Four weeks ago today.
Our flags still fly in remembrance here. I'm sure they will so for
days yet to come. Our Walmart here still hasn't filled the shelves where
some reasonable supply of U.S. flags were meant to be found. We have
struck back - the begining of what will likely be the most defining
epoch of human history. Bombs fell in Afghanistan. Targets hit.
Risks reduced. More people killed. The new Great War is enjoined...
Each view of history and humanity is unique, personal, and
grounded in fundamental cultural assumptions which can no longer be ignored.
Osama bin Laden has taught the entire world a basic lesson, one that
is fundamental to the Network Age: we are all connected. From what may
well be history's most heinous act we get the lesson, screaming from the
darkest corner of humanity's belief systems. And there, in the fear-saturated,
lowest rung in the homo-achievement slime climb, we find ourselves reduced to
barely remembered Stone Age ethics. But we get the lesson.
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the assumption that gave rise to
an insane arms race, also promised hope during the Cold War; both sides
trusted that both sides actually wanted to live. At the end of the day,
we trusted that the "other side" love their children too (i.e. "love"
as in having hopes for a long, happy life for...).
The same basic "acceptable outcome" assumptions is a shared attribute with one
of Game Theory's favorites, the Prisoner's Dilemma. As long as we assume
both (all) share and value a common set of attributes which define the
domain of acceptable outcomes, opposing world view's can be accommodated.
The single fundamental assumption of
MAD and the
Prisoner's Dilemma (along
with a whole lot of other strategic models we have to date explored)
is that a shared domain of acceptable outcomes exists. That is
to say, that some subset of attributes will be shared (i.e.: we both want
to live). One challenge we face now with the New War is that even such
fundamental strategic models are flawed. Or a lot darker than we may have once hoped...
We encounter now an enemy with whom we share very little in the
way of attributes which define an acceptable outcome. From what I can discern
(which is admittedly as parochial as any non-Arab/non-Muslim) the belief
system espoused by the enemy (bin Laden, al Zawahiri, Mo. Omar, et al)
requires all "believers" to kill "infidels" (non-believers) now that
Jihad or holy war has been declared. And if the believer is killed in
the process of killing infidels, all the better; martyrdom achieved. As a
matter of fact, no greater achievement in life is honored; the martyr's death
guarantees celestial glory, which is the entire point of existence in the
first place: to prepare for death. Oh, and the more one suffers, the
better....Allah likes that. At least that's the bin Laden crowd's spin on
Islam. Okay....
Apocolyptic nihilists. That's how I heard our enemy described by
a pundit on the omni-present cable junkie all-night news channel...
was it last night? Apocolyptic nihilists. Their mythology calls for
big bang, Armageddon-like latter days --- sound familiar? What self-respecting
world faith doesn't have a very dark corner where a sadistic nihilist
finds harbor? Bastards. What can't we all just get along? But it isn't
and it never was that simple.
Belief systems, it seems, require a bit of attention -- much more than this
particular entry can muster. Perhaps another document, on another day...
for the moment, suffice it to say that it seems to
this writer that our enemy wants to die a martyr. We want to live in
freedom. The only mutually acceptable outcome is clear, cold, and culpable...
and we're all lessened as a result.
We are all connected. That much is clear. We all have blood on our hands,
we are all victims, we are all targets, we are all Israeli...and Afghan.
And American. God bless the United States of America.
If there's hope for humanity, it's in software. That has never been more
acutely true than it is now, especially in light of the lessons of 9/11.