Your Ignorance is not as Good; Or, You Don't Know Fuck-All About Syria

[alcibiades_mystery]

Let's say you're a super smart person who reads the news all the time, and generally keeps him or herself informed. You're an accountant. Guess what? The person who works the Middle East desk at the State Department knows more than you do. Fucking fact.

OK, not an accountant. A teacher. A southern California independent journalist. A Vermont service worker who reads news and magazines constantly. A Massachusetts freelance writer.

The people who run the Middle East desk at State, at Defense, at Langley know more than you.

It is not "authoritarian" to say so. It is plain fact.

You can't celebrate the Asimov quote published here so broadly, to wit, that anti-intellectualism is "nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge,'” while at the same time being an amateur dilettante who thinks YOU know more than the person who works the Syria desk at State. Guess what: you don't. Your ignorance is not just as good as that person's knowledge. Even your endless web "research" isn't. That person has YEARS of formal training. You're a hobbyist, at best. And probably, a fairly recent one. Your ignorance is not as good as that person's knowledge.

I should note in closing that I am strongly opposed to intervention in Syria, full stop. But I will never pretend that I know more than people who do this sort of thing for a living simply because I am passionate, and have read a few articles.

[delrem]

1. Absolutely! George W. Bush was a fucking guru!

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. The Bushies problem was just the same: they thought they knew more

They were convinced that they knew better than the career civil servants, which is why they replaced them with know-nothings and ideologues: the general catastrophe.

It's rather simple, actually: 1) Do you speak Arabic: YES, NO.
2) Can you name three cities in Syria off the top of your head, right now: YES, NO.

Well, there ya go.

[delrem]

20. What if they answer yes on 1, 2, and get a job through PNAC.

How would that change things?

Those quasi-mythical people 'the founding fathers' didn't expect the people should all have omni-expertise, but they did expect them to have some kind of common sense. But what kind of common sense of the people can adjudicate when the current administration always pardons the earlier, so nothing is ever brought before a people's court and discussed in public? Then all you get is criminals pointing to the expertise of technocrats, who have an expertise that's mostly classified, to exonerate themselves, and where there's no recourse for that kind of crude lie.

[JoePhilly]

105. I have a very good friend who worked at the DOE and DOD as

an analyst for about 3 decades (retired just recently).

In the run up to Iraq, behind the scenes, he'd send me links to publicly available information and articles, as his way of letting me know a little of what was going on back in 2002-2004 without actually telling me directly.

One of the things he sent me was a link to an article on the infamous aluminum tubes. He sent it to me months before anyone was talking about that topic. In the article, a reporter talks to an "expert" on this topic. He says those tubes could never be used in centrifuges. And he explained why.

Later, my friend told me that the expert quoted in that article was THE expert on that topic. Not just some knowledgeable guy. He was THE GO TO GUY. The civil servant analysts knew him. And knew his word was definitive on this topic. They had talked to him in even greater detail, and they knew the truth about those tubes.

The problem was that Cheney's team had set up its own little analysis group with political operatives vetting the information that came in. Anything that agreed with their pre-drawn conclusions was kept, everything else was dropped, or in some cases, "footnoted" to the point of irrelevance.

He described how under normal circumstances, a position brief that was created using a wide array of intelligence always included all points of view. The position that was determined to be "most accurate" got the most prominent placement and most detailed discussion in the report. But alternative views would be presented along with that, and other less well supported positions would end up as footnotes. And the various departments indicated which position they saw as most accurate. The intent was to provide the clearest view possible, along with all potential alternatives.

He said Cheney's team would regularly abuse that process. Cheney's team always had a pre-formed primary position, and it was that position that always appeared first, with the most confirming detail included, disconfirming detail dropped or down played. Alternatives were watered down, down played, and often reduced to little more than footnotes.

The aluminum tubes assessment, and THE GO TO GUY's analysis, ended up as a footnote.

He said that during his career he'd never seen anything like it. In his experience, the civil service folks understood that they were paid well and had good career security, which meant they could remain objective and not get themselves tied up in the politics. He was a Republican and he worked closely with Democrats. But they never let their personal politics color their analysis. They wouldn't do it. And those who did attempt that path, usually got clobbered for doing so.

That changed under Bush. Civil servants who towed the line for Bush administration and its politicos who were wandering the halls in the DOD and DOE, advanced. If you pushed back, even if you were right, you got hurt, or passed over.

He retired last year. He said it was much better under Obama (he switched parties in 2008). However, he also said that plenty of those who brought their RW politics into the analysis, and had advanced under Bush, remained. The job security that had helped civil servants remain objective and above politics now allows some sycophants to hide while trying to promote positions not based on experts, but on politics. He did say that those who had kept their politics out of it who remain, are now working to FIX what the Bush administration broke in this regard. Folks who had become political pawns under Bush are now much more likely to find themselves in career limited positions. But its not a perfect or rapid process.

[bullwinkle428]

111. So what you're saying is that some of these RW Neocons that advanced under Bush

(in your final paragraph) may be some of the same people providing crucial points of intelligence to Team Obama, and this is what the decision to strike will be based on? This is the kind of thing that makes me really nervous.

[JoePhilly]

115. Except that the GOP polticos no longer run the show.

Which means, now after 4+ years, the process is again run by the career civil servants, the vast majority of whom are not politically motivated. And over that time, the folks who were politically motivated lost their power.

He's told me that there have always been some who do bring their own personal politics into it, and that at times, might "work for them" for a period ... but the benefit they obtained would be short lived because they'd get a reputation based on their lack of objectivity. and they'd be wrong more frequently. And they'd lose respect and influence.

My friend's view is that the folks who "played the game" under Bush, those who remain, are now frequently marginalized, and their input is looked at with far greater skepticism. And, they don't have anywhere near the influence they had under Bush.

Under Bush, the process had changed such that a team Cheney put together basically drafted the report even before the analysis was being brought forward from the actual analysts. That group's and their outline was used to filter what came in and where it went in the briefs.

That's not the case now. With the change of the administrations, that group went away. It had not existed before Bush, and it's gone after. There has always been an element of the political side "watching" but that's more so they aren't blindsided, not so they can direct things.

In his view, another reason the analysts work to be objective and accurate is that the DOD, DOE, Petnagon, CIA, etc ... all want to be RIGHT. Its not just about having your view appear first and most prominent, ultimately, its about being RIGHT.

So if you're section has been wrong over and over, which is true for the folks who use politics as their guide, particularly under Bush, your assessments don't carry much weight now.

So there is a concern here that some of those folks are still running around ... absolutely. But, the career civil servants and analysts know they exist. They know who they are. So even if these folks try to push some agenda, they have to do so against all of the others, who's knowledge, expertise, and information is no longer filtered out.

[Supersedeas]

124. more than a few similarities

[The Magistrate]

2. This Will Not Be Popular, Sir, But It Needed Saying

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. Meh...the ones who don't already have me on ignore will now

I respond with a universal: whatever.



Good to see you, Magistrate!

[cali]

81. That the op is true, doesn't make it relevant to discussions here

and of course, not one person here has claimed to know more than someone at the Syria desk in State.

I don't know as much as an economist when it comes to the economy. should I not have an opinion on supply side economics?

I don't know as much about loan practices as a banker, etc, etc, etc.

The shorter version of the authors op is apparently that because we're not experts in state, our opinions on the proposed military strike directed at Syria, are worthless. Or something.

That strikes me as both dim and anti-democratic.

[Scuba]

86. Has that person on the Syria desk ever been to war? I have.

[karynnj]

108. The Secretary of State has been to war

[NoOneMan]

3. Aha, but are our thoughts imprisoned by the same paradigms?

Facts lead to conclusions, after being funneled by perceptions shaped by worldviews. I can't tell you how many immigrants they get a year or how what the child mortality rate is offhand. I can tell you that I surely wouldn't want my babies victim to a smart bombing.

No, I am not a statesman. I do not hold their worldviews and values in some holy regard. I am a human. I know a lot about being human. I value humanity, as long as humanity isn't shitting in their punch bowl.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. There's certainly a case to be made for occupational psychosis

Or tunnel vision of various kinds. Yes, fine. That's true of any arena of knowledge. It's often brought up by anti-science anti-vaxxers, and similar dangerous imbeciles. But even if it was legitimate, fine. But there's also a case to be made against know-nothingism as a civic virtue. Some people are experts. They know more than you., That doesn't make them bad people, and it doesn't make you a bad person. We make different decisions in life: some choose to be wait staff at restaurants, others, foreign service analysts. When it comes to foreign policy analysis, though, I'll probably rely on the analyst rather than the wait staff.

[NoOneMan]

33. You can rely on whatever you want

It comes down to what is important to you. The world is ran by politicians relying on foreign policy analysts. What is is the manifestation of that. Are we satisfied with that? Is it meeting our emotional needs and those of our species at large?

Maybe those wizards behind the curtain have it "wrong". Maybe their priorities don't align with mine. Maybe their conclusion don't ever pan out.

[David__77]

5. 2003 Flashback: Your Ignorance is not as Good; Or, You Don't Know Fuck-All About Iraq

Let's say you're a super smart person who reads the news all the time, and generally keeps him or herself informed. You're an accountant. Guess what? The person who works the Middle East desk at the State Department knows more than you do. Fucking fact.

OK, not an accountant. A teacher. A southern California independent journalist. A Vermont service worker who reads news and magazines constantly. A Massachusetts freelance writer.

The people who run the Middle East desk at State, at Defense, at Langley know more than you.

It is not "authoritarian" to say so. It is plain fact.

You can't celebrate the Asimov quote published here so broadly, to wit, that anti-intellectualism is "nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge,'” while at the same time being an amateur dilettante who thinks YOU know more than the person who works the Iraq desk at State. Guess what: you don't. Your ignorance is not just as good as that person's knowledge. Even your endless web "research" isn't. That person has YEARS of formal training. You're a hobbyist, at best. And probably, a fairly recent one. Your ignorance is not as good as that person's knowledge.

I should note in closing that I am strongly opposed to intervention in Iraq, full stop. But I will never pretend that I know more than people who do this sort of thing for a living simply because I am passionate, and have read a few articles.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Experts on Iraq scoffed at neo-con plans

The very opposite of your point is true: the people who knew better knew that Bush-Cheney plans were garbage, and said so. They got shitcanned, and replaced by the ideological know-nothings. That's the fucking problem in a nutshell.

[joshcryer]

21. The people who spoke were outsiders.

And at least one was suicided (David Kelly) and another was scrutinized until his personal proclivities were outed (Scott Ritter).

Robert Fisk and Hans Blix were sort of beyond the US's grasp.

[silvershadow]

71. Good points, all. nt

[KittyWampus]

120. Richard Clarke was NOT an outsider. Nor was Joe Wilson.

[joshcryer]

134. Clarke's name was dragged under the mud and Wilson's wife was outed.

So the campaign against those speaking out did flow to even those on the inside.

But you are correct that it wasn't all outsiders, though I think the smear campaigns against both Clarke and Wilson were effective at discrediting them.

The point is the intelligence of insiders and outsiders was ignored by the Bush administration.

[cali]

95. lol. your hypocrisy is delightful.

expert after expert is warning the Obama administration about military strikes on Syria- including the chair of the Joints Chief of Staff, General Dempsey.

You're ignoring that, of course.

[PowerToThePeople]

6. All i need to know is violence begets violence.

Killing will not bring about peace.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. That claim is not a universal truth. There are plenty of examples in history...

Where killing was necessary to bring peace.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. there are very few truly universal truths.

But, I stand by my statement as valid for the vast majority of circumstances.

[Gravitycollapse]

17. Then maybe instead of trying to pop off one liners you should explain that...

I've never really understood the need to grossly oversimplify complex subjects into one or two line statements that could not possibly retain the level of understanding that is required to explain a subject.

[PowerToThePeople]

24. Why the one liner?

Because that is my stance.

I do not claim to have the knowledge about Syria, all of the politics and all of the players involved. There are other people who I must defer to in cases such as this. BUT, these people are my employees. They need to understand that, as far as this employer is concerned, I wish to avoid any violent reaction as much as possible. I voice this stance on every discussion of the topic of potential actions towards Syria.

[Gravitycollapse]

27. First off, they aren't YOUR employees. They are employees of the state.

You, yourself, are not the state any more than I am the state.

Second, what exactly is the purpose of mindlessly reciting a one liner if you know it's more complex than what you're leading others to believe?

[PowerToThePeople]

34. We are the state. They are our employees.

I am the state as much as you are the state. As much as Mr. Koch is the state. As much as Dick Cheney is the state. As much as Barack Obama is the state. My views and voice should hold equal weight to the direction of the state as any of the others. That IS democracy. You do believe in democracy, right?

[Gravitycollapse]

37. No, you are member of the electorate. You are a citizen. You are not the state.

[PowerToThePeople]

44. You are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_state

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

[Gravitycollapse]

49. The state encompasses public institutions. The public does not constitute the state...

The public, at least those eligible to vote, constitute the electorate. The public, as a whole, constitute the citizenry.

Employees of the state are employees of the various public institutions. They are not directly employed by the electorate. So you are not their employer and they are not your employees. You wield essentially no control over the VAST majority of public servants. Only the elected are subject to the will of the electorate and, even then, they operate merely on public mandate. You do not have direct control over their decision making. You only mandate them to make the decisions.

Those, my friend, are the fundamental underpinnings of a democratic republic.

[6000eliot]

131. Why do schools no longer teach civics?

[Gravitycollapse]

132. Which school doesn't teach civics?

[6000eliot]

133. I'm not sure, but your explanation was pretty straightforward, but so many people don't get it.

Also, my students appear to have very little knowledge of how government works, and they are going to college.

[Gravitycollapse]

135. It's the right-wing libertarians who are creating the most issues...

The "you are the state" bullshit is perpetuated by loudmouths who think the government is some mystical servant directly to their every whim.

I walk through campus and see dozens of students wearing Ron Paul shirts. Those are the assholes constantly talking about how they employ public employees.

You are correct, though. What I said is very straightforward and it's kind of a tragedy that so many people get it wrong.

[jtuck004]

72. When will this peace start? 'Cause I am fairly sure I have not experienced much of it,

and while one might think they have, there are very likely people around them suffering to make them comfortable.

Maybe more like a temporary cessation of hostilities, but except for brief moments and of limited geographical boundaries, I am not sure this whole peace thing isn't a bit overused.

[Brewinblue]

19. The guy working the middle east desk says your wrong.

All we are saying, is give war a chance . . .

[Art_from_Ark]

51. That's all they've been saying

for the last 60 years or so.

[Brewinblue]

58. Yeah, that may be so.

But as your avatar Bullwinkle would say: "This time for sure!"

[Art_from_Ark]

78. Presto!

[Union Scribe]

7. Oh, neat. Callouts.

"A Massachusetts freelance writer."
"A southern California independent journalist."

I wonder to whom you could be referring?

And your last paragraph is a bit confusing. You say you oppose intervention in Syria, but your entire premise is that those who do know better than you or me. Why wouldn't you then submit to their superior knowledge?

[Gravitycollapse]

11. "Why wouldn't you then submit to their superior knowledge?" - Cognitive dissonance

Hard core.

[joshcryer]

8. Wikipedia knows more than the State Department does.

There may be one or two intelligence guys who know more than Wikipedia (using Wikipedia as a guide) but they're probably not being listened to at all.

The people in charge are old codgers without much intelligence who are more concerned about making a political statement ("Red Lines&quot than about figuring out the facts and implementing justice.

How do we know this? The Iraq War was predicated on completely false and made up information. And the intelligence agencies knew this. They were told to make something plausible up, they sent one of those guys at a desk to go write up some possibilities (which they probably knew were BS), and so it was done.

[Gravitycollapse]

13. It's not a matter of wrong predictions. The Iraq WMD evidence was fabricated.

We were willed to war not out of stupidity but out of an intentional lie told to millions.

[joshcryer]

16. That's what I said.

You sit some intelligence guy down they will be able to come back with a speculatory report justifying whatever BS position you want to push to the public.

That's the fucked up thing about this.

[karynnj]

113. I guess that is why high school teachers across the country warn students not

to cite Wikipedia as a source. Though as one teacher a daughter had suggested it could be a good source to start with to find a variety of credible sources.

The problem with Iraq was the WILLFUL deception. This is a problem - and it is clear that it is now being used domestically and internationally to discredit the word of our government. That shows what Bush's actions cost the United States.

As to Syria, the problem is that Obama used the words red line possibly hoping to prevent the use of chemical weapons. He may have actually made the use more likely -- as it may well have been the rebels responsible for the small uses earlier this year.

It does seem more likely than not that the Syrian government had and used the weapons this time. Here, I am more impressed by MaDem's clear posts on how missile delivery of chemical weapons works than anything else. That, with the intercepted phone call, makes a good CIRCUMSTANTIAL case. Coupled with the five days of shelling and keeping the UN out when they are preparing to investigate something that deteriorates quickly rather than reacting with the outrage one would expect when hundreds of your people are killed, the government is very likely complicit. It does seem at this point that we may not have something directly pinning it to Assad or someone in the inner circle. This is FAR more than Bush/Powell even claimed to have.

I suspect that it will not be because other nations do not think Assad did this that they will hold back the effort. I suspect it will because they do not think a response of the type we would be willing to do (VERY LIMITED) would make the situation any better and that it could make it worse.

[Laelth]

14. I have to agree with you.

The obvious solution is for the State Department to tell all the relevant facts to the American people so that we can make informed decisions as members of a functioning democracy should.

Of course, I don't see that happening, and until it does I have no choice but to proceed in relative ignorance.

-Laelth

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Indeed

I'd like to see a full reporting from our Middle East experts.

The fact that we haven't seen one yet informs my opposition to intervention. That said, random person X is not more knowledgeable on Syria than the Syria desk person at State. That's precisely why we need to hear from State.

[RobertEarl]

42. We need Manning in State

Someone to spill the beans.

Heck, Obama could do it and not be thrown in jail. Kerry, too.

[bhikkhu]

22. In an ideal world, we elect people to lead who know much more than we do

most of the time I think it works well. At the moment, however, there are certainly some ghosts of the recent past haunting the halls...

[LittleBlue]

23. And Colin Powell was in a better position to know about Iraq

Seeing as he wasn't just someone in the State Department, but the Secretary of State.

How did that work out?




The question is not "Do I think they have access to more evidence than I do?" My question is whether they are lying, which you know, politicians do.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. There's always a danger of that, to be sure

It doesn't change the fact that the person working the Syria desk at State knows more about Syria than the people accusing that person of lying.

[LittleBlue]

32. Of course

And if I could get that person after a few drinks at a bar, and have a frank conversation with him/her, yeah I'd take their viewpoint very seriously.

Unfortunately the opinions within the walls of any entity are colored by internal politics and external pressures, which could lead to the public expression of an opinion completely opposite to that expert's honest opinion. Which is why in general I discard them unless they can be backed up by reason and indisputable facts.

[Niceguy1]

130. and thise facts are impossible to get

Aas there are no unbiased news organizations left.......

[deutsey]

103. Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi troops throwing babies from incubators, WMDs

Those are just some of the biggest blasts from the past. I'm cynical enough to believe that Reagan invaded Grenada to distract attention away from the deadly bombing in Beirut that killed 299 American and French servicemen.

[Waiting For Everyman]

26. You are arguing credentials, not knowledge.

And even knowledge can lead to wrong conclusions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. You're correct on the second part

Knowledge can of course lead to false conclusions. Indeed, if that same expert at State suggests intervention, I would oppose that. As far as credentials go, I've done enough hiring to believe that 10 there are such things as experts and 2) they usually end up in jobs requiring expertise. So credentials actually go a long way. It's usual;ly people who failed to get the credentials that snort at "credentials," in my experience. That said, as I noted above, there are certainly cases of know-nothings getting jobs that require expertise: view the Christian college alums stocking the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Dumbshits, the lot of them.

[SamKnause]

30. Ignorance ????

The brightest and the best of the best collapsed the global economy.

Many times the 'experts' have their own hidden agendas.

Many times the 'experts' are mere puppets being used by their 'owners or controllers'.

Many times the 'experts' are are biased.

Many times the 'experts' ignore, or deny facts.

The 'experts' have been doing an all around lousy job over the entire globe when it comes to finances and peace.

They have earned zero trust.

[Smarmie Doofus]

31. The person who works the middle least desk at the state department knew more about Iraq in 2002.

Fucking fact.

Yet he was spectacularly WRONG and we accountants, teachers , independent journalists , and service workers were right in virtually every detail.

It appears there may be something wrong with your logic. Feel free to explain.

[blm]

107. Actually, State Dept did NOT want to invade Iraq, they were complying

with the President's wishes.

The HUGE difference here is that the one person who has been preventing use of force in Syria for 8 years and knows the situation in far more detail than any other person, is the current Sec of State. The last Sec of State was one of the hawks who supported force in Syria since 2005.

[Link Speed]

35. So, let's turn it on to them

Those who know all...

Fuck it, let they run the Show...

I mean, damn, it has worked out so well...

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. If intelligence and analysis drove policy there would be a lot of value to that point.

But that is not how things work in the real world, is it? In the real world policy drives intelligence and analysis.

Let us remember that it was sensible expertise that led us into Vietnam, Central America and Iraq and endless other misadventures.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Point taken

You are, no doubt, correct on that, which is what leads to the supposed "contradiction" in my OP: that I believe intervention is wrong at this point, even if expert observers say it is not (and I don't know that they do). I'm making a modest claim : people who study something for a living know better than people who started reading about X 3 days ago, or 30, or 300. We don't like to hear that in a democracy, but it's certainly true. Now, there were also plenty of experts on Vietnam, on Central America, and on Iraq who said "This will be a monumental cluserfuck. That's the point of Halberstam's "The Best and the brightest," of Sheehan's "A Bright Shining Liem," of Fitzgerald's "Fire in the Lake, " of Rick's "Fiasco," and of countless other works in the same vein: yes, you had "experts" who advocated intervention. But you had ground level people throughout - career soldiers and civil servants and similar experts who said "hold on now." And the difference was almost always that between expertise and ideology.

Expertise. Ideology.

That's the important difference.

It is likely that there is little value in mentioning that X group of experts know more than Y group on non-experts, if it's all driven by pre-established policy anyway. Maybe so. But I'd suggest we remain attentive to the difference between expertise and ideology, however that cashes out. It's rather modest point, really.

[free0352]

39. I know a smattering of Arabic...

... which means I know a lot more than most people at the State Department, and three cities off the top of my head are Alepo, Homs and Damascus. And once upon a time I worked for in the military so I worked for the Department of Defense.

Good enough for you>

1.) Al'Qaeda is presumably bad.
2.) Many of the rebels fighting the Assad Regime are members of Al'Qaeda.

Conclusion: bombings damaging to the Syrian Regime (or worse regime change on the ground) help Al'Qaeda.

3.) Helping Al'Qaeda is presumably a bad thing.

What if these Al'Qaeda backed rebels actually win? Would they not gain access to the very WMD possessed by the Syrian Regime? Whom do you think would be more judicious in the use of nerve gas, Assad or Al'Qaeda? If Al'Qaeda were to use nerve gas taken from a toppled Assad Regime; would not the US have to go into Syria and root out that network... with ground troops if necessary? Perhaps this is the plan long term?

I make no claim that Assad is a nice guy. He's not. He's horrible. But so are these so called "rebels." Just because they are fighting a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't by default make them "the good guys." From what I see, there are no good guys in this. This isn't a Hollywood action movie with clear cut villains and protagonists. This is the real world where often both players in the game are dirt bags. If a bad guy must win, I vote the bad guy who has never attacked America win, vs the bad guys who killed 3000 Americans on 9-11 (Al'Qaeda.) This would seem to be common sense, even if you've never spent a day at the State Department or knew where to find Ar-Raqqah on a map.

[Jesus Malverde]

77. welcome to DU.

Your expertise is appreciated.

[flamingdem]

138. Thanks for the logic

Hope to read more of your posts.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. Those people are only as good as who they side with.

[dkf]

43. What more do we need to know to realize its a bad idea to get involved?

Tptb have objectives like intimidating the world. Thus they need to show their "strength" and all that hooey.

I don't care about that crap so its easy for me to see that involvement in military strikes against Assad leads to more trouble.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

46. I know nothing compared to many.

But I know that there have been hawks pleading for action for over two years in Syria. Why act now? I don't know.

I know that the Obama Administration doesn't want this like the Cheney/Bush Administration wanted to attack Iraq and oust Saddam. I know Obama drew a red line over chemical weapons. A big mistake I do believe. He needs us to support him in not acting. He needs to know we support him in that strength of not being forced into something he deep down knows is more damaging than not doing anything. He knows this. We know he knows.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/obama-blurs-red-line-in-syria/

[JVS]

47. Those "experts" are our employes, who ostensibly work for us, and have yet to demonstrate that...

they have any interest in not getting us in an expensive and futile war. How much you know is of little value if your entire purpose is to justify your position by engaging in stupid acts of violence.

[JackRiddler]

48. With all the respect due to your post: Fuck your CIA.

Last edited Thu Aug 29, 2013, 11:11 AM - Edit history (2)

Fuck your CIA colony, a.k.a. the State Department.

You argue for the authority of expertise. Wonderful.

But your sole choice of authority -- the United States government's spook departments -- is extremely telling.

The world is full of other authorities who know more about Syria than your CIA or your State Department.

Guess what? Most of them are not advocating a US campaign in Syria.

This may be related to the fact that most of them are not, like your CIA and State Department, working as the brainstem of the empire that just murdered hundreds of thousands of people in an aggressive war in Iraq, right next door to Syria. (And that launched this war of aggression using as its justification the ludicrously obvious yet curiously effective lies served up by said CIA and State Department.)

As you say, "guess what..."

The Middle Eastern area studies professor at the nearest university probably knows more about Syria than me, or you. Your ignorance, and the automatically tainted views of an analyst at the Empire's central desk, are almost surely not as good as that person's knowledge.

Guess what! That area studies professor, who may speak Arabic, who may even be an Arab with many years lived in the area, can also write articles! Amazing innit?

Maybe those are the articles I'm reading, alongside the ones from the CIA that you seem to prefer.

The people who teach the Middle Eastern departments at German universities and run the ME desk at the German Foreign Ministry also know more than me, or you. They are not hobbyists, like you. They have spent years, decades, acquiring specialized knowledge. Why is their authority not as good as that of your blood-stained CIA?

What about the Iranian scholar of Syria, and the Russian scholar of Syria, and the Chinese scholar of Syria? They probably don't agree with the CIA or the State Department. Are they biased somehow, compared to your murderous CIA? These three regimes are tyrannical, but there's one thing I can say about two of them with certainty: Iran and China haven't recently launched any wars of aggression against countries outside their borders.

Unlike your fucking murderous CIA. Experts, for sure, but in what?

By the way, here's an Asimov quote for you: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

He was wrong. It's clearly among the first.

You can flush your authoritarian shit where it belongs.

[Rumold]

55. ^^^ THIS POST ^^^

read it repeatedly

[Scootaloo]

64. Well, that about sums it up. /thread

[Erose999]

65. [phone].

[grahamhgreen]

69. Well said!

[redgreenandblue]

74. Awesome. Thanks.

"The state department knows best" my ass. Not in this country, not in this world.

What a load of arrogant crap.

[Junkdrawer]

85. Best smackdown I've read in a while...

[Octafish]

137. What Jack said!

Righteous and to the point of this Democracy.

[nvme]

50. your right

No one is saying for certain Who did it.
No one is saying for certain what "it" was. Firing weapons into a sovereign country is an act of war by most people's definition. Is our blood-lust not dissipated? Should we embroil ourselves in a civil war? Haven't arms makers profited enough? The UN has not been able to evaluate any claims. If "it" was in fact was an attack carried out by someone in the regime were they "lone wolf" or state sponsored? There so many questions that should be asked before we think to spilling blood. I just hear a drum beating and I don't like that tune.

[PowerToThePeople]

52. his right what? n/t

[ocpagu]

53. The fact that powerful people are more informed in their affairs than us in general...

... doesn't mean they will be doing the right thing. Or being honest about it.

[cui bono]

54. I think it's more a question of motive than ignorance/knowledge.

Most of us were right about Iraq. The people who took us to war were not only wrong, they were deceptive. They had a motive and it didn't matter what the facts were, they did what they wanted to do and even lied to us to get it done.

So knowledge of what is happening doesn't matter much really. What matters is if TPTB want to go to war in Syria or not.

[polynomial]

56. My Ignorance is pretty good; mostly ignored by the mainstream media

What is our history with this country called Syria. What kind of government is the world really dealing with? Is it that Islamic form of government in which the Koran or their bible is actually the constitutional form of their judicial system? Those are important question to me, we the people should know before spending money. Or, the population demographics, age, and all that bible Sunni, Shia stuff. Just those simple factoids likely can open up debate in a civil conversation to reason out the problems.

Or, line up their politics with ours; do they like gay’s, abortion, same sex stuff, universal health care, do they vote??? Do they profile minorities, what is the tax system like??? What are the basic street laws tell us about the economy. We read stories about one single pipeline being proposed to be built through the country is that what’s happening is Halliburton oil in on it. The Russians have some interest obviously testing out their high technology war toys. Is that the game? Tell you what the one percent can pay for this one, and if it screws up no bail out to the profiteers this time.

Is Black Water, CIA, or any other secret agency already there? You mean we don’t need to know any of this stuff till fifty years down the road after we the people, by our president level Syria with drowns. Then our grandchildren find out how wrong it is…

[johnd83]

57. I think most of the career state department people were against Iraq

The history leading up to the Iraq war had a lot of infighting that got overruled from the top. The situation now is much more muddled. I think the press conferences recently have been more aimed at trolling Assad rather than actually giving factual information. We will have to see.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. The problem is that there are people who know more than me on both sides of most issues.

When I want to make up my mind about something, I take two approaches:

1) Try and work it out for myself from first principles
2) Listen to what people who know a lot about it say, and trust them.

Approach 2 works very well on issues where there is consensus among the experts - most scientific issues, for example, or the fact that Japan exists despite the fact that I've never seen it with my own eyes.

But on political issues it's of very limited use, because I have to decide which experts to listen to, and that usually needs approach 1 to do it.

So I think "don't have any confidence in your own opinions" is excellent advice - on politics, I'm probably wrong about a great many things. But "go with the experts" is only a good strategy if most of the experts agree.

[Downwinder]

60. I agree completely with the State Department statement:

"The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership, even if ... he's not the one that pushes the button or said, 'Go,' on this," Harf said. "I don't know what the facts are here. I'm just, broadly speaking, saying that he is responsible for the actions of his regime. I'm not intimately familiar with the command and control structure of the Syrian military. I'm just not. But again, he is responsible ultimately for the decisions that are made."

[Maedhros]

61. Here's the problem:

Your "person" at State, Defense and Langley is apocryphal.

This hypothetical bureaucrat, in your mind, is receiving unadulterated intelligence regarding the situation in Syria and is passing it along without editorializing. His superiors in turn are relaying this intelligence up the chain of command to some cabinet-level official who then informs the President. The President in turn makes his decision regarding the best course of action. All with complete objectivity with no possibility of individual agendas affecting decisions.

But this is all fairy-tale nonsense. We have seen before, time after time, how facts on the ground are manipulated or ignored to justify the actions of the Executive. Many, many competing factions exert political pressure on intelligence agencies and the persons interpreting those agencies' findings. Decision makers in the Executive Branch craft a course of action based upon that pressure, and upon what they believe they can bluster past the electorate. In so many cases, the facts on the ground are twisted to match the objectives of the Administration. Objectivity gives way to special interest. This cannot be denied; we have seen it happen over and over and over.

Your belief in a pure process, in a bureaucratic chain-of-command that perfectly translates raw intelligence into optimized reaction by decision makers, is indeed pure Authoritarianism: because this bureaucracy has draped itself in the mantle of self-proclaimed expertise, its findings somehow trump all those outside the bureaucracy that call into question its conclusions. "They" are right, because "they" are the Authority.

[Pholus]

83. Bravo! nt

[MisterP]

62. I've never employed that quote. what do I do?!!!! what could happen?

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2013, 03:16 AM - Edit history (2)

'sides, it's not like the white coats can't be bought off or anti-intellectual, or that experts are magical--there's even a SF book about expert ignorance called The End of Eternity, but I can't quite recall the author...

wait--this OP is ripped off from Dinosaur Comics!

[Scootaloo]

63. Having knowledge is different from applying knowledge

There's also the question of whether the knowledge is affected by, say, policy bias.

Also whether, in fact, the person manning the desk actually knows more; for all we know he could be a guy who jacks off stallions for a living, who won a political appointment and does "a heckuva job"

[CJCRANE]

66. I listen to the experts.

It's the politicians and the lobbyists that I'm wary of.

[Ash_F]

67. Ah, the old appeal to authority.

A solid standby. So who specifically are you talking about at the state department that we should be listening to? Who is your golden expert?

[Maedhros]

118. Ironic, neh?

An appeal to authority used to deny being Authoritarian.

[grahamhgreen]

68. LOL. I know the state dept person is corrupt and profits from war and death. Full stop.

[dtom67]

70. so, your position is....

That you are AGAINST the experts, even though they know better than you? But you had to post because the pretentiousnness of the other posters ( who hold the same position as you ) was pissing you off?


????
Thanks for the heads up.....

[Humanist_Activist]

73. I have yet to even understand what is meant by "intervention"...

because anything short of full scale invasion is just symbolic at best, and/or just a way to kill more civilians at worst.

[redgreenandblue]

75. Experts with a conflict of interest are not experts. They are hacks.

In that, it doesn't matter what their credentials are.

The state department will look for the solution which is best for US interests. That in no way means this solution is best for other people.

[LostOne4Ever]

76. This has already been covered

But just because someone is in a job does not mean they are qualified for said job, are competent, or up to date on their info. It would be more correct to say in all likelihood they know more than you do.

Further, as has been covered above, just because they know more does not mean they are applying that knowledge correctly, without lying or bias, or in a logical or rational manner.

And ultimately, it is still possible they are wrong.

What more, there is such a thing as priori knowledge and posteriori knowledge. While its is possible they have more posteriori knowlege than you or I, it is quite possible we have more priori knowledge. It is also possible they have more priori knowledge.

If you want to split hairs, lets be exact about this.

[cali]

79. That's true but so what? Those folks aren't posting here

we don't know what they think of military strikes against Syria. What we do have are the opinions of a diverse group of experts- people like Juan Cole and Richard Engel and others.

In any case, has ONE SINGLE PERSON HERE claimed to know more than the people at the Syria desk at State? Not that I'vwe seen, which makes your op rather pointless, hon.

[eridani]

80. You mean that the fucktards who insisted there were WMD in Iraq knew more than I?

Like fucking hell they did.

[Pholus]

82. In a democracy, it is your experts' jobs to make the case...

Not to argue as you do that we should trust them because they know more than you do.

In the last decade I've noticed that our government has been overrun with lots of "experts" who think their job is to manipulate public opinion rather than educate the populace. James Clapper is an excellent example of that.

When our government decides it is more important to make us obedient rather than informed we are living in an authoritarian society, not a democracy.

There is your plain fact.

[ZombieHorde]

84. The people who know more also lie more. nt

[n2doc]

87. Sure they do. But they are proven liars. n/t

[sendero]

88. you have a point..

... that is completely irrelevant. Whatever the "experts" (and they are so often DEAD WRONG it's hard to take the word seriously) may know or not know, to assume that their INTERESTS align with the AVERAGE AMERICAN is ludicrous. In fact, it flies in the face of all recent history.

[ucrdem]

90. I think it's relevant.

Said experts might know that one or another player is shading the truth, but they might also understand their reasons for doing it.

[ucrdem]

89. A well made point, but sadly I must also agree

with the posters pointing out that while gov't experts might know more, it's possible if not to say likely that they know the claims about Assad deploying chemical weapons aren't entirely true.

[Ganja Ninja]

91. Yeah sure they do but are they telling you the truth or are they trying to manipulate you?

There's no argument there but it doesn't matter what they know. What matters is can you trust them?

[treestar]

92. Or at least listen to them

without the silly assumption that because they work for the government, they have to be a part of some corporate conspiracy.

I don't want to intervene in Syria or anywhere. At the same time, I realize I don't entirely know what is at stake and that it's an emotional first impression stance I will always have.

[JoeyT]

93. There's a huge difference in Asimov's quote and the state department.

See, in science you're required to show your fucking work. Think the Earth is warming? Show your fucking work. Think the oceans are acidifying? Show your fucking work. Both are widely accepted as true because the people that thought them showed their work.

The state department does not want to show its fucking work. It wants to say "We know more than you so you should accept our judgement without question!". It punishes people that show work it's done that it didn't want you to see. They're closer to creationism than science. They don't even rise to the level of evo-psych. At least with E-P the motives are transparent.

Argument from authority never fails to amuse.

[truth2power]

96. "people who do this sort of thing for a living"...

can have very poor judgment, or can have an agenda of some sort.

Just like people who TEACH for a living, or people who do accounting or people who practice medicine can give very bad advice, or they can LIE to serve their own interests (or the interests of their masters).

I don't care what the people who work at Langley tell me they know. I run it through my crap detector, and if it sounds like crap, then I'll act accordingly.

And given the track record of the US Govt. for the past 40 years or so and including up to the present of lying every time they open their mouths, I'll take everything they say with a grain of salt.

It's called critical thinking. The people at Langley can bite me!

[LWolf]

97. I don't have to know Fuck-All about Syria.

I know that killing people is wrong. I know that there are always alternatives to war.

I don't have to know fuck-all. I just have to know enough.

[morningfog]

98. No doubt they know more. BUt, that is no reason to trust them to do the right thing or

to tell us the truth.

[TBF]

99. Having more facts doesn't always lead folks to the right conclusions -

and what kind of democracy would we be if we are not allowed to question motives?

Often people are in charge in this country because they simply have more $$$ and have had more $$$ for generations (witness the Bush family). I don't care how many classified memos GWB gets delivered to him - I'm not confident he is going to make the best decisions (and by best I mean best for everyone - not best for his pocketbook).

Authoritarianism on DU ...

[catnhatnh]

100. .....

appeal to authority -- Known also as the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. An appeal to authority is ordinarily one good way to buttress a line of thought. The practice becomes fallacious when one of the following happens: the authority is not an expert in the field in which one is speaking; the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided down the middle on the subject; no explicit reference is made to the authority.

[cali]

101. Loved the call out, honeypie. Not.

You're so coy. so brave. so full of...

I have NEVER claimed to know more about Syria than the experts at the Syria Desk.

Here's what I claim:

I know how to research and that includes sources that don't invariably back my own biases

I know that experts in any field can be flat wrong and that it's dangerous NOT to recognize that.

I know that there is such a phenomenon as institutional behavior and that institutions such as the State Department and particularly the intelligence agencies have a pattern of it.

I know that not being an expert shouldn't stop one from assessing the opinions of experts.

I know disingenuous pernicious shit when I see it.

[Just Saying]

102. Very good post.

While I agree with what you're saying, I think the problem here isn't simply that so many are keyboard Syria experts, but that they don't believe anything our government says period. I think it's good to be skeptical, but this is a whole other level. There are a lot of people at DU who work from the position that anything touched by our government is a lie and that makes debating complicated issues like this challenging.

[Cha]

123. Yes, those who say they don't believe anything

the Obama Admin says are only weakening their own position. They've let hate rule over their source of available information.

Otoh.. anything greenwald says is gold.. lol

[idwiyo]

104. Ahmed Chalabi. Enough said.

[distantearlywarning]

106. I am conflicted about the Syria thing, but fully agree with this post

So many armchair warriors here, and so many armchair peace activists. Everybody on the internet thinks they're an expert on everything. We all need to do a lot less talking and a lot more listening.

[mainer]

109. Knowledge is not wisdom.

Maybe they have the intelligence data. But maybe they lack judgment about what to do with it.

[woo me with science]

110. The quintessential authoritarian post.

Just sit down and be quiet, little people. You don't know enough.

All wrapped in fantasy that deliberately ignores the motives for warmongering that corporate ownership of government provides, *and* the example of just a few years ago, of blatant and deliberate lies by exactly the sort of "experts" you laud here, in order to further such motives.

You can't even parody this garbage anymore.

[bullwinkle428]

112. How could you NOT trust a guy named "Curveball"?

[dawg]

114. I'll bet Robert McNamara knew a lot more about Vietnam than MLK did, too.

Plus, he was working for a Democratic administration!

[bvar22]

116. 60 years of history and failed military interventions in the Middle East

....has taught me NOT to trust them.
They may "know more", but they have proved themselves to be consistently unreliable.

In fact,"the Middle East desk at the State Department" and "The people who run the Middle East desk at State, at Defense, at Langley" have been wrong so consistently that we would have had much better results if we had applied the Opposite Rule over the last 60 years.

Opposite Rule:
See what "the Middle East desk at State, at Defense, at Langley" recommends,
and DO the OPPOSITE.

Question Authority!!

It will be interesting to see how many DUers follow along with your
"We HAVE to believe them because they are smarter than us" rationale.




You will know them by their [font size=3]History of BAD Advice.[/font]

[uriel1972]

117. You don't have to be a plumber to know a toilet is blocked...

And if your plumber suggest that they have to hit it with a sledgehammer to fix it, might you not be within your rights to seek another opinion?

[Dreamer Tatum]

119. So Middle East geopolitics are as simple as a blocked toilet?

Why don't you just go over there with your plumber and fix it, then?

We'd all appreciate it.

[uriel1972]

121. Alas no,

Would poking a number of warring wasp nests to get them to be more tractable be a more palatable analogy?

[Dreamer Tatum]

122. Yes it would. nt

[noiretextatique]

125. personally

i like your analogy

[Glassunion]

126. Was this the same dude sitting at the Iraqi WMD desk a decade ago?

[Yo_Mama]

127. What about all the experts in all the other countries?

As an aside, I'll note that the logical implication of what you wrote is that the US Constitution was deeply flawed in requiring Congress to declare war, because all those people aren't experts. Instead they just represent their constituencies. There's one thing those ignorant nasty voters do know, and that is that if there is a war, they will have to fight it and they will have to fund it. Some might claim that this gives them a right to say what they think and be represented by their Congressional representatives, who are entitled to get all the reports from all of those highly knowledgeable State Department types.

But even if one were to accept your theory, are you really claiming that those in the US State department have knowledge that trumps all other western countries?

War and military attacks on foreign agencies are very serious matters. I think such steps should be seriously and widely considered.

[dionysus]

128. nice try at reasoning, but i am not surprised by the responses you're getting. nt

[MNBrewer]

129. Some would call that an hypothesis

I say prove it.

[frustrated_lefty]

136. Valid point

but I would argue not necessarily the pertinent criteria for determining a course of action.

With all of the discussion in Washington about cost cutting, the sequester, flirting with cuts to social security, the list goes on... another military action is about the last thing the country needs. It costs fucking money. And blood, but for the very practical, sensible people, let's just focus on "fiscal responsibility."