Korea Model

I'll admit first off that I have not really looked seriously at what all the hype is with the supposed re-envisioning of the U.S. occupation of Iraq on the so-called Korea model. I've basically assumed there is no there there, that this -- to repackage an old analogy -- is a case of bad-tasting 4-year old wine repackaged into 50-year old bottles and resealed to make it seem both fresh and of good vintage. I mean, haven't they trotted out post-war occupations of Germany, Japan, Korea, and other places every time they wanted to encourage patience? What is there new about this? And at the same time, what is there of any venerability that we can apply? How is this anything like Korea, except that the occupation will strive for high-duration, low-footprint passive vigilence?

Is that a model? A model shows how something was done, not what the result will be. Otherwise, let's pick a better model, like Solonic Athens, or Paradise, or Eden, or one of those Star Trek planets where everything was kept in order by a benign computer or alien caretaker that never made a mistake. Or even a good Japanese car factory. Let's have our "model" be perfection, or at least continuous quality improvement.

Actually, some of those models are not what they once were. Restoring Paradise may require a crusade, and only al Qaida and the Coral Ridge folks want that. Eden was part of pre-Islamic Iraq, and although I would agree with preserving the origins of civilization, this seems to be a minority view, at least in terms of preservation in situ -- I understand that there may be some private collections enjoying a nice steroidal plumping off the work of those odd looters who do not feel compelled to smash every 20,000 year old vase they encounter. And as far as the Star Trek model, I'm sure Bill Gates' preserved head-in-a-vat could appoint a crack team of AIs to run Iraq from Washington state or from an orbital platorm after the required electrical grid is restored sometime in the 23rd century. Until then, few good options.

Actually, what I started out wanting to say is just that the Korea model is an ironic concept to be pushing now. Didn't we have the Korea model under the last administration? Hmmm...

I see the 50s. There's this country divided North-South. We call the North part Iraq and the South part Kuwait. Over time, lots of things happen, in no particular order. The Southern part, divided off and placed under separate leadership, remains subject to greater influence from the "Free World" has a free market and a less-free populace. The north has to be threatened with nukes because it is too independent. It plays both sides of the cold war. It is geographically prone to Communist bloc influence and receives selective support, and the West seeks various means of influence. Eventually, the North invades the South. (Though the hidden history of the war is that the North was lured or provoked because the U.S. wanted the war.) The North is driven from the South and could be crushed and occupied, perhaps, except that the President of the U.S. resists, knowing that this could turn to disaster as the North's more powerful regional allies could use it as a proxy to fight the U.S. By the 90s, the U.S. has a large force permanently garrisoned in the South, whose tasks include enforcing sanctions on the North, and defending the South from renewed attack. The North flirts with building a nuclear capability.

On this analogy, the Korean model went off the rails in 2003, when the U.S. invaded North Korea, destroyed its infrastructure, found no WMDs and is being bled to death by local and foreign-based insurgents, whom we claim are basically pawns of China, against whom we are threatening a broader, and nuclear, war. If this were actually the case in Korea, what would our model be for dialing that down? You'd withdraw as fast as possible to the old North-South line, and rely on China for help in stabilizing the situation, recognizing that its influence would be greatly expanded, and try to minimize that inevitable strategic loss. Am I wrong?

Of course, Iraq turns out to be more complex. Maybe Iraq will be partitioned, although it seems clear that if Iraq is divided into three countries, those countries will probably be called Iran, Syria and Turkey. Just what we wanted all along? Doubtful.

Brownback's Folly

It's been a few days now since Sam Brownback authored this in the New York Times. I would leave it lie with the posts at Hullabaloo and Pharyngula, but I feel let down by their reactions. I mean, Tristero's point is worth acknowledging(although there are other meanings of "materialism" that are also being evoked), and for most of what he says, P. Z. Myers is good as always, but I would comment differently from the good cephalopodist on some of it, so here goes:

Brownback gives us a pile of gas, comfortably vague principles with no controversial application, the standard mealy-mouthed variation of glittering generalities designed to offend no one. He assures us that the issues are complex and nuanced and should not be reduced to a sound-bite or false dichotomy.

He then goes ahead and abandons nuance, rattles off sound-bites, and confronts the reader with a series of false dichotomies.

Nuance is abandoned by his representation of the opposing position in terms that are false, unsubstantiated, or contradictory. Myers covers this well. He catches what I thought was a pretty obvious point, that to believe in evolution, one must believe in randomness ("man is the chance product of random mutations") and also "an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world." And he states with familiarity and authority things that I suspected but could not have argued with assurance (e.g., that Gould's punctuated equlibrium has long established its dominance, and Brownback is stuck in the past).

At the same time, he complains that his own side's view has been oversimplified and mischaracterized:

The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days.

It's worth noting that there is no evidence presented that anyone anywhere has actually accepted or advanced this "premise." But anyway, okay, so it isn't his view. Creation in 144 hours would be too silly. So what is his view? (It must be nearly as ridiculous-sounding, or I think he'd tell us.)

The sound bites consist of maybe half the op-ed, lots of Rodney King-style fluff prasing science and religion and urging them to get along and for each to respect the other's contributions. As Myers notes, none of the contributions of religion are ever made.

He doesn't want an oversimplistic dichotomy:

But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

Although he never explains what would be wrong with this particular dichotomy. Evolution is a pretty clear-cut idea, and so is creationism.

But of course, he goes ahead and dishes up phony dichotomies.

If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes
over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I
believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an
exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place
for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

Apparently, these are the only choices. And Brownback, you guessed it, believes in small changes within a species. This is kind of like saying, "if believing in Einstein's theory of relativity means accepting that atomic clocks will run faster at high altitudes, then count me in." That is, I accept the theory, but only one small, irrefutable observation in support of it, but none of the conclusions from that and other supportive observations that actually make it a scientific theory, and hence also none of the other predictions that would flow from the theory.

But apart from being a hypocritical wanker, Brownback's real problem is in drawing the line between the appropriate the appropriate realms of religion and science in the wrong place.

Myers is more of an atheist than I am. My profile on the "What kind of atheist are you" quiz is very similar to his, but we part in that he opposes religion, and seems to fault Brownback for saying religion should have any role in the search for truth. I, in contrast, can go along with most of what Brownback says, but I think he's grossly disingenuous when he outlines the value of faith.

People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given
us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question.... Faith
supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values,
meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us
understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love.

This is designed to suggest that he accepts a David Hume kind of recognition that questions of "is" and "should" are absolutely independent. Science examines the material world and allows us to understand cause and effect. Moral philosophy helps us identify duties and desiderata. Science allows us to understand the consequences of actions, which is a fundamental factor in their moral evaluation.

It turns out that Brownback suffers from a defect, however, in his faith, one that many of his coreligionists also suffer from. The spiritual world is not real enough to hold their interest, so they have to profane God by basing their faith on what occurs in the physical plane. For Brownback, you cannot have God without certain material consequences that, unfortunately, contradict the scientific evidence.

Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a
unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations —
go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy
or theology.

...

It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

So you see, Brownback has a very reasonable position. Science is okay until it sounds offensive to human dignity, like when that nasty Galileo Galilei and people like Giodorno Bruno showed that "insolent spirit of self-assertion" that required they be sanctioned for the common good.

Don't worry, if history is any guide, Darwin will receive his full pardon sometime around A.D. 2400. By that standard, Brownback is really ahead of his time, even if he's behind most of the industrialized world.