Osama Bin Laden

[wiggin]

Let's first create 3 examples which, uh, exemplify each of the 3 factors which make deterrence effective. Let's also assume for the sake of the argument, that a person does act rationally (according to his own framework of morals, of course)
a) Consistency. This is important because if you think that you can get away with something because there's only a 50% chance of being caught and the reward is sufficiently high, you'll at least think about doing it.
b) Appropriate punishment. A slap on the wrist for murdering someone is obviously not a deterrent. However, too harsh a punishment also has its problems - it may produce rebellion or a "I'm not afraid of you!"-type of mindset. In children you may also produce "broken" personalities with too harsh punishments.
c) Temporal adjacency. This is because we're not so good connecting long-term relationships, I mean, we can rationalize about them - but there's also a subconscious part involved - and that one cannot relate the deed and the punishment if it's too long apart temporally. Just look at a dog who's done something wrong and you slap him with a paper for it - if you wait 2 weeks, the dog won't understand why you just slapped him.

Then there's the group aspect - if you ever worked with a group of people in a supervisory capacity you'll surely have heard those guidelines:
Be consistent. Be fair.

Because if you are not fair, the group (of youths in my case) will NOT like that. They'll think you have favourites. They won't take you seriously. They'll try to work the system by pointing out that you treated a certain situation differently just now than you did before. If you and your co-supervisor don't apply the rules consistently and equally, they'll go to the supervisor first who they think will be less strict. (Replace "supervisor" with "parent" if need be)

As evidence for this group-wide effect for appliance of rewards or punishment, I'll point towards monkeys:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...airness_2.html

I hope this rambling excourse makes it a little bit more clear?

I don't dispute the basic logic of what you're saying, I'm just not sure if it has any root in actual behavioral psychology. On the one hand, you're implicitly assuming that humans have enough cognitive complexity to determine the appropriateness of a punishment or reward, while at the same time saying they're not smart enough to connect two events together even if they're separated by a lot of time.

I don't doubt that temporal adjacency matters a lot for rats - you need to establish a close behavior/punishment connection in their brains. But humans are not rats, and I doubt terrorists are so stupid that they won't intelligently change their behaviors on the basis of a punishment given even with a significant time delay.

I did find people celebrating in the streets to be a bit...well, third-world. It's one thing to be glad he was found (and killed), but the signs saying "America Fuck Yeah" and the idiots in the street made me think of the reverse situation 10 years ago, when other countries were celebrating America being under attack on 9/11. Makes us look no better, really.

Really? No better? I'll admit it's distasteful, but there's miles of difference between celebrating the death of a mass murderer and celebrating the deaths of 3,000 innocent people just because they're infidels.

[Loki]

I did find people celebrating in the streets to be a bit...well, third-world. It's one thing to be glad he was found (and killed), but the signs saying "America Fuck Yeah" and the idiots in the street made me think of the reverse situation 10 years ago, when other countries were celebrating America being under attack on 9/11. Makes us look no better, really.

You're right. I can't see the difference between celebrating the deaths of 3,000 civilians and celebrating the death of a mass murderer.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I'm really surprised by your labeling catgrll, this i deal that 3rd world people are somehow less civilized than the rest of the world. So it's expected for them celebrate brutality but us civilized people of course would not. I don't like the labeling, or the mindset. I would like to say first off people are people to make fun of a group of people is to mock yourself, because given the same environment more than likely, and this is true of all of us, we would have similar behaviors and beliefs. Not to say there are not the Ghandi's of the world, the Jesus Christ's, the great thinkers that can abstract themselves fairly well from their environment to see a unbiased picture. However, even they of course will be shaped by their environment. Let's see how socrates behaves, and you will note some oddities based on the cultural difference that he has taken for granted. Or some strange values or prefrences.

Anyway, I disagree with the labeling, and I think even if they are not as economically, structurally, industrially, or technilogically as sound as say the U.S. They could still be socially more advanced than us, I think a lot of ways greek society was more free thinking understanding flexible, having a set of legal standards, and moral values that cast over the lot of society but also having a breadth of flexiblity.

I think the association of being 3rd world, adn being dumb, or socailly primitive, or barbaric is not warranted, and is in fact short-sighted. I beleive there is some correlation, I will agree that as society becomes more organized, becomes larger, it does advance us socially, if merely by the pooling of information.

I guess what i'm trying to say is I admit to some logical correlation between the two.. being advanced in the categories i suggested, and a populace that is more educated and perhaps more advanced socially. However, in many many regards even a smaller society can be as advanced or even more advanced. It's actually more a matter of government that will determine i guess what we may define as civility in society if there is a objective defintion we can come to.

And I dont' think it requires a lot of advancement to have such a society. It requires a proper goverment coupled with information. this topic is complex. I don't even have the vocabulary defined to address this issue appropriately. There are just so many layers in society I'm bundling together. I want to say greeks may be much more advanced in society than us, in many regards, but clearly they had worse information than us, and probably worse governmentally organization. They just had an environment promoting the free thinking of their citizens. Definitely more open sexually, in many ways intellectually more free. Where we can say america is primitive in our arrogance, in our "american way" mind set, in our social conservatism.

I think you get the gist, but to talk about this topic we'd need to come up with and define some terms for ourselvs. Long story short, I dislike your labeling, and I think it is not fair to say it that way, that 3rd world is socially more primitive or barbaric. I'll leave it at that.

[Khendraja'aro]

I don't dispute the basic logic of what you're saying, I'm just not sure if it has any root in actual behavioral psychology. On the one hand, you're implicitly assuming that humans have enough cognitive complexity to determine the appropriateness of a punishment or reward, while at the same time saying they're not smart enough to connect two events together even if they're separated by a lot of time.

I don't doubt that temporal adjacency matters a lot for rats - you need to establish a close behavior/punishment connection in their brains. But humans are not rats, and I doubt terrorists are so stupid that they won't intelligently change their behaviors on the basis of a punishment given even with a significant time delay.

Behaviourism is actually a bit outdated nowadays. Constructivism is where the money's at

And yes, that is what we are taught when we attend psychology lectures. And the conflict you are painting is easily resolved. For instance, Lewk says he's a Christian and yet acts like someone following the Old Testament.

You can acknowledge that your course of action is not the best one in the long run - and yet you'll do differently because it's profitable in the short run.

We see this pattern in human behaviour time and again - politicians going for the short-sighted triumph because it's politically expedient for them or their party. And yet, when you look at whether the whole country profits from their decision, you clearly have to say: "No."
Just today I heard of my mother that her school's proposal was turned down. Not because it was not feasible. Not because the money was lacking. Not because it's not better for pupils and teachers alike. It was because the proposal was backed by the wrong party - thus causing the other party to be against it. Idiocy at its best - and yet a prime example how short-term thinking overshadows long-term.

Or a student who knows full well that he has to study to be successful - and yet he's slacking. That's because the short-term rewards which you can get now are stronger than a dubious reward in the distant future. And that is the reason why one good learning strategy is to pace yourself, take regular pauses and reward yourself after a successful learning session.

[GGT]

I can find myself in his view.

Same here.

I did find people celebrating in the streets to be a bit...well, third-world. It's one thing to be glad he was found (and killed), but the signs saying "America Fuck Yeah" and the idiots in the street made me think of the reverse situation 10 years ago, when other countries were celebrating America being under attack on 9/11. Makes us look no better, really.

I feel ambivalence seeing crowds cheering and chanting USA! USA! Understandable to be proud of Navy Seals abilities and CIA intelligence gathering, or take to the streets in solemn memory of those killed on 9/11/01, but cheering his death also seems....somehow crass? Women and children were killed in the operation, too. It's too bad he couldn't have been captured alive and seen "justice" meted out by a court like Saddam was.

Now there are murmurs of disapproval for his burial at sea, and some Muslims saying that's a slap in the face of Islamic burial rites....

[Crowheart]

Finding the celebrating somewhat distasteful is not the same as condemning the reasons for celebrating.

Least, that's how I understood her post.

[GGT]

She said "It's one thing to be glad he was found (and killed)"....I'm not seeing any condemnation in his death there, just the manner of whoop whoop celebratory flag-waving in the streets.

I'm trying to remember if there was the same public reaction when they found Saddam.

[Kazuha Vinland]

Arrh, this is just priceless.

[GGT]

Behaviourism is actually a bit outdated nowadays. Constructivism is where the money's at ....

You can acknowledge that your course of action is not the best one in the long run - and yet you'll do differently because it's profitable in the short run....

Or a student who knows full well that he has to study to be successful - and yet he's slacking. That's because the short-term rewards which you can get now are stronger than a dubious reward in the distant future. And that is the reason why one good learning strategy is to pace yourself, take regular pauses and reward yourself after a successful learning session.

Isn't that kind of short-term reward part of behavioral psychology (and marketing and politics)?

After 9/11 our summer fair had FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist trading cards, target shooting with bin Laden's face, t-shirts with WTC skyline on fire, American Flags on just about everything.

[Hazir]

I seriously wonder how those people that get on their legal high horses over the Bin Laden execution imagine an alternative to the event. The man was living in a near failed state that would not/ could not have handed hm over to the US. Any form of forced extraction by the US without the consent of the Pakistani state and judicial system would have led to probably unsurmountable problems in any trial against him.

And if anybody thinks that a request to extradite Bin Laden to the US would have made it through the system in Pakistan, that person should have his head checked.

[wiggin]

Behaviourism is actually a bit outdated nowadays. Constructivism is where the money's at

And yes, that is what we are taught when we attend psychology lectures. And the conflict you are painting is easily resolved. For instance, Lewk says he's a Christian and yet acts like someone following the Old Testament.

You can acknowledge that your course of action is not the best one in the long run - and yet you'll do differently because it's profitable in the short run.

We see this pattern in human behaviour time and again - politicians going for the short-sighted triumph because it's politically expedient for them or their party. And yet, when you look at whether the whole country profits from their decision, you clearly have to say: "No."
Just today I heard of my mother that her school's proposal was turned down. Not because it was not feasible. Not because the money was lacking. Not because it's not better for pupils and teachers alike. It was because the proposal was backed by the wrong party - thus causing the other party to be against it. Idiocy at its best - and yet a prime example how short-term thinking overshadows long-term.

Or a student who knows full well that he has to study to be successful - and yet he's slacking. That's because the short-term rewards which you can get now are stronger than a dubious reward in the distant future. And that is the reason why one good learning strategy is to pace yourself, take regular pauses and reward yourself after a successful learning session.

I'm not disputing that temporal coupling works (to some extent), I'm just disputing that the lack of temporal coupling doesn't, especially when we're dealing with people (very sensibly) changing their behavior to avoid getting shot. A little bit of cognition here is all that's needed to connect act A with result B.

I seriously wonder how those people that get on their legal high horses over the Bin Laden execution imagine an alternative to the event. The man was living in a near failed state that would not/ could not have handed hm over to the US. Any form of forced extraction by the US without the consent of the Pakistani state and judicial system would have led to probably unsurmountable problems in any trial against him.

And if anybody thinks that a request to extradite Bin Laden to the US would have made it through the system in Pakistan, that person should have his head checked.

Well, the alternative is to bypass the Pakistani system entirely; make the raid a successful arrest to get him out of the country. Oh, wait. The Israelis tried that with Eichmann and were rewarded with UNSCR 138 for their troubles.

[GGT]

Not sure I'd compare Eichmann with bin Laden. It took what, 15 years to hunt that man down, without the aid of today's technology?

[wiggin]

Not sure I'd compare Eichmann with bin Laden. It took what, 15 years to hunt that man down, without the aid of today's technology?

And it took us 13 years to hunt down OBL. So what?

[Catgrrl]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the fucker is dead. What I should have said in my post is that probably to other countries, we look tacky celebrating in such a way. But it seems I am wrong about that. I think it looks tacky. If instead the president had said that we were pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror was over, then I could understand and even be a part of that. Finally getting Osama 10 years after the fact is a good thing, but let's face it his death isn't going to end radical terrorism overnight. I felt it was a bit overreactive of people to be frolicking in the streets about it, that's all.

[Bitter Jeweler]

I'm with you Cat.

[littlelolligagged]

Me too, Kittycat.

Being gleeful over someone's death is just offensive to me, whether it's a terrorist mastermind or a man stealing toothpaste.

Celebrating is tacky.

[wiggin]

I'm fine with tacky, distasteful, offensive, etc. I even agree. I just draw the line at 'just as bad as celebrating 9/11', that's all. It sounds like you didn't really mean it, so I think we're fine.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not disputing that temporal coupling works (to some extent), I'm just disputing that the lack of temporal coupling doesn't, especially when we're dealing with people (very sensibly) changing their behavior to avoid getting shot. A little bit of cognition here is all that's needed to connect act A with result B.

Of course the lack of temporal adjacency will lead to a massively diminished lack of effectiveness. As I said, the effect can be seen in our justice system over here - they're trying to speed up court trials for youth offenders simply due to the fact that a conviction one year after the deed does not impress anyone, least of all the offenders. In contrast, when some districts enacted such experiments of sped-up trials, the crime rate among youths actually went down as did the recidivism rate.

Besides, when you're talking about "changed behaviour" you're mixing up to things: What you want with deterrence is ultimately for people to stop offending. That you won't get with very late actions like these. You'll make them more careful - but getting them to stop? No way.

It's neither consistent nor temporally coupled. That's 2 factors out of 3 which are missing for it to make a successful deterrent. Sorry, wiggin, but this ultimately won't help much.

And your "little bit of cognition" does not do anything. Again, why do you think those guys who got busted for pyramid schemes actually created those schemes? They know that in the long run their scheme won't hold up - and yet they're doing it regardless. Why? Because short-term the rewards are massive!

You won't get a deterrent with a "once every few years we catch one guy"-event. You'd get it if you caught the guys a few weeks or months after the deed, every time. And then you'd still have to contend with the motivation of "killing the infidels in the name of Allah!"

[GGT]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the fucker is dead. What I should have said in my post is that probably to other countries, we look tacky celebrating in such a way. But it seems I am wrong about that. I think it looks tacky. If instead the president had said that we were pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror was over, then I could understand and even be a part of that. Finally getting Osama 10 years after the fact is a good thing, but let's face it his death isn't going to end radical terrorism overnight. I felt it was a bit overreactive of people to be frolicking in the streets about it, that's all.

Well said.

I'm going a step farther---to people within our OWN country the street celebrations look tacky. I'd be on the streets waving a flag and tooting a horn if Obama had said we're pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW. Not just a few months from now, but beginning right now. We don't need to have over 100,000 troops deployed in those nations to "fight the global war on terrorism".

I'm not even convinced the "War on Terrorism" involves any western troops on the ground at all. Recent events makes it look more like intelligence gathering and targeted strikes are more effective than soldiers working their way through communities, or broad bombings from the air.

[wiggin]

Of course the lack of temporal adjacency will lead to a massively diminished lack of effectiveness. As I said, the effect can be seen in our justice system over here - they're trying to speed up court trials for youth offenders simply due to the fact that a conviction one year after the deed does not impress anyone, least of all the offenders. In contrast, when some districts enacted such experiments of sped-up trials, the crime rate among youths actually went down as did the recidivism rate.

Besides, when you're talking about "changed behaviour" you're mixing up to things: What you want with deterrence is ultimately for people to stop offending. That you won't get with very late actions like these. You'll make them more careful - but getting them to stop? No way.

It's neither consistent nor temporally coupled. That's 2 factors out of 3 which are missing for it to make a successful deterrent. Sorry, wiggin, but this ultimately won't help much.

And your "little bit of cognition" does not do anything. Again, why do you think those guys who got busted for pyramid schemes actually created those schemes? They know that in the long run their scheme won't hold up - and yet they're doing it regardless. Why? Because short-term the rewards are massive!

You won't get a deterrent with a "once every few years we catch one guy"-event. You'd get it if you caught the guys a few weeks or months after the deed, every time. And then you'd still have to contend with the motivation of "killing the infidels in the name of Allah!"

Did you read what I wrote earlier?

That being said, I don't view this as 'deterrence' in the classic sense of the word that it's going to stop future terrorists or AQ leaders from attempting to carry out attacks. Rather, it will change their behavior in a way that may make it more difficult for them to carry out operations and may make them more agreeable to political rather than military solutions.

I think we've been talking past each other. I'm not talking about 'conditioning' these guys - absent killing or capturing them, nothing will stop them trying to kill the infidels. I'm talking about modifying their behavior through simple self-preservation. Attempting to kill or capture them (and succeeding on a frequent basis) is what modifies their behavior for the simple reason that they don't want the same thing to happen to them. It's not rocket science.

[GGT]

Did you read what I wrote earlier?

Everyone reads what you write, at all times and for all reasons.

I think we've been talking past each other. I'm not talking about 'conditioning' these guys - absent killing or capturing them, nothing will stop them trying to kill the infidels. I'm talking about modifying their behavior through simple self-preservation. Attempting to kill or capture them (and succeeding on a frequent basis) is what modifies their behavior for the simple reason that they don't want the same thing to happen to them. It's not rocket science.

Welcome to the New World of Foreign Diplomacy?

No, it's not rocket science. But if it were easy....shouldn't we have made more progress by now?

That's a Kill or Capture ideology. How's that working to change their ideology? Attempts have come to mean nothing. They rile people on the short term, and make governments enact lame policy for the long-term. See TSA. Let's look at suicide bombers for proof of that.

[RandBlade]

The images on the streets looked like they were all students who were probably already out drinking in Manhattan anyway.

[Flixy]

I seriously wonder how those people that get on their legal high horses over the Bin Laden execution imagine an alternative to the event. The man was living in a near failed state that would not/ could not have handed hm over to the US. Any form of forced extraction by the US without the consent of the Pakistani state and judicial system would have led to probably unsurmountable problems in any trial against him.

And if anybody thinks that a request to extradite Bin Laden to the US would have made it through the system in Pakistan, that person should have his head checked.

Bypassing the Pakistanis was obviously necessary. I don't see much trouble with 'rendition' though - it was done on Eichman too, and probably on a lot of other people too. I'm not sure on the legal standing in a normal trial, but considering other terrorists are tried by military tribunals I don't see how it would be an issue.

There is the question whether they were going to kill him anyway, or only if they had to. Subtle difference, but I think it is important. Comparing to the targeted killing with drones - then you don't have ground forces there anyway so even trying to arrest isn't really possible. A 'hit squad' seems different to me. But hey, if they didn't really try to kill him, but had to (and didn't have a problem with it, obviously), that's all fine to me. Not sure if it would have been better for the US - during a trial/execution you have extra events to rally people to protest against the USA, and considering the reaction to burning a single koran, I don't think that would have been pretty. Now there's at least only one event.

[GGT]

The images on the streets looked like they were all students who were probably already out drinking in Manhattan anyway.

That's what you saw on BBC? Georgetown University students took to the streets at 3am. (Late on a Sunday night, early Monday morning). Penn State and Penn students and NYC students did the same. Not quite what drinking and partying students do in the US....by that time on Monday morning the party students are sleeping and snoozing and skipping Monday morning classes. They couldn't care less about taking to the streets to participate in something "political".

[wiggin]

No, it's not rocket science. But if it were easy....shouldn't we have made more progress by now?

US law enforcement, intelligence, and the military (in conjunction with our allies) have made major strides in disrupting terrorist organizations and plots. Military action and law enforcement can't end terrorism, obviously, but it can make it more difficult to carry out an attack while political options are pursued.

The images on the streets looked like they were all students who were probably already out drinking in Manhattan anyway.

You're mostly right, but I know a few people here who specifically went to the White House to join in (one of whom drove from Bmore at 11 pm just for the hell of it).

Bypassing the Pakistanis was obviously necessary. I don't see much trouble with 'rendition' though - it was done on Eichman too, and probably on a lot of other people too. I'm not sure on the legal standing in a normal trial, but considering other terrorists are tried by military tribunals I don't see how it would be an issue.

Actually it seems to be illegal under international law, though there are a lot of people who think it should be made explicitly legal for precisely this sort of case.

There is the question whether they were going to kill him anyway, or only if they had to. Subtle difference, but I think it is important. Comparing to the targeted killing with drones - then you don't have ground forces there anyway so even trying to arrest isn't really possible. A 'hit squad' seems different to me. But hey, if they didn't really try to kill him, but had to (and didn't have a problem with it, obviously), that's all fine to me. Not sure if it would have been better for the US - during a trial/execution you have extra events to rally people to protest against the USA, and considering the reaction to burning a single koran, I don't think that would have been pretty. Now there's at least only one event.

Agreed. It seems that the administration line is that the goal was to capture OBL and only kill if necessary. They claim he 'resisted' (though since now they say he was unarmed I'm not sure what that entailed), so they killed him. I get the feeling the general idea was to put up with no bullshit and if he even looked at them the wrong way they'd take him down. So technically an arrest operation but without any particular burning need to have him alive.

[GGT]

Could that apply to Qadaffi, too? Or is it considered too dangerous (politically) to target a leading individual responsible for regime crimes, if that "leader" was once fully supported by the west?

[Enoch the Red]

Could that apply to Qadaffi, too? Or is it considered too dangerous (politically) to target a leading individual responsible for regime crimes, if that "leader" was once fully supported by the west?

I'm not sure where you are getting your Kool-Aid, but Gadaffi never was fully supported by the West.

[Flixy]

Actually it seems to be illegal under international law, though there are a lot of people who think it should be made explicitly legal for precisely this sort of case.

Any more illegal than going into a country to assassinate someone?

Agreed. It seems that the administration line is that the goal was to capture OBL and only kill if necessary. They claim he 'resisted' (though since now they say he was unarmed I'm not sure what that entailed), so they killed him. I get the feeling the general idea was to put up with no bullshit and if he even looked at them the wrong way they'd take him down. So technically an arrest operation but without any particular burning need to have him alive.

Hey, I rather have a dead Osama than a wounded soldier. And considering it's a pretty high risk operation with armed resistance, I am not surprised he is shot even if he personally was not armed. Have to act quick, after all. How often do swat teams kill unarmed people? And those generally don't invade fortified terrorist hideouts.

[GGT]

They shot the "female human shield" in her leg. Far be it from me to evaluate if the Navy Seal "Six Team" made the right split-second decisions when confronted with an unarmed bin Laden. Dead or Alive takes on a different context for the people on the ground....

[GGT]

I'm not sure where you are getting your Kool-Aid, but Gadaffi never was fully supported by the West.

Why don't you recount the amount of federal dollars sent to Libya over the years while he was "in charge"?