Over the last few blog posts I have presented conflicting views regarding my impression of this book and I have finally found a concise way of expressing why I don't like the "solutions" portion of this book. I have mentioned that the solutions suggested in this book are too idealistic to be applied to national security systems. Another issue for me is that the solutions suggested require a lot, a lot, a lot of resources. For example, a recurring suggestion for keeping an always ready security system is to equally invest and train security teams for all possible emergency situations, however unlikely their occurrence may be at the present moment. Only countries with a great amount of financial and human resources and stability can afford to even think about planning to put into action such a defense strategy.
So, what is my more concise way of wording my disagreement?
Natural Selection operates blindly. Politics and, thus, natural security do not.
My favorite passage so far (and I have read up to Chapter 8) is the next, because it provides a reality check to the other authors' prescriptive and idealistic suggestions.
My favorite passage so far (and I have read up to Chapter 8) is the next, because it provides a reality check to the other authors' prescriptive and idealistic suggestions.
In practice, the political ecosystem is far more complex. Selective pressure for determining fitness is based on the opinion of those being governed, with expectations playing a critical role. Expectations are diverse and based on disparate criteria, but stepping too far out of equilibrium with popular expectations can negatively impact political leaders. Preferences and priorities influence interpretation of the appropriate action and allocation of resources... Further, in the political ecosystem, the future is heavily discounted. This distorts efforts to achieve allocation of resources to maximize long-term beneficial outcomes. [pp. 80]
Systematic rigidities also impact political ecosystems. In democratic societies political leaders must allocate resources in a way that is predictable and accountable. This is often achieved by setting expectation for the allocation of resources well in advance of the need for the actual expenditure. Adhering to previous promises builds trust but also creates obstacles to employing new solutions in a changing environment. [pp. 80]
It is essential for political systems to prioritize threats. Once these threats have been identified, there is great pressure to meet these high priority obligations despite changes in the environment that accumulate to eventually produce an environment very different from the first that responds very differently to defense strategies. In addition, when governments tackle high defense and public health needs of high priority, the great financial investment into these high priority threats is balanced by reducing funding to other defense and health programs.
Consequently, the absence of an immediate and visible threat is interpreted as the threat being of low priority or,absent. Given the reality of the dynamic and conflictive world we live in, it is impossible to distribute resources equally across all threats. Governments have to assess and prioritize and invest in diminishing and protecting ints citizens against the most immediate and largest threat.
Great post, Aparna! I like how you summarized your opinion: "Natural selection operates blindly. Politics, and, thus, national security do not". I don't know much about this book, but it seems that the factors that determine risk avoidance in most animals will be very different from what they should be in humans. An animal will avoid risk even if it greatly harms its neighbors, or community (as long as its not a community of relatives). Should we do the same. I think national security is important, but at what cost? In theory, citizens might be safest if we kept everyone in underground caves, only coming out to get more food. Is that a life worth living, though? I like how you argue that investment in national security must trade-off with investment with other humanitarian endeavors. Should we invest in attacks that *might* come when they *are* people starving, living on the streets?
ReplyDeleteHey Phil!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback!
I can see why it is important to invest in attacks that might come but I find it necessary to define and prioritize these kinds of future attacks by how soon they may come and how much damage they will cause to the nation's structure and citizens.
In my opinion, if a nation already has immediate security problems that need to be assessed and addressed, I don't think it will be wise or productive for said nation to pour its resources into preparing for every possible, but less probable potential attack.
An alternate investment that the government may make is into assessing and modifying its economical and social structure. There is a chapter in this book that explains how most terrorists' actual motives are dissatisfaction with a nation's social structure because it (the extant structure) presents a disadvantage to the ethnic or financial group the terrorists belong to. But because the citizens of the nation that they are dissatisfied with belong to a different religion (~85% of the time), it is simpler to transfer their hatred onto a religious basis and convince others that their acts of terrors are part of a religious crusade. As an example: Apparently, the assailants of 9/11 believed that they would meet "in a higher heaven" but their commander's true motives for the attack were dissatisfaction with the United States' methods of dealing and coping with international affairs, including the US alliance with Israel, the occupation and US presence in the Arabian peninsula (aka Iraq) and obstruction of Al Qaeda operations.