By clicking here, you may SUBMIT your own comment, and/or you may READ the other comments made by public contributors. .

Terrorism in the 21st Century

Item 1 09-OCT-2001 15:08 Richard Farson

Here begins Terrorism in the 21st Century, a main conference continuation of the dialogue we began on September 11^th in the Topical Issues section of the ILF.  148 comments were generated in that lively and informative discussion, and so we decided to make it into a main conference for October.  We have moved those 148 comments to the archives, where they are much easier to read.  You can reach the transcript of the conference either by clicking on Archives on our first page of the ILF conferencing menu, or by going to Policy Forums on the ILF portion of the WBSI website.  It is interesting reading, and good preparation for this conference.

Also, following other suggestions we have received, we will be offering only one main conference this month.  The other conferences are adjourned, but can also be read as transcripts on the Archives.  The conference on Leadership and Information Technology which a few weeks ago focused on one of the important threads in that conference, how information technology might be employed to improve democratic participation, led by Don Straus, will be resumed at a later time when it is not in competition with such an urgent topical issue as terrorism.

If we can bring to bear the experiences and wisdom of all of the ILF Fellows on this critical development, we can make a significant contribution to the national dialogue, as the war becomes a hot war.  This kind of discussion has a special importance, not just because this body is perhaps better able to explore the deeper issues involved, uninhibited by having to honor a particular ideology, but because in this particular war, we are less likely to be able to get complete information from government sources.  Hence, our own contacts and our own judgments become crucial.

I'm pleased to tell you that we have several resource specialists, three WBSI staff members, sociologist Tom Gillette, documentary filmmaker Bill McGaw, and Webmaster Kip Winsett, who will be joining us, as well as Professor Farhad Saba of San Diego State University, who was formerly managing director of educational radio and television broadcasting in Iran, his birthplace.  If you will check the transcript to read his contributions so far, you will see that with his experience and scholarship, besides being raised a Muslim, he has been extraordinarily helpful to us in our effort to understand the background of the current struggle.

1:1) 09-OCT-2001 15:39 Richard Farson

Perhaps it would be helpful to recognize that we will not reach a solution to terrorism, because it is not a problem in the first place.  It is what the late philosopher (and former WBSI Fellow) Abraham Kaplan called “a predicament”.  Problems can be solved because they usually have some root cause, some pathological condition that accounts for the difficulty, and if that cause is eliminated, the problem is solved.  Predicaments, on the other hand, are permanent, complicated, paradoxical dilemmas.  They cannot be solved, only coped with, managed.

While there is much we can point to as pathology in the history of this struggle, the reason it is a predicament is that the causes of hatred for the USA come not just from what is wrong with us, but what is right with us--aspects of our society we would never abandon.  It is also a predicament because we cannot distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter - it all depends on where one sits.  Further, it is a predicament because we have no proven method for rooting out the complex international networks of terrorists - any more than we have a method for rooting out organized crime networks.  The history of military strikes against terrorists is not encouraging.  Perhaps the best we will be able to do is to cope, as we did with the cold war.  As Bill Keller in today's NY Times reminds us, we won the 40 year cold war less because of what we did than because of what we are.

1:2) 09-OCT-2001 18:56 Rodrigo Arboleda Halaby

Hello... I have been out of the loop due to a couple of family related topics and problems that are also related to terrorism.

We went to Colombia on August 31 to accompany Gloria Halaby, the wife of my cousin Edwin, who is dying of cancer.  My wife Cecilia is very close to her and wanted to give her company before she enters into a coma.  The cancer has spread over to her brain.  In a turn of events more related to a García Marquez novel, Edwin was killed on Thursday, September 6^th, in a kidnapping attempt while leaving the hospital after visiting with his wife.  Cecilia was there with them and witnessed the whole tragedy.  She had to run to the parking lot, where he laid down, to assist him, to no avail.  He was bullet ridden with more than 11 shots.  Apparently, the he was killed by the kidnappers of his son, Christian, age 24, who 7 years ago was himself kidnapped, escaped after a month of captivity and was able to identify them.  They were convicted to 14 years in jail but were let go a month before because of a change of the criminal code of Colombia.

As you all can well imagine, the entire family is in shock.  He was the most valuable member of my uncle William’s family, the financial brain, the strategist, the clear-headed person of his group.  A Stanford and Harvard graduate, he was trying to rescue the family business, which is collapsing due to the economic recession.  The war against FARC has created an economic contraction affecting all aspects of life, of which security and finances are the ones more clearly touched, albeit not the only ones.  Perhaps those are only the manifestations of a deeper illness affecting Colombian society.

Cecilia’s visit was the first one in three years to Medellin due to security concerns.  This welcoming ceremony is a bizarre one.  We visited briefly Colombia two months earlier, also in a strange trip.  We went there to accompany my cousin, Queen Noor of Jordan, on a humanitarian trip, trying to convince the FARC to stop using landmines and using children as soldiers.  We visited for six hours with the top leaders of the guerilla movement.  It was an experience worth relating under separate message.

And here we are, back in Miami, glued to the TV sets.  It is really an overwhelming event, something similar to the assassination of President Kennedy, one of those things that will remain in our memories.

We are overpowered by all these events.  All of them were experiences of importance on their own merit but the addition of all proved too much.  Thus, the reason for my silence all these weeks/months.  I hope to get back into action with you guys again.  I am on my way to MIT to work there on the Digital Nations project.  We hope it is needed now more than ever.

Best regards to all of you....

Rodrigo

1:3) 10-OCT-2001 00:03 Richard Farson

Rodrigo, my heart goes out to you and Cecilia.  It is difficult for us USA natives to appreciate the conditions under which you and your Colombian relatives and friends have been living for decades.  We are only now getting a taste of that, and it is unsettling, indeed.  I am so sorry for Cecilia and for you for the loss and impending loss of your cousins.  What a terrible tragedy.

Naturally, your story relates to what is going on in the new war against terrorism.  I wonder if Bush and the members of the coalition intend to root out the drug lord terrorists and/or the guerilla fighters in Colombia?  I remember when your Supreme Court was massacred.  I know that President Andres Pastrana and other friends of yours have been trying to rid the country of that scourge for years.  I remember when he was kidnapped, and when his sister was kidnapped and murdered.  I remember your helping his lovely young sister become a participant in our School of Management and Strategic Studies.  What do you think the chances would be for us to be able to end terrorism in Colombia when you Colombians have struggled so long and so unsuccessfully in your efforts to do that?

1:4) 10-OCT-2001 00:47 Anna DiStefano

Dear Colleagues,

I am glad that this forum has been dedicated to further exploration of terrorism.  I found the initial discussion complex and illuminating (although I do marvel at most everyone's ability and inclination for rational analysis while I am still often flooded with emotion).

A friend of mine sent me remarks made by Rand CEO Jim Thomson on September 19th in Berlin.  You can access them at: http://www.rand.org/hot/nato.html.  Since I so respect the level of dialogue that has gone on here, I wonder what you think of his views?

I look forward to the ongoing conversation.

Anna

1:5) 10-OCT-2001 01:45 Carlos Campbell

Rodrigo, I am stunned and saddened to read about your cousin Edwin's death and the condition and trauma experienced by his wife, Gloria.  Clearly, this type of mindless brutality underscores the International aspect of terrorism.  It was this point that the late Claire Sterling made in her 1981 book “The Terror Network”.  She described how tens of thousands of terrorist were trained in Cuba, Syria, Libya, then East Germany, and other nations and connected.  She detailed instructions in publications that directed terrorist to learn to drive, pilot aircraft, sail, blow up bridges and railroads and other essentially urban infrastructure. To obtain money they were instructed to kidnap and rob banks.  She also pointed out that the advisor to President Carter did not take terrorism as a serious threat.  As we know, President Carter brought in Admiral Stan Turner to head the CIA and get rid of the "Cowboys," or the covert action operatives who both got their hands dirty and managed assets (people working for the agency overseas). This caused a lot of retirements and a drop in staff morale.

Playwright Christopher Fry in A Sleep of Prisoners wrote: "Strange how we trust the powers that ruin but not the powers that bless."  Up until September 11, it is fair to say that many government and military leaders were in denial and fell asleep at the switch.

There are no quick fixes in countering the threat.  The culture of intelligence consists of graduates of the Ivy League and top universities.  The people "inside" are brilliant to a flaw.  The flaw is often a lack of street smarts and an insistence of having all sorts of proof, photographic, electronic (ELINT), communications (COMINT), human (HUMINT) before classifying something as positive.  In addition, terrorism is a different kind of war.  Consider the leverage factor at the WTC.  For every terrorist killed, about 350 victims resulted.  For every dollar spent by the terrorist, over a million dollars in physical damage and associated costs resulted, not to mention the trillions taken out of the stock market.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said: "Only when it is dark enough can we see the stars."  Those Stars have been the firemen, policemen and others, yes, faceless to the masses, but images that will exist for eternity to their friends and loved ones.  The leadership provided by the Mayor, the President, Secretary of State and others is commendable.

The question is, “are we doing the right thing at the right time the right way?”

The coalition makes sense, as does the commitment to rid the world of terrorism.  To say we are in for the long haul is an understatement.

Yes, our way of life will be changed forever.  We must now go through life checking our six (o'clock position).  The televised debriefing of the BDA (bomb damage assessments) take me back to 1965 when I gave such debriefings at The Pentagon during the Vietnam War.  The difference now is that the U.S. has precision bombs, which reduce the waste or missed hits.

The priority at the moment is to assess and reduce the threat to persons and property both here and abroad and to be truthful about preparedness and vulnerability.

I am writing a paper about the need for common sense in alleviating the terrorist threat and will share it with you when it is completed.  In the meantime, the brutal reality is that there is very little that can be done when one person decides to sacrifice their life to exact death upon others.  The good news is that we can do so much more but we must get down and dirty and change our way of thinking.

1:6) 10-OCT-2001 13:36 Richard Farson

I just got off a video-streamed computer conference with author, management consultant, and ILF Fellow Chris Meyer, who made the point that security should be based more on the biological model of immune systems, than the physical model of firewalls.  Instead of the Great Wall of China or the Maginot Line or the missile shield, he thinks all people who oppose terrorism can become like the millions of immune cells in the body, collectively sensing and repelling a hostile element.  It is an interesting point, and one that is surely taking place.  My only concern is that it is so easy for that to accelerate and replace interpersonal trust, which is the keystone of our society.  When we lose that, when we are turned against each other, we have lost everything.

1:7) 10-OCT-2001 14:12 Mary Boone

Rodrigo, I echo the sentiments of sadness others have expressed over your recent losses.  Your message is a great reminder of a wider world.  It's so easy for us to focus on one thing to the exclusion of others.  For example, I've noticed that when people refer to Sept 11, they often refer exclusively to the World Trade Center and neglect to mention the Pentagon and the downed flight in Pennsylvania.

Anna, I read Jim Thomson's remarks and found them quite interesting, thanks for including that link.  He does not mention the Pre-modern and Modern struggle that is so eloquently articulated by Farhad.  It would be intriguing to be able to share Farhad's ideas with him and get his response.

Dick, I actually like Chris' concept of the immune system precisely because it speaks more to a self-adaptive system model as opposed to a mechanical one.  I do hear you on the concept of trust, however.  As I think of the immune cells, I think of the concept of sense and respond.  I think if we look at this in the right light as a call to be more aware, to be cautious, then we need not become overly suspicious of our neighbors.

The other day I was on the commuter train from New York City traveling with a friend who is a former naval intelligence officer. She saw a piece of luggage in the area beside the doors and turned to me and said, "That unattended metal case is making me nervous."  Now, of course, being the trusting soul that I am, it would never have occurred to me that an unattended metal case might be a problem.  I just assumed it was someone's case.

I then stood up and asked people in our car and the adjoining car who the case belonged to.  No one answered.  Finally, a woman stood up and said, in a rather irritated tone, "It's mine.  It doesn't have a BOMB in it."  The point is that we're all going to have to get used to these types of queries and become immune cell sensors.

1:8) 10-OCT-2001 14:34 Mary Boone

Just another thought on the idea of immune cells:

Dick, I think what we need to do is train the immune cells about what to look for.  In other words, look for abandoned metal cases rather than looking for skin color or religion.

Our leaders are exhorting us to "be more aware”, but they're not being specific enough about what to look for.  We've been a pretty naive bunch for a long time and could use some guidance.

1:9) 10-OCT-2001 16:19 Mary Boone

How about an anti-terrorist curriculum for the average American?  It could be delivered through Public Service Announcements, etc.  My aforementioned friend says that she received a course on individual terrorist awareness training in the military.  Maybe it's time we spread a little more of that knowledge.

I'd venture to say that if you stopped the average Israeli on the street in Jerusalem and the average American in Kansas City, you'd find a world of difference in their ability to tell you how to watch for terrorist behavior.  Average citizens want to know, "What can I do?  How can I be safer?"  Maybe this could be one way of answering that question.

1:10) 10-OCT-2001 18:35 Richard Farson

I'm afraid that would depend, Mary, on who was conducting the educational program on terrorism.  Remember, there is a security industry that needs to promote itself.  There is no single truth to be conveyed that would prepare us or make us feel safe.  Indeed, the training itself could make us more afraid as it examines remote possibilities.  Again, we can only prepare for what we can imagine.  We could not imagine the collapse of both towers of the World Trade Center (and I strongly suspect that the terrorists couldn't either).  We couldn't really imagine suicidal airline hijackers.

The enhancement of security is a bottomless pit.  The more we do it, the more we will be inclined to do it.  The real danger is entering a security state, which is what is happening.  Today, we hear from President Bush that CONGRESS ITSELF is going to be denied classified briefings, let alone the public's being informed about the conduct of this war.  And, if Osama bin Laden makes another address, the networks have been asked to ban it, for fear it may contain coded messages.

The far greater danger we face is the concentration of power in the executive branch of government and in the military.  Almost anything can be done to us in the name of security.  Because he wants to provide for our security, we have mistakenly given President Bush Carte Blanc to go to war anywhere in the world, and it appears he may.  So, I'm with you with respect to balancing alertness and trust, but the balance has to be way over on the side of trusting each other, freedom of information, and democratic participation.  A security state is ultimately more dangerous than terrorism.

1:11) 11-OCT-2001 16:52 Douglass Carmichael

From the events in Columbia to the meal suitcase, powerful stories of us all in a web we don't like.  As the Oz might have said "its a long way from the Saturday Evening Post”.

I am concerned about the use of "terrorism”.  The discourse around terrorism brings lot of assumptions and precludes some form so creativity in reframing.

The jump to "war on terrorism" is so common in the press mixes metaphors, and puts us on the war side.  The most disturbing thing right now is the making of Bin Laden to a hero of large parts of the third world, even beyond Islam.  As the British Columnist said yesterday, "Bush and Blair have already lost the war of words in the Middle East."

I agree with Mary that here are opportunities in the organic sense of security.  Breaking the logical grip currently between heightened security must mean giving up on civil liberties.  Training airline attendants (first) and then all of us, in self-defense could make a real difference.  Or will Disney, Sony, etc. get the laws that make any copyright materials passing through your computer a terrorist offence?

We also need to think about the symbolic landscape.  The WTC was a concentration based on pushing the back office operations into the third world and bringing together the big deal maker in expensive face-to-face proximity.  It was not my towers, it was what belonged, as a symbol, to the top one percent to whom 53% of all gains in the stock market accrued 1983-1998, and the 400 richest Americans whose wealth grew (during last year's bad market) an average of 1.44 billion from 1997-2000 for an average daily increase of $1.920,000 per person, or 240,000 per hour.  (Calculated from Forbes.com)

Now, the next serious problem is, can an empire be taken apart without extreme chaos?

In other words, can moderates around the world cohere on a new agenda of increased justice and wealth?  Or will the lawyers fight back?

1:12) 11-OCT-2001 17:15 Kip Winsett

Greetings to all the members of this forum.  I have followed with great interest the input from all of you and feel privileged that Richard has invited me to add comments.  Thank you Richard, for your generous invitation.

Rodrigo, my sincere condolences go out to you and Cecilia.  Your personal sense of tragedy far transcends the vicarious experience that most Americans are experiencing.  Hopefully, in some way, the American tragedy will result in a lessening of these kinds of atrocities for people all over the world.

In response to recent comments regarding "modernism", I would like to offer the following thoughts:

America has been singularly unsuccessful in dealing with and providing assistance to a great many countries this past century.  The shocking events of Sept 11 have shown us that there can be a substantial price to pay for such failure.

It has occurred to me that there exists a significant cultural mindset dichotomy between the industrialized nations and many other nations in the modern world.  These industrialized countries are primarily "collective" cultures.  They adhere to a general belief in "rule by the majority".  The various religious, ethnic, and racial groups within these countries are allowed to voice their dissent and dissatisfaction and are allowed a means by which they can legitimately bring about changes in their own lives.  These cultures have developed and maintain institutions, such as health care and education, which truly serve the majority of the citizens.  And, in these collective cultures, the governments are, to a large extent, forced to be responsive to at least the basic needs of the majority of the citizens.

Many countries in our modern world, however, still follow what is essentially a tribal mindset.  Not necessarily tribal in their structure but definitely tribal in their cultural map.  Tribes have always excluded outsiders.  They are mistrustful of them (rightly so) because they know that outsiders have the potential to bring great change.  Typically, in a tribal culture, the glue which binds the members is comprised of such traditions as religious beliefs, family structure, and the rules which govern and define property.  Those who do not follow the tribal beliefs are outsiders and, consequently, are seen as being dangerous to the tribe's very existence since that existence requires the maintenance of those fundamental traditions.  Change of any kind is not embraced by tribal cultures.

It is not uncommon for the ruling group in tribal cultures to ignore the needs of many of its citizens because it does not depend upon them to continue in power.  Leadership in such cultures is simply a matter of power.  The leaders are backed by the power of their "tribe" - whether or not the tribe has a formal name such as “Pushtan” is irrelevant.  The tribe may consist of a network of loosely related families, or any other group, which puts its own interests above the interests of the people.

This dichotomy makes successful interaction between the two mindsets extremely difficult.  America, as a collective culture, often approaches other cultures as though they were collective rather than tribal.  When we have provided financial support to the governments of tribal cultures, we have made the erroneous assumption that the governments would use the funds collectively to benefit the majority of the citizens.  That has rarely been the case.  Usually, the government members simply enrich themselves and other members of their tribe.  The other tribes in the culture (whoever is not in power) do not benefit from our aid and as the disparity in the quality between the lives of the leaders and the others increases revolution is often the result (witness the fall of the Shah of Iran).  Unfortunately, the successful revolution doesn't greatly benefit the majority of the people of the culture.  It simply installs a different tribe that puts its own interests ahead of the others’.

No matter who America supports, we have always been cast in the role of the ‘mistrusted outsider’ who brings cataclysmic change to the tribe.  Unfortunately, it is true.  We do bring cataclysmic change that threatens the tribe.  Either the ruling tribe or the subject tribe, and often both, suffers from our intervention.  The fundamental mistake we repeat time and again is to assume that we are dealing with a collective culture.  We predict an outcome based upon the way we function as a culture, and we are forever disappointed.  Then, we typically bemoan our fate and insist that there is ‘something wrong with those people’.  We can't understand how our good intentions have so widely missed the mark.

Historically, the change from a collective to a tribal culture has been fraught with great difficulty, and its success has generally been dependent upon a handful of great men with the vision to see a better future for all.  Interestingly, the unification of Germany by Bismarck and the Meiji Restoration both took place around 1870.  Both countries transformed essentially tribal cultures into nationalist countries and 70 years later they united in a spasm of incredible violence against the "collective" cultures.

Unless, and until, we find a way to successfully collectivize these countries such that their governments are willing and able to ensure the survival and prosperity of the populace at large regardless of their tribal differences, then we will simply repeat the endless cycle of being drawn into tribal conflicts.

1:13) 12-OCT-2001 09:51 Mary Boone

Dick, I totally agree that we have to protect our freedom and avoid a security state.  What I am proposing is simply that we be told what is meant when the FBI and the President tell each and every one of us to be more "alert”.  Well, what does that mean?  I think he realized that this could open a can of worms as evidenced by the questions he got during his press conference last night.  And in fact, if we don't define it explicitly we run the risk of having people interpret it as a license to be suspicious of Arabs or Muslims.

I'm simply suggesting that the level of our naiveté is enormous (witness my aforementioned lack of concern about an abandoned piece of luggage on a commuter train).  The fact is, we don't know how to be alert.  I was most intrigued by your comment about Chris Meyer's biological model and that made me realize that it would only work if the immune cells could recognize the threat to the system.

As for the notion that people will become more nervous if we start providing this type of information, think of how quickly we adjusted to the notion of having our bags go through a security process when we get on an airplane.  I think there is a way to share the information without being alarmist about it.  We're seeing security companies capitalize on the gas mask phenomenon, but the press is doing a good job of letting us all know that a gas mask is really not something we need at this point.

1:14) 12-OCT-2001 09:56 Mary Boone

Doug, I agree with you that we have to find some way of helping to encourage justice and wealth worldwide.  What word would you suggest in lieu of "terrorism”?

Kip, thank you for sharing that wisdom about tribal and collective culture.  It really helped clarify for me what it is about the differences between the two that is so critical.

1:15) 12-OCT-2001 12:37 Raymond Alden

Kip's remarks provoke many thoughts!  I wonder what it would be like if, instead of trying to deliver assistance, we tried harder to be an attractive example, actually DOING here what we advocate elsewhere.

1:16) 12-OCT-2001 17:34 Mary Boone

Ray, intriguing...give us an example of what you mean.

1:17) 12-OCT-2001 17:41 Mary Boone

Kip, I had a question for you...

You mentioned that moving from a tribal to a collective culture is very difficult and that the few successful attempts had generally been led by a handful of visionaries.

Then you said: "Unless and until we find a way to successfully collectivize these countries such that their governments are willing and able to ensure the survival and prosperity of the populace at large regardless of their tribal differences then we will simply repeat the endless cycle of being drawn into tribal conflicts."

The question is: how can we successfully collectivize these countries?  Do we have to rely on a handful of visionaries?

1:18) 12-OCT-2001 20:43 Kip Winsett

Mary, that is hard to know isn't it?  How much of the past is a blueprint for the only way things can happen?  History offers the opportunity to see examples of what worked (or didn't work) at a particular time.  I made that original statement primarily because almost everything I have heard or read in regard to any solution has simply been more of the same ol' same ol'.

How do we address the many problems caused by a lack of infrastructure, reliable employment, personal security, and participation in government?  We managed, in a sense, to do this for Japan and Germany after WWII, but only after we had nearly destroyed those countries.

Dick has suggested some form of the Marshall Plan.  But, can it work without the total capitulation of Afghanistan?  Are we prepared to seek such?  Have there been any instances in history where a tribal culture became collective by any means other than violence?  Do we have the right to insist upon such a transformation for others?  Do we have a viable option to that?

I have this bad feeling that we are not going to do much of anything.  Visions have very high short-term costs, and we are nothing if not cost conscious.

1:19) 13-OCT-2001 02:39 Farhad Saba

I must admit that I am a bit disoriented since we have switched to the new discussion.  I hope my comments are appropriate; although, I am still continuing the themes which were established before the change.

In so far as anti terrorist measures within the US are concerned, I would like to attract the attention of the discussants here to two kinds of addictions: Addiction to oil (fossil fuel), and addiction to narcotics.

These addictions have made a “super power” such as the US, dependant on some of the least developed countries.  Sometimes, I wonder who the super power is The US, or those countries which can bring transportation to a dead halt in this country, as they tried to do so in the 1970’s.  We simply have to substantially reduce our dependency on foreign oil as much as possible.  This should be the “Manhattan project” of the 21st Century in which the US would create a reliable source of energy to supplant oil.

The case for narcotics is clear so, I won’t comment in detail.  But, I must say that US addictions to oil and narcotics have created an unhealthy addiction of a different kind in developing countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.  These addictions, indirectly, breed domestic discontent and hatred for the US in the international arena.  I am not familiar with Columbia and other drug producing countries, but it is safe to assume that the situation there is somewhat similar to what I will describe here.

This is an addiction to what I have called “easy money,” or as it used to be called in the 70’s petrodollars.  The overwhelming majority of populations in Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, have no role in creating their national wealth.  These economies are totally dependent on oil income, which very few people (perhaps a few hundred) produce.  The rest of the economy is organized to consume the income from sale of oil in a mercantile system which produces next nothing.

In Iran, for example, the oil income is distributed through salaries which government bureaucrats receive.  Government employees, who produce nothing, then circulate the money through the economy while buying food, and manufactured products that are primarily imported.  Iran’s is a sick economy, which is totally dependant on oil income.  People simply have no role in production –only in a consumption that is one step away from hand downs.  In past arguments, I have prescribed “tough love” for Iran.  I have said, the country simply has to close down its oil wells, and develop an independent economy, before its people can feel good about themselves.  If you are looking for one of the major sources of hatred toward the US look no further than the US addiction to oil, and Iranian and Saudi addiction to petrodollars.  People in these and other countries, such as Indonesia, do not hate Americans because they are poor and Americans are wealthy.  They hate Westerners because their own economic and political systems will never allow them to become self-sufficient and feel good about themselves.  They will continue to hate, and find an escape goat even if America by some magic ceases to exit.  (I am not sure if this point is clear, since it is full of irony; please let me know if this doesn’t make sense).

Another comment that I must make is that I am amazed at how the media keep Americans totally uninformed about oil companies. Most Americans buy gas, and heating oil on a regular basis.  The majority visits a gas station at least once a week, if not more.  However, I dare you to find any news items about oil companies in your local or national newspapers.  As we are all concentrating on Anthrax, and Afghanistan, two major oil companies that are Chevron, and Texaco went through a merger.

I am a news junkie who constantly switches among Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN almost 24 hours a day.  I saw only one reference to the merger of Chevron and Texaco in the last 72 hours.  In comparison, the esoteric details of Microsoft’s attempt to corner the market by disallowing a competing web browser on its operating system were extensively covered last summer for an audience who might buy one or two pieces of software a year, and can download their web browsers for free anyway!  I am not arguing against the extensive coverage given to Microsoft.  But oil companies deserve a lot more attention than they are getting now.

1:20) 13-OCT-2001 08:48 Donald Straus

Farhad: I would like to suggest another addiction to be added to your list: the U.S. addiction to being the World's only super power.  This is a comparatively new addiction for us - really since the collapse of Soviet Russia.  Ironically, both the U.S. and the rest of the world, with all our numerous problems, were healthier inhabitants of this globe then than they are now.  Fewer shooting wars, more stable economies.  This is a bold and probably flawed generalization, but one that with some more skilled tuning, may help us understand the new issues that are plaguing us.

I believe that this has produced a dichotomy in our self image that produced the odd combination of dropping bombs and food at the same time and our President's rhetoric that seeks to sound both like a 20th century World Leader and a 21st century Collaborative Statesman.

If anything good can emerge from Twin Towers, it could be some constructive thinking about the above half-baked ideas.

1:21) 13-OCT-2001 16:51 Mary Boone

Kip, the reason I asked the question is that lately I've been trying to combine my highly limited understanding of postmodernism with my dangerously scant knowledge of complexity and chaos theory and connect those areas to issues of governance in organizations.  I haven't looked at political systems, but as they are both human social systems, I suspect there are similarities.

Could it be that the time has come to have no superpowers (good point Don about superpower) or greatly diminished ones?  Could it be time to stop relying on heroes?  The center cannot hold.  Power shifts.  I don't think this means that we have to revert to tribalism.  I think we need a new way of thinking about governance (and btw this is very pertinent to Don's ideas about technology and democracy).  In the 1930's, Mary Parker Follett set forth the notion of power-with instead of power-over.  We need to utilize existing technologies and organizational methodologies that allow us to govern interactively rather than over-relying on our father-figure/hero/leaders.

And in fact, I think the time has arrived where those who cling to the notion of power-over will lose ground in the business world and I think ultimately in the political world.  Everything has just gotten too complex to rely strictly on the brains or magic of the few.  We need visionaries for articulation, but we need whole connected systems of people for both contribution to the vision and for implementation.  This is a lesson that the Bush administration is learning in spades right this minute.  Coalitions, knowledge sharing, and cooperation are essential in this situation.

1:22) 15-OCT-2001 00:27 Kip Winsett

Mary,

I reviewed some of your earlier comments in the IT forum and thought this quote from your 03-MAY-2001 comment illustrates in a different context the fundamental problem facing a number of the lesser developed countries.

"But in this new book, … I wanted to make the point that in an increasingly chaotic and fast paced environment, we need whole systems of people working interactively to handle the variety generated by the system instead of simply relying on the 'brain of the firm' as Beer would call it. Therefore decision making has to happen at all levels, strategy has to be generated at all levels and technologically-assisted collaboration is appropriate at all levels."

These countries are functioning in a "top down" mode with the higher levels benefiting greatly and the lower levels essentially working for less than subsistence wages.  This has been the model for tribal/feudal cultures.  Any actions we take which don't enable the general population to participate in and benefit from decisions by leaders will just continue to fuel the crisis.

I am not convinced that Farhad's idea that "We simply have to substantially reduce our dependency on foreign oil as much as possible" is a sound strategy.  While it may be to our advantage to conserve oil, there is a significant problem with the strategy.  Reducing the income to the oil producing nations is not going to solve THEIR problems, rather it will exacerbate them and their leaders will blame the USA for the reduction in income (who else could they blame)?  He is dead on target when he states: "They hate Westerners because their own economic and political systems will never allow them to become self-sufficient and feel good about themselves".  This is what needs to change.

1:23) 15-OCT-2001 09:48 Donald Straus

Kip: I recall a popular movie, probably current long before your movie-looking years, which was about a small country declaring war on the U.S., exchanging a few rounds of ammunition, and then giving up.  The result was that they were put on our list of nations needing assistance and presumably lived happily for ever after.

1:24) 15-OCT-2001 17:35 Richard Farson

I've been in San Francisco for the last four days at a conference (and in long lines at the airport) and I'm pleased to return to such a vigorous and interesting dialogue.  So many fascinating perspectives and important ideas.

America is proud of its "can do" approach.  We are nothing if not problem solvers.  We don't like to stew about things, we like action.  "What can I do on Monday?" is the frustrating question that so many American audiences ask of speakers.  I would like to suggest that we haven't thought enough about how that attitude (as powerful as it has proven to be in many circumstances) might be getting us into trouble, especially in this current crisis time.  I wish that we had not taken the action we have taken in Afghanistan, (even though the Administration showed remarkable patience for 24 days--a position that no Democratic president could have done without, as Frank Rich pointed out, being pilloried by the Republicans as feckless and flip-flopping) and I would like to propose that we not try so hard to deal with security issues through taking action measures.

Malcom Gladwell, in last week's New Yorker, described how our efforts to advance airline security has led to a parallel advance in the techniques of the hijackers and terrorists.  The result is that there has been an escalation and increase in the devastation and loss of life.  So, on balance, we have not improved security, we have just entered a security game with the terrorists which has been costly and largely ineffective.  The effort is characterized, of course, by our enacting security measures to deal with the past problems, and we are continually surprised by the unimaginable, as we were on Sept 11.

So Mary, I know that you want to be able to contribute to a more secure nation, but the security problems are so paradoxical.  When police go on strike, crime goes down, not up.  Is there anything for us to do that doesn't actually make matters worse?  I think it would be a good exercise to list security measures that are clearly effective, that would reduce fears, and that don't compromise our civil liberties.  Well, let's see....

1:25) 15-OCT-2001 18:04 Hallock Hoffman

This conference has already produced a remarkable amount of wisdom. I wish I could add to it. But all I have is questions.

It is clear from Kip’s comments (extremely valuable) that culture change is what is needed.  He is right that in the past that fundamental culture change has happened typically through violence and been led by a few visionaries.  But the remarkable recent changes in information distribution have probably changed culture change, too.  Osama bin Laden virtually has a TV network that connects him to millions of Muslims.  Even 25 years ago, that would not have been the case.  Changing the culture in which he thrives is now a worldwide network kind of task.

What new form(s) can culture change take?  I hope we can answer this question soon.  The dreadful and obvious fact that our federal high officials can think only in terms of modern, not post modern, concepts of government and war, threatens, as many of you have pointed out, to cost our country some of its main reasons for being collective (to use Kip’s smart term.)  But worse, they have adopted strategies that can’t produce the results they seek.  They are fighting a “war” when what we have is a problem of culture change, and, at least publicly, they show no signs of even noticing.  And meanwhile the “press” while using technologies that might convey information of value to cultural change are simply reinforcing our current cultural myths.

So, I think we better figure out how to help tribal cultures move toward accommodating the actual nature of a globally organized world; and we better learn it for our culture too; and it will take a massive change in our collective and their tribal cultural understandings and practices to make it happen.  And my question is: how do we do it?

1:26) 15-OCT-2001 18:57 Kip Winsett

Donald, I remember that movie - "The Mouse that Roared".  Starred Peter Ustinov and Sandra Dee if memory serves.  But, actually, I think they won the war.  They had a "pretend" weapon called, I think, the "Q bomb" and bluffed us.  It was a nice, warm and fuzzy movie with a fairy tale ending.

Dick, I think your point about our impatience to act is well taken.  It is, perhaps exceeded only by our impatience to have done with it and move on to the next challenge.  We are not exactly a nation with a long attention span!

Historically "civilized" cultures or perhaps a better term would be "technologically more advanced" cultures have often been overthrown by "barbarians" who, in effect steal/copy the technology and turn it against the developers.  It is much faster and cheaper to steal/copy technology than it is to develop it.

Hallock, I really appreciated your insight that "the remarkable recent changes in information distribution have probably changed culture change, too."  This deserves some real consideration.  It is so easy to approach new challenges using old methods, and as you point out there are new methods available.  You make me wonder if, for example, we might be able to establish a TV broadcast station with programming content that includes practical education for people in lesser-developed countries?  Could we teach improved agriculture methods effectively in that manner?  Or teach people to read and write?  Basic engineering skills?  Health and sanitation?  We export a lot of images and content abroad, but I think it is most likely stupid or violent - rather than useful.

1:27) 15-OCT-2001 23:08 Raymond Alden

Please excuse the delayed response.  I've been traveling.  Back in #15 I said, "I wonder what it would be like if, instead of trying to deliver assistance, we tried harder to be an attractive example, actually DOING here what we advocate elsewhere."

Then Mary said, "intriguing...give us an example of what you mean."

Many examples appear in the subsequent responses by others.  What I meant is, in general terms, that when we try to deliver "assistance" to backward countries, it is like pushing on string.  Their cultures and our culture, taken together, make the so-called assistance unattractive, with the singular exception of food for the hungry, and even that is a spotty record.

We know of weaknesses in our culture -- excessive dependence on foreign oil, on drugs, etc.  Excessive spreads in income between the top and bottom layers of society.  Many acknowledged failures in our systems of education, health care, criminal justice.  The homeless and the illiterate and the mentally deranged, etc.

If we were to make a partial fix of all of these weaknesses, then other cultures would be more likely to ask us how we did this, and the supply of assistance would be more like pulling on the string.

1:28) 16-OCT-2001 08:24 Donald Straus

Am I alone in thinking that it was tragically poor judgment to refuse to discuss turning Bin Laden over to a "neutral" country?  Refusing to discuss may sound like strength and determination to a 20th century leader, but is in truth a sign of weakness and ineptness to 21st century leadership skills.  Does not such language turn more on-the-fence Arabs against us and reinforce our image of arrogance?  And not so incidentally, I can think of no good outcome for us to receive, try in our courts, and find Ben Laden guilty.

1:29) 16-OCT-2001 13:03 Hallock Hoffman

Kip, your response led me to wonder whether the Voice of America now exists, now has, or ever had, Arabic languages programming, ever paid attention to Muslim listeners.  If it exists, and we are not actively using it, we're crazy.  If it doesn't exist, how can we get it into action?

1:30) 16-OCT-2001 18:18 Mary Boone

Hallock, yes, Voice of America certainly exists.  I did a speech in Washington back in June at the Dept. of Labor and met a number of people from VOA and they were terrific.  I believe I heard the other day that they are broadcasting into Afghanistan, of course, I'd imagine the problem is that no one has radios and if they do, they are banned by the Taliban.

Dick, I take your point that these issues can be paradoxical and would add another to the list...you noted that: "When police go on strike, crime goes down, not up."  It's also true that an increase in the New York City police force has been accompanied by a marked decrease in violent crime.  The problem is, of course, that all of these variables are so hard to control for and it's so difficult to prove causal effects.  (e.g. certainly the increase in police officers has occurred during a period of a very strong economy)  While I can see the dangers of an "always act" approach, I still believe in education.

And I've also had the thought that if we applied our normal standards of justice within America to a trial for Bin Laden, it's hard for me to imagine a square inch of America where Bin Laden's attorney wouldn't ask for a change of venue.  I think I'd have trouble serving on a jury for him because I think the guy is TOTALLY guilty and would have a hard time listening to the evidence impartially.

Kip, thanks so much for seeing the connection of what I talk about in my book with what's going on.  An interactive approach is going to be needed in both public and private approaches to governance.

1:31) 16-OCT-2001 18:23 Mary Boone

I just want to take this opportunity to thank Farhad again for participating with us.  In recent days, I've been seeing reports of academic freedom in jeopardy.  Some university professors have been censured for their comments.  Farhad, I really appreciate your willingness and courage to engage with us.

1:32) 16-OCT-2001 18:26 Mary Boone

Ray, good example.  Now I understand.  The string-pushing metaphor is a great one.

1:33) 17-OCT-2001 02:10 Farhad Saba

As I have been hopping from class to class and delivering lectures, almost on autopilot in the last few days, I see that the discussion has progressed greatly.  I just wanted to make two short comments for now:

1. I appreciate everyone’s encouragement, (especially Mary’s) to continue my participation.  I am delighted to be among you.

2. I don’t think there is any excuse for the behavior of terrorists, even those who in their own demented minds have a “just cause”.  Some of my comments are the result of years of thinking, before the current crisis.  Although I have made suggestions for what we might do or don’t do in the US, I am under no illusion that our behavior here would have a direct effect elsewhere in the world, at least in the short term.

1:34) 17-OCT-2001 22:09 Raymond Alden

Don: You are NOT alone!

1:35) 18-OCT-2001 01:06 Douglass Carmichael

For the news junkies, my two favorites are CSPAD and BBC, both of which you can get live on the Internet.  CSPAN's undigested news conferences and congressional hearings are wonderful.

My sense is that we may be in for a surprise.

First, that the overall effect of 911 will be to trigger a conservative reaction along the lines of "we have had enough change”.  Individuals and old-line corporations were hurting under the dot.com and "free market" actions.  The line might be, "let's consolidate our gains and cut down on innovation till we know where we are”.  The middle class looks to rebuild security, spend some of its wealth in reestablishing bounded family existence.  It turns out much more like the Eisenhower years than Kennedy or the 60's.  Clinton, with his "it’s the economy" was already moving there, and Bush represents the capital gains/ inheritance tax mentality that says let's cash out and see what we have.

Second, that some new "event" will actually replace 911, as we get used to an increase in disasters about in proportion to the increase in population.  From, let's say, Chernobyl, Rwanda, East Timor, the floods in Central America, larger hurricanes under the influence of global warming.

All to say, in some ways, nothing is changing.  McCaffrey, fresh from the drug wars, now, apparently, is taking on Afghanistan (he was just on WNBC news).  The changes may be a little softening, which is good, combined with more centralization and monopolization (Chevron-Texaco and others daily), and increasing media homogeneity, which is not good.

1:36) 18-OCT-2001 18:54 Raymond Alden

Very good!  It follows, then, that "Space" will increase in value, rapidly.

1:37) 18-OCT-2001 20:37 Eleanor Goldstein

1:38) 19-OCT-2001 01:30 Richard Farson

It's difficult for me to envision a trial for bin Laden.  Tim Russert, on Meet the Press, asked the Taliban Foreign Minister if it didn't think it would be a joke to try bin Laden in Afghanistan, and he replied, "What kind of a trial could he get in the USA, with your president wanting him dead?"  I don't think we could stand a trial anywhere, because if it were fair, it would bring up quite a few aspects of our foreign policy that might be embarrassing.  And a trial under some international circumstances would be a protracted opportunity for our enemies to make their case in a very public way. What's more, I still don't think we have evidence that would stand up in court.  The remarks that others seem to see as his admission of guilt, don't seem that way to me.

Mary, the New York reduction in crime credited to increased policing may be accurate, but some observers argue that big city crime was on the way down well before the New York push, and that all the cities enjoyed similar reductions, whether or not they increased the police forces.  As I understand it, the kind of police that are installed makes the difference--community-minded police that walk the beats, get to know the folks, tend to have better results.  And we certainly agree on the importance of education as action, but I don't have to tell you that education is full of paradoxes and unintended consequences too.

1:39) 19-OCT-2001 01:51 Kip Winsett

Douglass, I always appreciate your comments for the "distance" they bring.  It is often difficult (at least for me) to look at the forest instead of focusing on a few trees.  Change is abroad - as always.  I have the sense, though, that we are standing at one of those crucial nexuses in history.  We have the opportunity, and maybe the will, at this time to effect a substantial change for a "better" world.  I can't say that I am too optimistic about it, but one can never know. The challenge seems so daunting.

Farhad, I was really struck by your comments: "The overwhelming majority of populations in Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, have no role in creating their national wealth."  And "They hate Westerners because their own economic and political systems will never allow them to become self-sufficient and feel good about themselves."  If this is an accurate assessment then it is clear what needs to be done.  What remains murky is the "how" of it.

1:40) 19-OCT-2001 02:21 Farhad Saba

Eleanor, thanks for your kind comments.  I would make a distinction between “a capitalist economy” and a free economy in oil producing countries.  It is true that there is not much capital in the hands of ordinary people to establish a capitalist economy in these countries.  But as I have seen in small towns and villages in the Middle East, people naturally gravitate toward establishing their own businesses, and shops, although they might be very small enterprises.

The problem with abject poverty is not poverty per se, but not having any hope for the future.  As the World Bank micro loan program has shown, very poor people can establish their own micro businesses and return the principle which they have borrowed with a lot less rate of default than big governments in the same countries.

Let me approach the issue from a different angle.  One of the primary reasons behind the Iranian change of regime in the late 1970’s was not that the Iranians were poor.  In fact, the ordinary worker, shopkeeper, and government employee’s personal income had seen a dramatic increase between 1960, and 1970, beyond anybody’s imagination.  One of the primary reasons for the upheaval was that the source of the income was a centralized system of wealth distribution from the above.  People’s material life had improved almost without their trying.  They had little or no role in wealth generation, and eventually bit the hand that literally fed them and revolted against the monarchy.

One of the best ways that the US can help people of the poor countries is to show them how to establish and run their small businesses, efficiently.