The concept of holding two opposing thoughts in your head at the same time
My daughter has autism. We are treating it with a new system of cognitive behavior therapy and remediation called rdi. It is, believe it or not, working, and I stop short of calling it a cure. But it's reality- and science-based to a great degree. No diets, no pressure on the torso, no forced eye contact.
One of the problems with people on the autism spectrum is this: They cannot put themselves in someone else's point of view. Stop and try to understand what a strange and complex concept this is: To be able to imagine yourself in someone else's mind, understanding their conclusions based on their very different experiences and thoughts from your own.
When I first heard of this concept, I thought, "Man, an awful lot of people must suffer from some sort of autism, and most of them are conservatives."
Anyway, there are two opposing camps in the subject of American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm in the smaller one. I think we need to pull out of both countries immediately. Most people don't think we should, and especially the President, who's just sent 7 thousand fresh troops there.
Reasonable people that I respect for past honesty, like Fareed Zakaria disagree with me, and maybe have legitimate reasons for claiming that democracy really IS starting to 'flourish', and saying "There is much going on in Iraq that is admirable".
How do we end up with two separate stay-or-go camps? What are their reasons for wanting the U.S. military to either stay or go?
I used the argument about the number of dead soldiers for a while. It's amazing how cavalier the war supporters are when it comes to that particular point of debate; the number of dead is acceptable, smaller than Vietnam, they're volunteers so they knew what they were getting into, the wounded are getting the best care in the world (computerized prosthetics! Star Wars stuff, man!), and on and on.
But now I'm reverting to the MONEY argument. Especially ever since Paul Woflowitz's claims that the Iraq Invasion would not only cost less than $2 billion, but with Iraq oil revenues, it would PAY us to occupy Saddam's oil fields.
Can we really afford a surge in Afghanistan? While we're deep in a recession? Can we really afford to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq, on island bases, under constant mortar attack? Can we really afford this mess that George W. Bush left us all in?
Of course we can't. Somebody tell me why I'm wrong. Please. Convince me that we need to stay in these countries. Tell me what winning looks like, too, while you're at it.
One of the problems with people on the autism spectrum is this: They cannot put themselves in someone else's point of view. Stop and try to understand what a strange and complex concept this is: To be able to imagine yourself in someone else's mind, understanding their conclusions based on their very different experiences and thoughts from your own.
When I first heard of this concept, I thought, "Man, an awful lot of people must suffer from some sort of autism, and most of them are conservatives."
Anyway, there are two opposing camps in the subject of American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm in the smaller one. I think we need to pull out of both countries immediately. Most people don't think we should, and especially the President, who's just sent 7 thousand fresh troops there.
Reasonable people that I respect for past honesty, like Fareed Zakaria disagree with me, and maybe have legitimate reasons for claiming that democracy really IS starting to 'flourish', and saying "There is much going on in Iraq that is admirable".
How do we end up with two separate stay-or-go camps? What are their reasons for wanting the U.S. military to either stay or go?
I used the argument about the number of dead soldiers for a while. It's amazing how cavalier the war supporters are when it comes to that particular point of debate; the number of dead is acceptable, smaller than Vietnam, they're volunteers so they knew what they were getting into, the wounded are getting the best care in the world (computerized prosthetics! Star Wars stuff, man!), and on and on.
But now I'm reverting to the MONEY argument. Especially ever since Paul Woflowitz's claims that the Iraq Invasion would not only cost less than $2 billion, but with Iraq oil revenues, it would PAY us to occupy Saddam's oil fields.
Can we really afford a surge in Afghanistan? While we're deep in a recession? Can we really afford to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq, on island bases, under constant mortar attack? Can we really afford this mess that George W. Bush left us all in?
Of course we can't. Somebody tell me why I'm wrong. Please. Convince me that we need to stay in these countries. Tell me what winning looks like, too, while you're at it.
Advertisement
Unfortunately, I am able to put myself in your shoes, Daddy-O, and I agree with you 100%. Therefore, I can't tell you why you're wrong, and I sure as hell can't convince you that we need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We're in the same boat, my friend.
June 8, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, would like to see us out, now.
It can't happen.
Leave aside everything else about our supposed "missions" in either situation, and we still need to prepare carefully for our departures. Materiel and physical assets need to be removed or made inoperable/unusable. Withdrawals need to be planned and staged, with force protection the primary consideration. Especially in Iraq, we are faced with a very long, narrow exit route for widely dispersed force based in multiple locations.
And I do see the value of at least trying to secure some measure of political stability in both countries. Can we afford to stay and enforce that? Clearly, no. Is it still a desirable end? Of course.
Once again, we have made the classic mistake of having poorly defined goals, leaving us no benchmark for knowing what we've done.
Time to begin the carefully managed withdrawal.
June 8, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should clarify, Grouch, that I'm well aware of the problems in pulling out and I know that it can't be done immediately. But what I would like is a definitive announcement of our withdrawal and a realistic timetable, at least in regards to Iraq, if not both.
June 8, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I know, Lis. It wasn't a reply to you, just elaborating on the nature of "immediate" withdrawal.
June 8, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the public goals are poorly defined and irrelevant. The real goal is to secure a supply of oil.
June 8, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Daddy-O, I wish you and your daughter the best of success with the rdi system.
June 8, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your sentiments AND your thoughts, LisB. It's pretty strange, but rdi gives me a lot of science- and reality-based hope.
You would never know that Sophie is on the autism spectrum. The advantages she enjoys that help 'hide' it--a superb memory, other unseen brain deficits that aren't missing in Sophie but are missing in 'worse' cases on the spectrum, even her pretty looks help her make friends that she would otherwise not attract to her--make her look 'normal'.
The progress I see is very hard to quantify, to show empirically, but that's what rdi is really all about. Sophie will always be autistic, but this treatment helps her do three important things: Live independently, keep a job and hold an intimate relationship. Autism keeps people from these 'normal' goals; rdi has helped other people achieve them, to varying degrees of success.
Wow. I do go on about this, don't I?
;-)
June 10, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's unclear if your problem is with wars in Iraq and Afganistan specifically or with wars, per se, as part of foreign policy.
If it's the former, using an autism metaphor in a derogatory way to describe others is strange because exactly the same can be said of your own position - and your invitation to "convince" you seems design to confront, not to understand.
If it's the latter, your argument would be that much stronger and more consistent if it was made on principle, instead a series of attempts to find a winning line (similar to what the torture exploiters went through).
And finally, you would find more support with more conservatives than you think, that is if you were willing to admit there is conservative life beyond the neocons.
The founding fathers warned against any foreign policy other than mutually benefitial trade and deplored any "entangling alliances", especially the political ones, of which wars are always the outcome, since the dawn of civilization.
But since we're so good at dividing everyone into rich and poor, enemies and friends, it's only natural that the majority of people would want to have al-Qaida defeated in Afganistan and Pakistan.
June 8, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is an open invitation to convince me that keeping 100,000 troops in Iraq is cost-beneficial to our country. I seek another point of view that will possibly convince me. Actively.
I have much less of a problem with wars in general than I do with the Iraq and Afghanistan police actions. World War II was a war of necessity that we fought after being attacked. We had no other real choice. No war is 'good', but that war had moral high ground, national interests besides CORPORATE interests, and was competently fought, and took a fraction of the amount of time that Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have taken. I used to be a pacifist, but now I'm not.
I'm capable of changing and growing and altering my beliefs and viewpoints. It's possible that my way of expressing myself seems confrontational; this is an important subject to me. And, not insubstantially, I'm trying to engage others here in this forum, getting their attention, so to speak, I admit.
I think what I'm seeking is possibly a direct conversation with someone I respect--Fareed Zakaria--who DOES hold two thoughts in his head: Iraq is expensive, maybe not worth it. But some good has come from Bush's Excellent Adventure, and not just handing out extra stars to generals taking new commands every two years.
Using autism as a derogatory expression may not be appropriate, but the parallel is still there. I see autism everywhere I go these days, now that I know as much about it as I do. People cling to ideas because they think they're safe. They think change is dangerous. That's why autistics so often chant, hide, cannot have a simple conversation that isn't scripted, etc. It seemed to me that a lot of people--not just conservatives, but mostly--share that trait.
Thanks for your thoughts, Lalo. Good writing, too.
June 10, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two opposing thoughts can amount to cognitive dissonance, or can be exemplary of dialectic (thesis and antithesis).
Also, it's one thing to actively and deeply hold two opposing thoughts at once, something much simpler to be able to bring one up, examine/experience it, then bring the other up and examine/experience it. This applies to perception (illusions such as the young lady vs. the old hag) and to the active conception which is a dialectical tension on the slippery slope of supposition.
Examining things from a point of view is usually considered an intellectual exercise. But when you *feel* things from that point of view, then you might begin to know what it's like to walk in the other person's shoes. Can you alternately be a theist and an atheist? Can you be both at once?
"How do we end up with two separate stay-or-go camps?"
Two separate camps each of which is "stay-or-go", or are you asking how there can be two camps one of which is "stay" and the other "go"?
Not prejudging a situation can be challenging. I wonder it part of the autism you describe amounts to a kind of deeply rooted thought/felt prejudice.
June 8, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
One camp that says 'Stay' and the other that says 'Go'. Sorry for the confusion. Poor writing. I suffers from that occasionally.
;-)
Funny you should mention it: I consider myself to be a Christian atheist. I consider myself to be a red-letter Christian; that is, throw out everything in the Bible except the words of Jesus. Something like that.
Because it's more than likely that Jesus never existed, but his MESSAGE--or, the message of his fictional creators--is an important one, vital to the survival of mankind, and the functional thriving of our species' future.
Thanks, eds.
June 10, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink