enough while young or self-controlled enough that they won't start a major fight in the street or kill and rob a person for a phone. The job of the police is to prevent such things by continuously exerting their presence to make people quietly give up any hopes of gain by violent means. Most people even don't realize theft and assault are frequent in other areas and deplore the violence of the police in securing the area.

That one person is peaceful and lives in a peaceful and orderly world leads a person of normal attention span to ignore the reason for the armed men does not give them a serious understanding of life at the edges of order. She hopes (and from movies assumes it is possible) that opponents may be non-violently subdued. She has never dealt with determined people with guns.

So where is the second part of the initial question? What of the different professions? She is an actress who by definition works in the land of dreams. I am a soldier who must deal with the nastier parts of human desire and their consequences (without much opportunity to escape cleaning up). The normal process of life reinforces in me the need to deal with ever-present problems of life, death, and the general survival and welfare of most people. She deals in hopes and despairs. The very movings of the human heart. Certainly war and killing have a very strong emotional impact but they are largely impervious to wishful thinking or often the result of it.

The boredom of most people in the Settled and Civilized West is such that people make movies about whatever pathos or cause can exert some emotional pull. That people do not seem to live and die by those decisions allows people to be lazy and go with whatever they feel to be nice or the general consensus of idealism. They attach their emotions not to the accomplishment of the task but to the struggle for a better world (while being disconnected from the hard task of doing the accomplishing) and base their goodness on their role in such struggles.

The result is an odd almost-narcissism as people fail to recognize that other people do not have the same values and may be perfectly willing to kill anybody who prevents them from achieving their goal. The result, people with limited attention spans are shaped often by their environment as they will not often think seriously about anything other than that which directly pertains to them.

Thoughts on Georgia

The media response in even the more analytical organizations is disappointing. The assumptions the organizations are relying upon are that the Georgian government is trustworthy, the Russian Government is not, that International Law dictates that infringement into a country is impermissible, and that the US must back the Georgians.

Most of these (not all) assumptions are wrong. There has clearly been a conflict there for nearly two decades as a result of both pre-existing and communist inspired population movements. Georgians and Ossetians do not have a pleasant history together nor do the Abkhaz. The conflict has involved people “voluntarily” leaving after their houses have been torched and life made unpleasant in other ways in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgians have not been models of good behavior either and many incidents of villages taken by Georgian troops suffering the same fate.

Clearly the conflict is bitter. Let us bear in mind the maxim that “truth is the first casualty of war” and trust nothing claimed by either of the sides unless independent verification can be obtained. Sadly, this day in age interprets “independent verification” to be journalists at a government press conference or materials supplied by a government influenced organization. The Georgians are better able to influence the Western diplomats and journalists by interacting more frequently with it and without the Communist baggage and Russian support that isolates South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia’s government is not a neutral party and still should not be trusted implicitly. Journalists however are parroting the government line due to a convergence of ideological fear of Russia, sympathy for the perceived underdog, and material concerns of physical safety and the need to deliver a story.

Neither Russia nor Georgia are democracies. Putin clearly displays himself as the power in a thinly veiled autocracy. Shalikashvili is more refined and while not much more democratically minded, knows how to play upon the West’s expectations and hopes. Rarely do Westerners think but rather emote when several buzzwords are detected. Democracy is one of them. By repeating the term to journalists and diplomats, and using phrases that sound as if they came from a liberal democracy, a false impression can be conveyed. Only actually investigating the situation on the ground would make such a strategy unwise as democratic rhetoric uncoupled with actual circumstances on the ground irritates some people.

The irrational trust in the Georgians is coupled by a semi-rational fear of Russia. Russia is acting in accordance to national interests that sometimes collide with those of Western countries or even of the entire West. The Russian government is not the most honest government around to use more than a little understatement. Ukraine suffered a bout of Russian efforts to keep it in Moscow’s orbit with the various cultural, economic, and security concerns that entails. The means to achieve it were embarrassingly thuggish by the Russians. Russia however does have concerns that few would dispute in principle. The lack of rights of the Russian minority in Estonia, the expansion of NATO in what is clearly an offensively placed series of alliances and bases directed towards Russia, and the fates of Russians and pro-Russian groups outside Russia.

The right of self-determination invoked by the republics who left the Soviet Union should apply to those who do not want to be part of the new states is the Russian position. This is a logical argument on behalf of Russian interests. Georgia’s interest is in the viability of its state and independence and for that, territory controlled is vital. Georgia’s continued survival and independence gives an imperative for territory even at the price of locals rebelling and Moscow taking a renewed interest. As Georgia has been backed by the West, backing down would humiliate the leaders and people who back Georgia. The credibility of Western force and intervention lies in not backing down and acting. The US has an informal alliance with Georgia and thus must back it.

All parties are acting on rational strategizing on the state level. The concern in that unlike the partially constrained Russian media, the Western media is free but stupid. Instead of a strategic conflict of interests and strategies with moral implications, the situation is seen a pure democratic Georgia against an unprincipled Russian invasion. Given the amount of effort the South Ossetians had to employ to get Russian to back against increasing Georgian efforts to regain control of the territory, Russia was acting on principles of non-intervention more that supposed. The South Ossetians were players just as much as Russia.

McCain’s fury at Russia’s actions in defeating the Georgian assault on the anti-Georgian statelets and invasion of the rest of Georgia stems from his believing Georgian and US propaganda. Geo-politics is nothing to be ashamed of. Sadly in a society the prizes idealism, rational strategy must be sugarcoated in ideals to be palatable. In worse cases, outright lies are told. The effect is to make policy-makers fanatical and make policy erratic and unpredictable for those being interacted upon.

International Law is generally a fiction. Actors do what they can in cases of deep interest even beyond what they would do if the cases were not as important to them. Law may dictate relations between less interested parties but if concerns are raised, law becomes disregarded. Even still, International Law has become a concept in flux. The NATO backing of the UCK (Kosovo Liberation Army) and war against Yugoslavia was somehow mandated by international law while the Russian backing of South Ossetia and invasion of Georgia was impermissible?

International Law is often appealed to but as the defining nature of the state is that it is sovereign, there is no real body of law governing them save what states apply to themselves. There are treaties and accepted concepts but these are insufficient basis to pronounce judgment upon a situation where there are not treaties.

Given the power of Russia, constraining an increasing hostile Russia is the main US strategy. The various actions of the Clinton diplomatic legacy shattered a tenuous trust and respect between the US and Russia and the erratic fanaticism of the Clinton lackeys has made Russia distrustful of the US. Any ability to repair the relationship is unlikely without a larger threat that requires clear thinking. Georgia has sought the US as an Ally wheras Russia has disdained the US. The US has accepted the allegiance of Georgia and the new relationship must be acted upon even when one party is wrong. The value of allying with and accepting the direction of the US relies on benefits received from such a relationship. Those benefits are nowhere more extreme than in a war. Given Georgia’s defeat and Russia’s strength, the US can only offer peri-military aid and diplomatic support and condemnation of Russia. US credibility requires that the US back Georgia.

With this in mind, let us act rationally and not believe the Georgia or media propaganda the Georgia did not commit atrocities (ethnic expulsions occurred on all sides) and even murders (unarmed villages got shelled). We must support Georgia because they are allies, not because we are idiots.

Considerations on “liberation struggles”

The 20th Century has been noted as the most violent in History. The majority of the deaths have been civilian incurred in the course of violent struggles to liberate their land from foreign rule, “imperialism”, “exploitation”, poverty, racism, and other assorted causes considered liberation struggles.

Yet, for all the protestations of desire to help the people, such struggles have been the most total and dehumanizing of all struggles. The struggle to free Russia from (alternatively) Capitalistic exploitation/Bolshevist terror during the Russian Civil War was extraordinarily brutal and even Russians considered themselves to be less valuable human beings than Westerners. The dehumanization and conflict of the Civil War made the brutality of Stalin’s deportations, executions, and the purges possible.

The liberation struggles in Latin America were also noted for brutality and especially those in Africa. The struggle against the brutal Belgian rule over Congo was more brutal that the very rule the proposed liberation from. The Vietminh(alternatively VietCong) was brutal in its treatment of government teachers, mayors and anyone associated with the government. The moderation that was claimed to exist did not reach 1975 when the Communist government imprisoned 300,000 people who had worked for the ROV government and their families. The aftermath was a disaster for the South.

The most accepted liberation struggle in recent history has been that of the ANC to replace the Afrikaner Government in Pretoria. Yet after the fall of Apartheid, the civil service has lost its professionalism, the most skilled are leaving the country (which remains the economic superpower of Africa), and the military was completely purged with the attendant loss of discipline and quality. This may be an acceptable price if democracy is the result but the farm murders (1,500+ since 1992), and devastating crime rates, and the system of racial preferences known as Affirmative Action are undermining the unitary state and the overwhelming loyal vote for the ANC makes political competition difficult.

Another but less volatile and more ridiculous is the struggle in the US over “White Privilege”. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton explain the relative failures of US Blacks on a legacy of slavery and justify antagonism and even incite violence to right it. The consequences can be immediate and tragic (the Crown Heights Pogrom) or slow and poisonous as the government of Mayor Marion Barry (D.C. is barely recovering).

The problem seems to be that when the Oppressor/Liberator dichotomy is used, other factors and gradations are ignored and one is forced into one camp or the other. Gratitude is also expected to the liberator and this allows the liberator to ignore the promptings of common sense and allows dangerous flights of fancy like Julius Nyerere in Tanzania.