[eDebate] the 1% doctrine really

Michael Korcok mmk_savant
Fri Jul 7 01:56:33 CDT 2006


well... the essays I have read from libs about the 1% doctrine miss the point entirely.  they treat it as some sort of general risk analysis theory, when it is clearly not that.  a couple of posts on Greenwald's blog make that rather obvious point and there has been NO, ZIP, ZERO answer to them.as i wrote here and as is obvious to anyone, treating a 1% risk as a 100% risk is just plain stupid.  when dealing with hazards like hurricanes, global warming, nuclear meltdowns, poker hands, market analysis and so on.  and the Bush administration clearly does not apply the 1% doctrine to those.
 
the 1% doctrine was applied by Cheney to security situations.  that is, in a context where how one treats risks can affect the risks themselves.  and that is the key to understanding what is really going on with the 1% doctrine:  it is a strategic move in a competitive game.
 
the link Ross had to the Auburn math prof had a quote Ross highlighted:  does it make any sense to shoot the guy at the bar just because he looks at you funny?  well... it may if the cost of shooting the guy is not high and if you get an instant reputation for shooting guys who even look at you funny.  you may even want to shoot a couple of guys in a couple different bars who make you even a bit nervous to drive home the point.  that may well convince everyone else to tread very very carefully around you... chances are good no one will risk screwing with you.
 
and that is all Cheney's 1% doctrine is:  if the US evaluates a threat in the security domain as even 1%, it will respond as if it was a certainty.  that is a forceful move to convince potential competitors to make sure they don't even think about doing something remotely threatening to the US.  and if it works then it might well make many threats evaporate as potential competitors scramble to make sure they do NOTHING to anger the hegemon.
 
and that was sorta obvious in the book.  here from p123 of Suskind's book:
 
"The primary impetus for invading Iraq, according to those attending NSC briefings on the Gulf in this period, was to make an example of Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States."In Oval Office meetings, the President would often call Iraq a "game changer." More specifically, the theory was the United States- with a forceful action against Hussein- would change the rules of geopolitical analysis and action for countless other countries."
 
and i have read not a single answer to THAT.  just a bunch of blustering nonsense treating the 1% doctrine out of context with a view to mock Cheney.
as often happens... a bit of reflection goes a lot further than knee-jerk partisanship...
 
Michael Korcok
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Try Live.com: where your online world comes together - with news, sports, weather, and much more.
http://www.live.com/getstarted
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060707/91440376/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list