The Gendered Brain

It makes women shrewder capitalists:

[M]en and women tend to play the trust game pretty differently. When men were contemplating whether or not to trust a stranger with their "investment," an area called the medial cingulate sulcus became active. Like the caudate, the cingulate sulcus is normally associated with the processing of potential rewards. However, once men made their decision – regardless of what their decision was – both the caudate and the sulcus turned themselves off. Their mind went silent.

Female brains acted very differently. The reward areas of their brain remained extremely active until they knew how the investor reacted to their decision. Camerer believes that this is because women are much more attuned to the social consequences of their decisions. "The difference in brain activity in the two genders is like the kind of behavior you might see after a couple gets home from a potluck dinner and rehashes the event," Camerer writes. "The man wants to turn on the TV and catch some sports scores (his cingulate is turned off). The woman is more likely to rehash the events of the evening, and worry about whether she said the right thing and whether the hostess was happy with the dish she brought, and whether plans for having lunch later in the week are genuine."

The Moment Of Truth

Petraeus, aware of the import of his recitation of the bleeding obvious, later tried to withdraw this gaffe. But it was a genuine gaffe – the truth blurted out by a general who could not help himself. This exchange may be – and certainly should be – the turning point of the Iraq debate. Wars that make us less secure are not wise endeavors. In fact, this week has been unexpectedly revealing, it seems to me, of the rapidly rising stakes now involved.

This week is, I fear, the last chance to salvage something from Iraq, while actually leaving the place at some point with the military intact (if severely damaged) and avoiding a wider, and far more dangerous, regional war with the US in its center. Petraeus is intellectually honest to recognize that the current conflict in Iraq, with insufficient forces to pacify the country but sufficient to enrage Muslims and recruit Jihadists everywhere, is actually a boon to our deadliest enemies, and to Iran. It is clearly, palpably, making us less safe. It is recruiting and training the next generation of Islamists, giving them the skills to wreak havoc on a scale not yet seen. The inexorable logic of this is that, as we continue on the same path in Iraq, as chaos continues this fall (as I fear it will), as Iran makes even more mischief, and as the US moves closer and closer to an explicit policy of backing the Sunnis against Maliki and the Iranians, a war with Iran becomes unstoppable. The vote this week, in other words, is perhaps one last chance to arrest our enmeshment in the growing war in the Middle East before a full-scale war with Iran breaks out.

The consequences of such a war are as unknowable as they are terrifying. An air-attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would likely lead to a Shiite uprising in the South of Iraq – that’s why the Brits are trying to get out of there as quickly as possible – and mass casualties across the country. It would align the new Shiite "government" in Baghdad much more closely with Iran, and force the US into a hideous alliance with Sunni dictators and Sunni tribes. We would have no other global allies. We would still have insufficient troops to win. And we would not just have created a regional civil war in the Middle East; we would have taken sides in it. Such a development could unleash a wave of Islamist terror across the West far more lethal than anything we have yet seen – and even bring the Sunni-Shiite conflict to the streets of Western cities. Such warfare would likely lead to an intensification of the imperial presidency at home, with all the consequences for the Constitution that would entail. There is a disconnect right now, I fear, between the enormous stakes we are deciding and the awareness of most Americans of what may be about to engulf them.

I may be wrong about this. I sure hope I am. We all know I’m an excitable fellow. Perhaps the next six months could lead to political reconciliation in Iraq and continuation of the small, tactical successes of the surge. Perhaps, the empire we are now cementing for our lifetimes in the Middle East will bring peace and democracy in a generation or five. But I don’t think the lesson of the last five years has been optimism about Arab culture. And I would feel remiss if I didn’t voice the foreboding I feel at this juncture. The logic of war is a very powerful one. By refusing to cut our losses now, we may not, in other words, be choosing some kind of status quo. Waiting for 2008, as Jon Rauch has urged, may not be an option – because events and our leaders may well force our hand before then. Democrats who reassure themselves that this cycle of failure will hurt the GOP are not taking into account that the chaos can be used by Cheney, Bush and Giuliani to create more chaos, more war, to polarize the country more deeply, and concentrate more power in their hands.

To put it bluntly: Cheney and Ahmadinejad have fifteen months to get the war they both want. So far, these last five years, Cheney and Ahmadinejad have gotten everything they wanted.

Quote For The Day

"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne…

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars," – Barack Obama, October 2, 2002. My italics.

Barring a sudden revolt by the Congressional Republicans, we are now at war with still too few troops and constructing an explicit, Middle Eastern empire for as far as the eye can see.

Why The War Won’t End

Reviewofwaropinion

The short answer is: Americans may think Bush is useless, but there is not an overwhelming desire to withdraw now. Or as Charles Franklin elaborates in a fascinating post:

The CBS/New York Times polls taken 9/4-8/07 finds results similar to other recent polls: Bush War Approval: 26%
War worth cost: 34%
US Did right thing: 41% (All in the ballpark of the trends above.) Do you think the Republican or the Democratic party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?:
Republican: 32%
Democratic: 42%

A Democratic advantage, but not an overwhelming one.

His conclusion?

Bottom line: Frustrated anti-war forces are understandably angry that the 2006 election victory and subsequent Democratic Congress has failed to bring change to Iraq policy. The trend lines above show how support for the war has declined dramatically since 2003. Anti-war forces can correctly point to substantial majorities who are critical of various aspects of the war.

But change in Congress also requires that Republican members perceive that opinion against the war is so overwhelming that it is time for them to also abandon ship. That mark in public opinion has not been reached. So long as a substantial minority (say 40%+) support the current policy (or at least oppose a rapid withdrawal) then Republicans can count on a public that is too divided on the issue to pose the certainty of electoral catastrophe. This isn’t to say Republicans don’t wish the issue would go away, or that they relish running in 2008 with nearly 6 years of inconclusive war on their watch. But opponents of the war will not prevail in Congress unless a more massive opposition emerges— and one united on the specific details of how to end the war.

Over to you, Senator Obama. Let’s see if you have what it takes to be a president.

Shit Or Get Off The Pot

In thinking out loud about the surge, it seems to me that the arguments of Petraeus could logically lead to two opposite conclusions: a) that the tactical military gains have obviously not led to political conciliation and so the entire project should be scrapped and we should cut our losses; or b) we have enough tactical military success to suggest that the theory is not insane that less violence could lead to political progress. So, in the case of b), there’s an obvious follow-up: add many more troops. If the surge is working as they claim, why should we not amplify its success by expanding its reach? If Bush were arguing for 300,000 troops to pacify the entire country effectively, and use such numbers for classic counter-insurgency, I could understand the logic.

Instead we have the notion that the surge has succeeded somewhat and so we will now take the military presence back to 2006 levels. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Why would we return now to the policy of 2003 – 2007? The police and Iraqi army are as incapable of picking up the slack as they were three years ago. And the national government commands less authority.

Explaining Islamism

A confounding finding from Gallup:

After analyzing survey data representing more than 90% of the global Muslim population, Gallup found that despite widespread anti-American sentiment, only a small minority saw the 9/11 attacks as morally justified. Even more significant, there was no correlation between level of religiosity and extremism among respondents. Among the 7% of the population that fits in the politically radicalized category — those who saw the 9/11 attacks as completely justifiable and have an unfavorable view of the United States — 94% said religion is an important part of their daily lives, compared with 90% among those in the moderate majority. And no significant difference exists between radicals and moderates in mosque attendance.

Not sure what to make of that. Maybe it’s grist for Ron Paul. Some Pollster.com analysis here.