Sunday, March 19th, 2006
CHAOS AND COMPLEX SYSTEMS 101
Dr. Von helpfully points us to this easy to grasp University of Texas tutorial on understanding Chaos Theory and its implications.
Archive for 2006
Saturday, March 18th, 2006
ABIZAID ON IRAN
General John Abizaid, CENTCOM commander, on Iran in his testimony to the Senate Armed Service Committee. Full text here:
“The situation with Iran is tense, and the possibility for miscalculation with U.S. forces remains high. CENTCOM forces in the region continue to watch Iran carefully to prevent any destabilizing activities that contribute to internal Iraqi or Afghan frictions, or threaten regional stability. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons capability is particularly troubling. Iran seeks “creeping normalcy” that will permit international acceptance of its nuclear fuel cycle, while buying time for potential covert nuclear activities. We believe that Iran’s declared objective of self-sufficient nuclear fuel production is coupled with the ulterior goal of weapons production. Iran’s withdrawal from the IAEA’s Additional Protocol or the NPT could decrease the timeline necessary to produce a weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase instability in the region and could pressure other countries in the CENTCOM AOR to consider acquiring such weapons.
Iranian-sponsored activities in Iraq continue to be unhelpful. Iran is pursuing a multi-track policy in Iraq, consisting of overtly supporting the formation of a stable, Shia Islamist-led central government while covertly working to diminish popular and military support for U.S. and Coalition operations there. Additionally, sophisticated bomb making material from Iran has been found in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq.
While generally thought to be for defense, Iran continues to build a credible military capable of regional power projection. It has the largest military capability in the region and a record of aggressive military action in and around the Arabian Gulf. Its power projection capabilities stem primarily from its navy and ballistic missiles. Iran’s military consists of over 350,000 personnel with an additional 300,000 trained reserve/Basij Forces that could be mobilized in times of crisis. The Iranian Armed Forces include two distinct, parallel military organizations – the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Regular military forces. Each controls its own ground, naval, air, and air defense forces and equipment.
In addition to defending against external threats, the IRGC also focuses on an internal security mission and is the lead Iranian agency for supporting terrorism. Competition between the IRGC and Regular forces for limited resources and competing chains of command make Iranian military intentions difficult to decipher. This heightens our concern for the potential for miscalculation with U.S. forces in the region.
Iran’s ground forces are arrayed across the country with the majority of combat power along the Iran-Iraq border. The Iranian navies continue their rapid growth. The IRGC Navy has been developed primarily for the Strait of Hormuz scenario in which Iran would attempt to “internationalize” a conflict by choking off oil exports through the Strait. To disperse large quantities of recently purchased small boats, high speed missile boats, torpedo fast attack craft, and midget submarines, Iran has embarked upon an expansion project for naval bases throughout its littoral. Asymmetric military strategies and naval force modernization, a key national priority, enhance Iran’s capability for power projection in the region.
The IRGC Air Force maintains control over most of Iran’s ballistic missiles and rockets. The accuracy and reliability of its rocket systems vary, but Iran is capable of targeting all Gulf States, the Arabian peninsula, Israel, and U.S. and Coalition forces in the region with little warning.
In addition to Iran’s conventional and ballistic missile capabilities, another lethal aspect of Iran’s power projection is its ties to regional and global terrorism. Iran remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism and provides extensive support to the Lebanese Hezbollah and several Palestinian rejectionist groups. Along with this support comes influence. Additionally, Iran’s own intelligence elements are stationed throughout the CENTCOM AOR and beyond and are trained and prepared to execute terrorist attacks at the direction of Tehran.
As the diplomacy surrounding Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons plays out, CENTCOM will continue to vigilantly monitor Iran’s conventional force posture and maintain a strong naval, air, and ground capability to deter Iran from attempts at further destabilizing the region. “
Hat tip: SGT. Garth Gehlen, U.S. Army.
Friday, March 17th, 2006
THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL BATTLESPACE
Marc Shulman at American Future posted on an essay by French philosopher André Glucksmann in Democratiya entitled “Separating Truth and Belief“. An excerpt:
“Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith. And it does this irrespective of race or confession. We may believe these facts are profane or undignified, yet they remain distinct from religious truths. Our planet is not in the grips of a clash of civilisations or cultures. It is the battleground of a decisive struggle between two ways of thinking. There are those who declare that there are no facts, but only interpretations – so many acts of faith. These either tend toward fanaticism (‘I am the truth’) or they fall into nihilism (‘nothing is true, nothing is false’). Opposing them are those who advocate free discussion with a view to distinguishing between true and false, those for whom political and scientific matters – or simple judgement – can be settled on the basis of worldly facts, independently of arbitrary pre-established opinions.”
This is no trite point.
Modes of thinking are not merely individual matters. They are also organizational and cultural patterns for categorizing information, precluding or favoring particular perspectives, selecting rule-sets for the sequencing and prioritizing data points. Mass acceptance of a particular epistemogical method has deep implications for the evolution of a society. Fatalism, irrationality and mysticism do not leave legacies comparable to that of empircism, logic and the scientific method. The former are a cognitive narcotic, the latter is a tool kit.
Irrational schools of thought, regardless of whether their origin is secular or religious are profoundly seductive because they offer the mind a ” free lunch”. They permit or even enshrine common logical fallacies such as special pleading, begging the question or appeal to authority as virtues. They are also, by their rarefied narrowness and lack of identifiable, quantifiable and reliable ” yardstick” to self-critically evaluate, tailor made to create the kind of individual who Eric Hoffer called The True Believer:
“Far more crucial than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know. One often obtains a clue to a person’s nature by discovering the reasons for his or her imperviousness to certain impressions.
…A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”
The epistemological method that becomes the dominant mode of thought in a given society determines its attitude on all great questions – from peace and war to prosperity and what it considers to be “good”. Political conflicts over intellectual shams like “ intelligent design” matter because they are questions of the legitimacy or falsehood of a particular cognitive method.
Opting for the good feeling of deus ex machina today is apt to bring ruin tomorrow.
Thursday, March 16th, 2006
RATIONALITY, ESCHATOLOGY, CONFLICT AND IRAN’S PRESIDENT
Following up on the vibrant discussion on Iran a few days ago is a brief on Iran’s President discovered by Pat Lang of Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Colonel Lang’s commentary is here.
ADDENDUM:
Dr. Barnett on Iranian youth , Iranian elite unrest and U.S. policy.
CKR of Whirledview on the “Upcoming Iranian Revolution“
Thursday, March 16th, 2006
COMING ANARCHY
Has long been one of my favorite blogs to read and a part of my koinon along with tdaxp, The Glittering Eye and American Future. A significant overlap of topical interests exists between myself and Curzon, Younghusband and Chirol, the pseudonymous and linguistically able proprietors of Coming Anarchy, yet with enough differences to make for many a productive and interesting exchange.
For newer readers, I thought I’d highlight Coming Anarchy’s beautifully designed travelogue section. Take a look for yourself:
