epiphanatic » politics

Posted on 01.28.07 by jstoner @ 5:43 pm

One of my favorite thinkers on the subject of security, Bruce Schneier, wrote this great blog post recently. Schneier has a very solid, rational approach to the subject; I think of him as the economist of security, because he tends to present security in economic terms: trade-offs, costs and benefits. He coined the term “security theater,” meaning security measures that don’t provide actual security, and that may exist to further some other agenda than security, or secure a different resource than claimed.

But here he is, rationally (and compassionately) defending the practice of security theater in certain circumstances:

We make smart security trade-offs — and by this I mean trade-offs for genuine security — when our feeling of security closely matches the reality. When the two are out of alignment, we get security wrong. Security theater is no substitute for security reality, but, used correctly, security theater can be a way of raising our feeling of security so that it more closely matches the reality of security. It makes us feel more secure handing our babies off to doctors and nurses, buying over-the-counter medicines and flying on airplanes — closer to how secure we should feel if we had all the facts and did the math correctly.

Of course, too much security theater and our feeling of security becomes greater than the reality, which is also bad. And others — politicians, corporations and so on — can use security theater to make us feel more secure without doing the hard work of actually making us secure. That’s the usual way security theater is used, and why I so often malign it.

But to write off security theater completely is to ignore the feeling of security. And as long as people are involved with security trade-offs, that’s never going to work.

This so reminds me of another security expert I admire, Gavin de Becker. De Becker wrote The Gift of Fear, my second-favorite security book (after Schneier’s Beyond Fear). De Becker’s approach is nicely complimentary to Schneier’s: he addresses those moments when that primal part of your brain (the amygdala, I suppose) is saying “Something is wrong here…” His work is about tuning into, educating, and using that part of your mind to protect yourself in bad situations.

Schneier’s work is more about the situations when that part of your mind is a bad fit for the problem: it can save your life in a dark alley, or save you money in a bad business negotiation, but it won’t help you assess the security measures for your company’s network, or think sensibly about national security. When you aren’t confronted with visceral, accurate signs of human malice, Schneier clarifies things immensely. When you are, de Becker is your man. Problems occur when the wrong part of the mind is used to make security decisions.

I think there is important work to do around that boundary, between times when our primal minds will save us, and times when our rational minds will do a better job. In his post, Schneier is talking about a subtle point of detail in that boundary. I think it would be useful, socially and politically, for these two to get together. If Schneier and de Becker worked together, they could create some really useful mind-training, to help people use their entire mind-stack effectively to address the real threats we face.

In my own work, I have the responsibility to create complex systems, and then help my customers navigate those systems. I often must help people who are overwhelmed by complexity, and aren’t dealing with it well. I see this reflected in the world at large, and nowhere do I see bigger problems matched with worse thinking than in the field of security, on a political scale.
How ’bout it, guys?

Filed under: politics--global
Comments: None

a way out of Iraq

Posted on 01.15.07 by jstoner @ 1:28 am

I think I’ve got an idea of how to extricate ourselves from Iraq. It might not be a good idea, but I think it’s better than Bush’s current plan:

First, draft orders for immediate and complete withdrawal, as fast as possible. If you gotta leave some equipment behind, so be it. Get them complete and initialed, to the point where a single presidential signature will start the process. Make it as few pages as possible, for the President to carry around. I’m calling this the sword of Solomon document;

Get all the regional powers together, everyone with an interest other than chaos. Exclude those who would profit by chaos. Their interests may conflict, but none of them will be happy with the hell-in-a-handbasket scenario. There are those who would be happy with that: don’t invite them. Include Syria, Iran, the Saudis, Turkey, Jordan, the Kuwaitis, and all the appropriate internal players: al-Maliki, al-Sistani, and so forth;

Threaten them with the document. “We are leaving. We can leave now, or we can leave later. The choice is yours. You have x number of weeks to make a deal. If at any point, I lose faith that you are going to come up with something that will be stable, lasting, and as just as we can manage for all concerned, including the Sunnis, I will sign this, and we will let you people deal with the mess.”

“We’ll work with you. We’ll provide support for peaceful directions. But we have to move in accordance with the patience of the American people, and we also have to do our best by all of the Iraqi people.

“And we have to deal with the realities of spheres of influence that will interact over time here. Better to be up-front and diplomatic now than shedding blood in the shadows for years to come.

“If partition is the direction of history, then so be it. Those who want a unified Iraq have to stand up for it, now. This is probably your last stand.”

It would require balls, and statesmanship–if the next president does have to sign the Sword document he/she will have to answer to the American people for $100/barrel oil. But you know, the president serving from 2008-2012 will probably be a one-termer anyway, so they might as well step up.

Filed under: politics--global and politics--us
Comments: None

Liberty begins in the heart, not the law

Posted on 10.27.06 by jstoner @ 11:59 pm

Liberty begins in the heart, not the law. A mind clouded with fear cannot know it rights; it will not use them. A heart filled with hate will not respect them in others. So in these moments, when we are weak and thrown to hate and fear, we must return to that highest mind, the mind that gave us these rights inalienably, and our deepest heart, the heart that demands we respect them in others. By whatever name, we must reconnect with the universal source of dignity.

Only there do we find the strength to be free in difficult moments. Only there do we find a way to truly defy terrorism. And only from there can we truly defeat it.

The true guardians of liberty need more than guns and bombs. All human beings know hate and fear: true guardians of liberty know them, have them, but guard against their yoke.

In that mindfulness there is a gift. A liberation not only of will, but of spirit. And a liberation not only of spirit, but of mind. A wisdom and a sensibility emerges: is the building on fire? No? Then take a deep breath. Calm down and think. What’s the real threat here? How do we deal with it sensibly, rationally? How do we manage our minds to bring our best to the problem?

So look carefully at those who would lead you. Know that those who lead by fear are themselves led by it. They are not fit leaders of free people. They do not have what it takes to be free in times like these. They deserve your compassion, not your allegiance.

In every dictator, there is a scared little boy, too afraid to face respected equals; in every backslider in the cause of liberty, a panicked, overwhelmed individual, compromising when they know they shouldn’t. Fear puts these simple principles out of their grasp: it is as important to know when to trust as not to. A nation’s greatest power is the goodwill of its people. And while security is important, respect for human dignity and basic freedom is both the deepest foundation and highest expression of that spirit.

So when you choose your representatives in the coming election, ask yourselves this: what kind of civilization do they stand for? How deeply civilized are they? How well do they think when their civilized nature is tested? Do they fixate on barricades, or do they seek ways to leverage the best of our nature to make our world both safer and freer? Free people must demand no less.

Filed under: politics--global and politics--us
Comments: 2 Comments

talking to Iran

Posted on 05.27.06 by jstoner @ 12:00 pm

News piece in NYT today about the debate within the administration over direct talks with Iran.

I’d love to see them try to justify military action without trying direct talks. That would be funny:

“We’ve tried everything possible before taking this action…”

“Did you talk to them?”

“Well… our friends did.”

“But did you?”

“Um, no…”

The scary thought is that they might do it as a formality, just so they can avoid this conversation.

Filed under: Uncategorized and politics--global and politics--us
Comments: None

They wage war because they are so inept at waging peace

Posted on 03.24.03 by jstoner @ 10:46 pm

I suspect we would have to go to war with Iraq at some point. Now is not the time. It only looks like it is the time because we started the credibility clock: when you start banging the drum about the credibility of sanctions and the UN, you force the action forward, whether or not the time is right.

We have paid enormously in international credibility and goodwill. The diplomatic ineptitude of this administration will cost us for decades to come. We will pay in allied relationships, in moral authority, and most importantly in the safety of our people. It may very well be the beginning of the end of the American era.

The Iraqi regime is terrible. Saddam is a murderous sociopath, living a sociopath’s dream. but there are others who are also terrible, at least one of whom has acquired nuclear weapons.

I could write a litany of second-guesses. The Bush administration should have stayed involved in the Israeli-Palestinean confict, and participated in a more even-handed way. They should have–and still should–sustain better focus on Afghanistan. I mean, “We forgot to put it in the budget?” Come on. I could go on.

What matters right now is that the Americans finish their business in Iraq as quickly as possible, and with minimum pain. It matters that the aftermath is handled under international auspices.

I saw Thomas Friedman talk about the aftermath prospects on Jim Lehrer’s show. He said words to the effect that “This could be a very good move, if we handle it right.” I don’t think the Bush administration has handled it right so far. I don’t think there’s evidence that they will do so in the future. I dread the next several years.

And I’m very clear that we have to replace the Bush administration in 2004. Just or not, his election was an historic mistake, and must be corrected.

Filed under: politics--global
Comments: None