Endgame in Syria?

It is hard, when reading news items about Syria, to judge what is truth and what is psy-ops. However, it would seem that we are now at the endgame phase. And once again, it seems that Obama's secretive 'lead from behind' is the driving force.

In the last few days we have seen the following news in Western media:

1. Firefights in Damascus, including bombings of TV station(s), assassination of a Hamas operative (probably NOT by Israel, as the guy is too low-level).

2. Continued killing of civilians by Government troops, but with casualty rates of the regime's forces on the same order of magnitude as the civilians. In other words, rebels are appearing to be on equal footing with the Syrian army.

3. Money and weapons arriving to Turkey from Gulf States, making its way to the border, and being distributed to the rebels by US operatives. The weapons include anti-tank and anti-personnel carrier individual weapons (RPG's and such), as well as light arms. The US presence is meant to prevent Jihadi types from obtaining it. The weapons appear to be relatively low-tech, and would not be a threat to civil aviation. They are also readily available in many combat zones, such as Pakistan, Africa, etc.

4. Syria moving tanks to the north. Turkey moving anti-aircraft equipment and tanks to the south. Seems to me that Turkey is planning to prevent the Syrian air force from bombing rebels on either side of the border.

5. High level defections - though still only a few.

6. Large swaths of land lost to rebels.

7. Announcements of free passage to Assad, etc.

So I see the US and Gulf States are moving in to ease Assad out. Militarily they are neutralizing his advantages with armaments, and in the meantime, they are trying to get him to move out voluntarily and have an orderly process of regime change. The goal is to make sure Al Qaeda and similar groups do not get advanced weapons, and also to prevent Syria's disintegration, a civil war, and a regional spillover.


If it works, which to me is pretty darn certain, it will deliver a serious blow to Iran and its regional ambitions. I give Assad 2-3 months, perhaps longer to enable an orderly transition. Let's wait and see.

Exploring and Preventing Irrational Response to Disasters

The Problem and its Causes

Why do people respond so indifferently to major catastrophes, such as the genocide in Rwanda, floods in Asia, or famines in Africa, yet give generously to a neighbor who lost a house to fire, or a coworker downsized from a job?  

This surprising response (or lack of it) to human tragedy is taken up in Dan Ariely's second book, The Upside of Irrationality. Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University, is well known for his book Predictably Irrational, which explores the faulty nature of human decision making, a predictably irrational process that is easily (and frequently) exploited by marketers, corporations and politicians. 

Dan's second book draws on his research and personal experience to describe irrational decision making and action taking. It also highlights ways to overcome these irrational tendencies. Chapter 9 ("On Empathy and Emotions: Why We Respond to One Person Who Needs Help but Not to Many") deals with parameters that contribute to a general apathy towards large tragedies, facets that limit our responsiveness to large-scale disasters, compared to smaller misfortunes at home. 


It appears that empathy, which determines how we respond to events, is dominated by emotions, rather than logic, and is affected by the following psychological factors:

• Vividness - how detailed and vivid the picture of suffering is. The more vivid, the more likely we are to empathize and react. In contrast, the vagueness of a long-distance look reduces empathy and response. 
• Closeness - physical proximity or group kinship to victims. We are much more likely to give money to trivial causes nearby, than to a much needier problem far away.
• The 'Drop in the bucket' effect - the inability to single-handedly and completely help the victims of a tragedy. In face of large needs which we can barely affect with individual action, we tend to shut down emotionally. Immense issues, such as providing clean water to people in most developing countries fall victim to this effect.

These factors distort our decision making in peculiar ways - the larger the problem, and the more analytic information is available, in form of data and statistics ("250,000 people are still homeless after the earthquake"), the less we respond with support and compassion. Issues become too abstract for emotions to comprehend. Rational thought and analysis block emotion-driven empathy. To quote Joseph Stalin (Ariely offers many other similarly enlightening quotes), "one man's death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic". 

Ariely's Proposed Solutions

Ariely, usually the optimist, comes up with a depressing conclusion - "We are not designed to care about events that are great in magnitude, take place far away, or involve many people we don't know", and offers a number of personal behavior modification solutions - ways individuals can modify the way they think about disasters and tragedies. The following are extracts and edited quotes:

"So what can we do as a possible solutions to the statistical victim problem - what hope to solve large scale humanitarian problems?"

• Try to change how we think and approach human problems ... try to think specifically about helping one suffering person.
• Try to counteract the "drop in the bucket" effect by re-framing the magnitude of the crisis in your mind - instead of the abstract problem of massive poverty, try to feed 5 people.
• Find the personal closeness to sufferers of a general problem.
• Come up with rules to guide behavior - create rules that will guide us to take the right course of action, even if it does not arouse our emotions. 

The last one is more relevant to organizations than individuals - for example, the UN can automatically deploy peace-keepers if a given number of people is affected by a violent conflict.

An Alternative Solution

Unfortunately, self improvement is much easier in theory than in practice. Most of us repeatedly fail in our efforts to change. Note, for example, the common fate of New Year's resolutions. 


Ironically, Ariely, in despair, may have stumbled on a possible answer:  "It would be nice ... if the next catastrophe were immediately accompanied by graphic photos of individual suffering ... if such images were available they would incite our emotions and propel us into action. But all too often images of disasters are too slow to appear, as was the case in Rwanda, or they depict a large statistical, rather than identifiable, suffering - think for example about Darfur. And when these emotion-evoking images finally appear on the public stage, action may be too late in coming. Given all our human barriers to solving the significant problems we face, how can we shake off our feeling of despair, helplessness or apathy, in the face of great misery ... So what can we do as a possible solutions to the statistical victim problem - what hope to solve large scale humanitarian problems?"


Today's technologies - digital cameras, cell phones, image sharing sites and social networks - make it possible to globally disseminate images in minutes. Technology can benefit further from some coordination by the community. A disaster response plan to distribute images together with vivid, detailed description of individual cases, has the potential to trigger public support and individual action. All that it takes is a little preparedness. After all, we already have a pretty good idea which areas are amenable to flooding, earthquakes, or famine - all we need to do is be ready when the next one hits - and remember that people care more about a single bleeding victim than about a million abstract sufferers...

The (not so) Great Game in Syria

The Great Game was first coined to describe the rivalry between the British and Russian empires, which played out in Central Asia, but it can just as well refer to any situation where big powers fight a proxy war on someone else's land. And the most recent case is Syria, where Sunnis and Shiites from the Gulf (led by Saudi Arabia and Iran, respectively) fight their proxy war to control Islam.

The Situation 

Syria is ruled by a Shiite Alawite minority, led by the Assad family. The country's political and military elite is made up of mostly this sect. Sunni minority started peaceful demonstrations about a year ago, and has been repressed violently by the regime. The situation evolved slowly into an armed struggle between the minority, supported by Gulf states and others, and the army, whose main weapon is  massacres of civilians.

The Players

• The rebels - a coalition of many factions and fractions of Syrian minorities, including some extremists and religions fanatics. 
• Iran - Iran is the benefactor of US mistakes under Bush, which spent upward of a trillion dollars to dispose of Sadam Hussein and bring Iraq under Shiite rule and Iranian influence. The Iranian took advantage of these errors to become a regional superpower. Syria is Iran's gate to the Mediterranean, its conduit of arm sales and smuggling to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, and its influence in Lebanon. Iran, in case anyone forgot, is a Shiite state, ruled autocratically by Ayatollahs, or religions leaders.
• Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states - Sunni centers of powers, interested in reducing the influence of Iran in the area, these countries are populated by some of the same tribes that are being oppressed and massacred in Syria. They support the resistance to Assad with money, weapons, training and political support.
• Turkey - another Sunni state vying for regional leadership with Iran. A former ally of Syria, it severed relations after it became clear that Assad's repression and killing of civilian are a dead end. Turkey hosts Syrian refugees, offers political support, military training, and facilitates weapons flow to the rebels, while also providing them with sanctuary. Turkey is interested in political influence in the area, but also cooperates with the US and EU, both as member of NATO and because of its affinity to Europe.
• The US and EU - partly for humanitarian reasons, partly to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions and its spreading and corrosive influence in the area, this bloc provides political support and logistic coordination to the rebels. Their main concern is the fact that nobody knows the real positions and intent of the rebels.
• Russia and China - support Assad for various reasons unrelated to the conflict. Syria provides Russia with its only Mediterranean port, relies on Russian weapon systems which are a lucrative trade, and has been trained by the Russian military for many years. Some of the Russian actions are meant to embarrass the west and maintain Russian influence in the area. 
• Israel - Israel is hesitant to commit to either side. For one, they are not sure whether Assad or the oppositions is the preferred cross-border neighbor. Assad is a known entity, and has maintained border stability for over 40 years, at the same time arming and training Hezbollah. On the other hand, severing Iran's access to Lebanon will lead to the likely collapse of armed groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. An explicit Israeli  involvement in support of the rebels will backfire on both the rebels and Israel, so its actions are likely to be kept secret.
• Al Qaeda - Iraqi Sunnis which escaped Iraq during the violent years after the US invasion live all over Syria. This allows Iraqi militants a relatively easy access to the country. Al Qaeda and it affiliates benefit from the conflict in a number of ways - improved favorability in the Arab world for supporting a popular cause, increased fund-raising, and legitimacy as part of the Sunni paramilitary infrastructure.

What to Expect

• Continuing conflict - Assad has no place to go at the moment, so his only option is to repress the majority of the population through army-led and Alawite militia massacres. On the other hand, killing civilians will not quell the uprising, and he can only kill so many of them - not enough to win.
• With time, defections and loss of personnel will wear down the regime, while rebels will get stronger as their training takes effect and as more of the population begins to support them. In other words, time is not in Assad favor.
• Russia and China will suffer political damage from their support of a murderous, oppressive regime, and business losses through the influence of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Sooner or later, they will support a solution that will ease Assad out.

Interesting Points

• The rebels seem disciplined, suggesting an evolving political and organizational skills and central control. They focus their actions on fighting the Syrian military and are not engaging in the much easier massacre of the Alawite sect and wealthy merchants. Or at least this is how it seems from the outside.
• The trend seems to show improvement in the rebels' skills, due to training and organizational support, funding and probably military support by external sources.
• So far, the West is carefully controlling their support. They provide small arms and antitank missiles. Their aversion to providing anti-aircraft missiles is probably due to their fear of arming Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations. This allows the Syrian army to use helicopter gunships to attack civilians and rebels alike. When the anti-aircraft capability show up, it would be interesting to note whether they are in the hand of the rebels, or used through special forces from the Gulf, EU, US or Israel.
• At some point, the minority Alawites, Christians and business elite might come to the conclusion that getting rid of Assad is in their interest. When this happens, it will signal the end. The only way Assad can prevent this from happening is a military victory that will marginalize the rebels, and soon. So it would not be surprising to see a final major effort and an all out attack by regime forces. However, their chances of success are limited.

Conclusion

More bloodshed, more pain, and slow slog towards regime change, which at this point is inevitable, are going to play out in the coming months and years.

Henry Gee about writing

It is only fitting that a blog used to practice writing should start with an entry about the process of writing, so here it is.

The inspiration for this blog came from a number of sources, the first of which was an article by Henry Gee in the Guardian, entitled “In Your Own Write: The ten rules for excellent writing”. Mr. Gee is a blogger, writer and senior editor at the science weekly Nature. The article, which was part of the public relations campaign for the Welcome Trust/Guardian/Observer science writing competition, was published a little over a year ago, and is worth reading.

Topping the list is "Rule 1: Write Every Day."

"That's why my first rule for writers is that, as an aspiring writer, you should write every day. Talent of any kind, whether it's playing football or the piano, improves with practice, and writing is no exception. It doesn't matter what it is, or how short ... It can be a status update on your favourite social network; a stanza on how miserable it is to wait in the rain ... (for the bus); a shopping list; a diary entry. Anything. This is why having a blog is good. You can write short items about anything, and, if you are going to do it properly, you will update it regularly. There is no pithier testament to unwillingness to write than an untended blog."

Here is a similar quote, from Dr. Ben Goldacre's email auto-response:

"If you want to get into writing, the only advice I can offer is “write!”, on a blog, in a local mag, a student paper, anywhere and everywhere that will have you, practice, feedback, and repeat." 

This is sound advice, but only part of the story. In my opinion, to be a good writer, start with a lot of reading.  Find a writer or an area that you enjoy and give it a go. To improve your writing, imitate the style and technique of your favorite writers. Your personal style will come through soon enough.

Reading is a lot less demanding than writing. It can be done piecemeal, and is much more fun than putting a daily quota of 1000 words (or 100, for that matter) to print. Reading has many benefits - it elevates comprehension, raises general intelligence, contributes to knowledge and language skills, is enlightening and occasionally inspiring. Reading broadens the mind, and widens the horizon. Its effects linger whether you become a writer or not.

If you find reading boring and tedious, you are probably not destined to be a writer, so spare yourself a lot of agony by finding a hobby you enjoy better. if you do find it rewarding, reading would lead you to things you can be passionate about, and write about with pleasure.

So my First Rule is "read a lot, regularly" - web pages, news, essays, zines, electronic and print books, anything and everything you can find (for free).

Yet while reading is a necessary part of writing, it is not on its own sufficient. Reading refines your grammar and enriches your vocabulary - which you will give you a good start. But practice - lots of it - is the secret to writing. And if regular writing does not make you a better writer, it will at least make you a more proficient one.

If you visit this blog often, you'll be able to see if it gets better with time and practice - assuming it does not become my "pithy testament to unwillingness to write".

Why this blog?

As we all know, most blogs are read by their writer, friends, family, and nobody else. And we should all be grateful for that, as most blogs are not worth reading - or for that matter writing. 

So, you, the fictitious, hypothetical reader of this blog, must wonder why either one of us bother. Or you would, had you existed. 

The simple answer is that this blog is an exercise in writing. According to a number of reliable sources, writing is a craft which improves with practice. An aspiring writer should write a daily allotment of 500-1000 words. While I can hardly describe myself as an aspiring writer (expiring or perspiring are more apt), I responded to the challenge by attempting to write in this blog on a regular basis. As you can see from the name of the blog, I have little illusions about my readership. I do this for myself, and will see, in a year, if indeed my writing is any better.

If you have stumbled upon this blog through a search or other accident, you are welcome to stick around and invited to return and decide for yourself if the practice helps.

Cheers.