Paradigm Lost

I’ve got a short list of words that I don’t like. It’s simple prejudice, I know. There isn’t anything wrong with the words; it is only that I associate them with pompous fools trying to impress their listeners. Most of the time the usage is simply a cliché; a phrase which is so ingrained in our language that the phrase flows and the unbearable word festers in the middle of it. One of those words is “behooves.” I can honestly say that I’ve never met a single thing that “behooved” me. The word seems to relate more to livestock than to preferential action.

Another one of those pariah pronouncements is “paradigm.” Have someone explain to you someday what a “paradigm” is and why they are so often changing. Is there much use for stable paradigms? Can’t the average paradigm hold its position for more than a few years?

But, recently I’ve regularly found myself referring to the changed paradigm of our defensive strategy. Occasionally there are situations in which no other word will work so well. Recognition of the changed paradigm is essential to understanding where we are today with respect to the war on terror.

At the micro-level, consider the situation aboard those ill-fated airplanes on 9/11. We had grown up in a world in which sky-jacking had become a common tactic for political dissidents. Airplanes were easy to target in the late ‘60s and attracted loads of media attention. Over time, security at airports improved, but there were still regular occurrences of planes being commandeered. The paradigm that developed, however, was one of patience and caution in dealing with the perpetrators. Talk with them, negotiate, be patient and eventually the outcome will be reasonably good with little loss of life. It worked that way for forty years. Then on one September morn, things changed and so did the paradigm.

In the short hour or so between the initial impacts on the WTC and the crash of Flight 93 in a field in Pennsylvania we learned that it was not reasonable to accede to a simple threat with a box-cutter. There would be no more momentary inconvenience and eventual end of crisis with all passengers safe. Now, under the new paradigm, there was little hope for good outcomes and taking violent action on their own behalf was the preferred course of action for passengers on hijacked airplanes.

At the macro-level, we now have pre-emptive war. In this Washington Post piece, the President discusses the new paradigm: Strategy Today

A few centuries ago we had political philosophers writing on “just war”, creating a body of international law to define when armed conflict was appropriate. Even as war changed in the Twentieth Century with rapid advances in the capacity to destroy persons and property, we still clung to the principles enunciated by folks like St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Rousseau, Locke, Wilson and others. Sure, there were Machiavellians who reminded us that might could define right and winners wrote the histories. But, the moral high ground was held by those who warred in response to evil. Just war was fought against dictators and even then, only engaged in when all diplomatic efforts had failed and significant affront had taken place. Invasion was prerequisite to response.

Recall the mantra of the pacifists and draft-dodgers during the Vietnam years? The alliterative phrase that the war was illegal, immoral and unjust told you all you needed to know. We hadn’t been attacked. We were picking on a little guy. We weren’t morally justified. We needed to fill the criteria of those historic philosophers before we could go to war.

Consider the situation today. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are real. Remember that although nuclear weapons require considerable technology and create some delivery problems, the other two WMD formats are much simpler to deal with. Chemical weapons have been around for a long time and while it might be tough to get a large footprint with some weapons, contamination of major metropolitan water supplies might not be that tough. Biological weapons are much worse. Contemplate the current “pandemic” discussions regarding H5N1 bird flu.

The essential truth is that WMD have such potential for major damage that it is no longer possible to absorb a first strike prior to responding. Extend your thinking just a bit further and recall that box cutters aren’t even WMD! Yet, a handful of terrorists armed with just such simple tools commandeered four fully fueled airplanes and in a matter of minutes brought down the economic center of New York City and in the process did considerable damage to the economy of the United States.

Add one more significant factor to the new paradigm. The entities that threaten our way of life are no longer national actors. We aren’t dealing with nation-states, led by rational officials, subject to public scrutiny, amenable to diplomatic pressures, conformable to world opinion. We aren’t even sure where our enemies are. We have few channels for dialog or negotiation.

Alternatives to military action are increasingly less available. We have a shadowy enemy whose objectives aren’t the slightest bit traditional in terms of trade, territory or concessions. We face weapons that have the potential to inflict incredible damage, death and destruction. The threat has been demonstrated as very capable of reaching us anywhere in the world. We suddenly find ourselves looking at a changed paradigm. Anyone who insists on maintaining the striped pants and frock coat philosophy of the Nineteenth Century diplomat is going to place his nation at great risk.

Pre-emptive war is not a first option, but it most certainly must be recognized as a necessary position in a very different world.