On The Priming Potential of Stratfor

I have been thinking about writing something here for a long time. I have been postponing my next article for various other chores that have been consuming my time. One of those chores has been reading. The truth is that I have been reading each and every article of Stratfor since the past few months. I have been read every bit of what a free rider can get and I don't think that I possess the means to get a paid subscription at this moment, neither do I think that that is important.

I really wanted to reflect on George Friedman's Borderland series of articles that he finished writing around last month while traveling in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucus. It was particularly touching to read how he was born to a Jewish family in Hungary and how his elders had to calculate the costs of Adolf Hitler's military excursions in Hungary at dining tables, and the calculations of the price the Jews would have to pay. Indeed, it is a pity. However, his trip to Europe was motivated by the recent Russian intrusion in Ukraine.

I have been reading Stratfor quite thoroughly. And the truth is that I have found it rather impressive. Their geopolitical weeklies are absolutely enlightening, albeit ruthless. But such is the nature of geopolitics. Right into the middle of the 21st century it still tends to remain ruthless.

As I have been reading Stratfor, I have been wondering of writing up a research proposal to analyze Stratfor for its objectivity. The proposal that I have in my mind's eye would require research to be carried out from a psychological point of view. I would roughly like to explain the proposal as follows.

Stratfor claims to be objective and non partisan. This is claimed in their core philosophy. The truth is that I have largely found it to be objective and non-partisan, except a few instances (where I have found it to be rather ambiguous). In reality, however, Stratfor might not really be as objective as it claims to be or as a reader like me finds it to be. This leads us to the idea that although Stratfor is objective most of the times and does not appear to be so some of the times, it is priming us in profound ways at times when it is actually not being objective whereas it is appearing to be so.

Stated in other words, when Stratfor is intentionally trying to manipulate the opinions of its readers by appearing as an innocent geopolitical analyst, whereas when it is actually not so, it is trying to psychologically prime us.

This can be a very nice idea to work on. It may as well lead to a very nice research based thesis. Having said it all, it is imperative to describe what priming really means in this context.

Priming is a psychological trick in which a subject is indirectly led into developing false beliefs and ideas by indirect manipulation, while the subject does not know that he/she is being played upon. For instance, in an easy exam in which everyone can do well (or everyone has done equally well on average), subjects can be asked to write down their about their ethnic backgrounds. Depending on their answers, some subjects would have the tendency to do poorly on the same type of exam as compared with others. The reason for this drift in performance is how they associate their ability to succeed with their ethnic roots on a subconscious level.

This is priming and I found this explanation in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, a very nice book on snap judgements and other aspects of popular psychology.

   by  Pdro (GF) 

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

Borderlands, Midlands or Whatever

Reading articles of George Friedman is always entertaining. Recently he traveled to Azerbaijan to reflect on the geopolitics of that particular region around the Caspian sea. From there he wrote an article, Borderlands: The View From Azerbaijan. There are quite a few interesting things in this article that I would like to reflect upon.

I have envied to be in the position of George Friedman for quite some time now. I have been reading Stratfor for almost the past thirteen years now. I started reading it in the wake of spetember 11. At that time I was only a passive reader and I presume that even being that was a great accomplishment for me. Now I feel like becoming a writer of that class, and perhaps I being over ambitious. Nonetheless, the idea that George Friedman has took the pain to travel all the way to Azerbaijan to understand the region by assimilating in it to some extent is enticing in its own right. The fact that he reflected on the region so comprehensively form there is also quite commendable. While reading this article I wondered so many times that he must have roamed around on the roads, talked to people and must have sat in a park to eventually write his thoughts. Literally, it reminded me of my trip to Austria once where I read Simon SIngh's book, Big Bang, in various parks of Graz. And when I was reading about Johannes Kepler, I was sitting in a park in which his statue was just in front me. I can imagine how one can feel while being so well connected in this way.

The article is very profound. The truth is that how George Friedman has reflected on Azerbaijan is very informative. I never knew so many things about that place that I know now. And I am sure plenty of the Muslims would not know many things as well. For instance, not only that plenty of the Muslims would not know that the majority of the people in Azerbaijan are Azeris, I suspect that most people would not even know what it really means to be an Azeri. It would not be an exaggeration on my part to say that most Shia people would also not know about such things.

The other thing we learn from this article is that the government of Azerbaijan is secular. I wonder if it is a good thing or a bad thing. However, if you are a western person, or a westernized person, you might be a little bit shocked at my previous sentence. In saying that the government is secular, George Friedman also points at the social status jews enjoy in Azerbaijan, and also Iran. Learning that jews can enjoy a decent social status in both countries and can even rise to the ranks of ministers and higher officials is only pleasing. But it appears that George Friedman likes the secularity of Azerbaijan more than religiosity of Iran. This is somewhat concerning.

I look at this as a problem. I look at it from a unique vantage point. And my vantage point ensues from my interaction with Europe and my readings about atheism. The fact is that I get a feeling that George Friedman finds it rather better for a country to be implementing human rights when it is secular as opposed to when it is religious. I find it evident from his tone. I wonder about this from a theological point of view. In awareness that one of the reasons that people abandon religion is because it is supposed to create rifts in the society, at the very least, and bellicose conflicts in the worst case. Islam is particularly framed as a terroristic religion in Western countries. It is not uncommon to find a poster in Copenhagen featuring a bearded man with a turban on his head, possibly with a bomb in it. It is a pity that Islam has earned this reputation. People tend to abandon religion for these reasons. I was in Copenhagen last winter when I read an advertisement on facebook that was about a cemetery free of religious symbols for atheists in Copenhagen, Odensea and other parts of the country. It appears that there are people who do not want to buy in to religion even on their deathbeds. This is a pity.

But my question is profound. Why would someone be opposed to religion while it is actually practicing humane values. This is understandable. The truth is that in classical Islam there is a lot of room for other religions. Jews and christians are revered for being the people of the book. Specially concerning jews, who have had a really nasty history, one can find that their golden age was those seven hundred years in which Muslims ruled in Spain. They could become ministers in courts and they assumed dignified official positions in offices. Classical Islam is a lot more than that. We have heard about prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that he was a very just man. People used to come to him to settle their disputes. And when jews and christians used to come to him to settle their disputes, he used to settle their disputes according to Torah and bible respectively, as opposed to the Holy Quran, that was revealed on him, just like Torah and Bible were revealed on prophet Moses (PBUH) and Jesus (respectively).

Given this, one wonders that why people prefer secularity over religiosity. Obviously from a rational point of view it is possible that there is no God, although given the massive evidence chances are slim. But for sake of an argument, let's say that God exists, then what is the harm in accepting this reality. I hope I have conveyed a part of my thought process comprehensively, although I feel that I need to refine my argument.

The last thing is very interesting. George Friedman goes a long way to discuss how Azerbaijan has been a subject of continuous criticism of the US state department for a long time for human rights concerns. It has been denied weapon sales due to such issues as well. George Friedman tries to play them down partly in wake of the need of Azerbaijan as a potential fixer of regional affairs particularly uprooted by Russia.

George Friedman is an opinion maker. He is also not any ordinary opinion maker. He does not do this directly. Neither is there any need for him to do it directly. The truth is that StratFor is such an enlightening institution that it keeps on informing its readers about geopolitical developments on a weekly basis in a way that no other think tank in the whole world does. Add on top of this cake the icing of objectivity and non-partisanship and what you get is a perfect way to bias yourself with its prophecies.

In as much as it is a good thing for countries to get closer, the truth is that their intentions need to be straightened up before they do that. Instead of liaising with Azerbaijan to counter Russia, would it not be a lot more wiser for the US to sit down with their diplomats and to try to resolve all the human right violations that the US thinks that Azerbaijan is guilty of, and to address some of the concerns of Azerbaijan has about the US. Making liaisons is obviously a good thing, as they can help us in winning wars. Intentions behind such liaisons matter to a great extent, as they can lead to lasting relationships and help in winning hearts.

The US made a similar liaison in the past with Afghanistan and Pakistan to counter the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Soviet Union was collapsed as a result of that. But some results of that relationship of geopolitical necessity were rather grave. And we have seen them manifest in the form of terrorism and war on terror.

Barrack Hussain Obama has been a good US president. He has been philosophical in choosing not to intervene in Syria in wake of use of chemical weapon. Moreover, he imposed some sanctions on Russia as a result of its intrusion in Ukraine. This has been a tremendous change in the attitude of the US foreign policy possibly for the first time in recent history. He and his administration needs to be commended for this. Would he make further liaisons that are genuinely candid or that fulfill geopolitical demands needs to be seen.

 
Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  Niyaz from Baku 

Geopolitical Weekly

We live in a world that is both peaceful and turmoiled at the same time. One moment we hear about a great technological breakthrough in a part of the world and the next moment we hear about a catastrophe in the vicinity of the same area. World's political landscape changes its facade very abruptly. As soon as one tires to catch up with the details of one event, another incident happens to conceal the details of the previous one under the mist of massive information. In order to keep us up with the pace of swiftly changing geopolitical scene, members of StratFor provide us with their geopolitical weekly reports.  In what follows is a reflection of various of StratFor's geopolitical weekly articles that were published over the last decade. The primary reason to write this article is to try to understand the basis of political dynamics of our world.

Around six years ago (possibly in 2007 or 2008), StratFor published an article concerning developments in Russia, China and Iraq. Precisely at that time the US troops were busy in trying to conquer a territory in Iraq. It was possibly a part of their exit strategy. At the same time Russia was gauging up itself to see if it could halt the oil and gas supply to the central Europe (possibly through Belarus) to see if it could achieve any political leverage from such a move. It was possibly a part of Russia's never ending desire, and inherent necessity, to be an expansive hegemony. At the same time Chinese had invented a sort of a thing by which they could destroy shuttles in the outer space. This sort of a thing could be useful in space warfare and could also possibly threaten US domination of world's oceans by challenging them in the space. The article was detailed and in a way provoked a reader loyal to the US to lament its futile and aimless struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article ended in a very nice way, as it normally does, with a catchy phrase from George Friedman, the founder and CEO of StratFor. That was possibly like: In six years the US would regret that while it was fighting for a few streets in Baghdad, it must have thought about its higher stakes. We are probably living in that part of the history now.

Through StratFor we can learn many interesting things about many interesting places, events and phenomena. Through StratFor we learn that why geography necessitates some countries to be expansive and allows a few others to be conveniently adventurous. Russia is an interesting example of an expansive land that is not necessarily so due to its vanity and lust for power, but also due to its geographical constraints. In order to protect itself from foreign intruders it has to expand its borders closer to other countries so that, in time of need, it can fight wars with them in their own territories, closer to their capitals. 

Through StratFor we also learn that why the US is actually not only not an expansive country but also that it does not need to be. It is possibly detrimental for the US to be expansive. The US philosophy is to invade a country, keep it conquered for a while, disrupt its critical infrastructure, such as communications infrastructure, grab the resources and try to get the hell out of the place as soon as the things begin to look bad. Good examples of this are Vietnam and possibly Iraq. 

But these are not the only things we learn from StratFor. It offers us a lot more interesting perspectives and rationale for stimulus various nations have in doing whatever they are doing. The recent US decision to not intervene in Syria is a very good case in this regard. It is quite important to understand the US perspective in this regard. 

The traditional impression in the Muslim world has always been that the US is out to get them. This is so possibly since the early 80s when the US was in a cold war with Russia and had Pakistan and Afghanistan allied to it. The jihad was alright and the relationships were cozy. But there was an air of distrust at least on the Pakistani side. In the Muslim world the US has always been perceived as a villain who is out there to grab resources of technologically impoverished countries no matter what it costed. Incidentally many Muslim countries rich in oil and petroleum resources such as gulf and Arab countries. This explained reasons for keen US interest in those countries and also stimulus for invading Iraq. It is worth emphasizing that the invasion of Iraq was always seen as an attempt to grab Iraqi oil reserves all over the Muslim world. 

Recently the US decided to not to intervene in Syria in wake of the chemical attacks by the Assad regime. It is interesting to see what could have prohibited the US from intervening in Syria this time. 

What happened was that president Obama had announced at some point that it would not interfere directly in Syria until chemical weapons were used. In saying this what he had actually done was that he had raised the bar for its involvement in such a matter. Despite this announcement chemical weapons were allegedly used by the Assad regime. This was possibly an attempt to lure the US into the conflict. And despite some international pressure, particularly from Russia, the US managed to keep away from getting involved in Syria. 

The question is that why did it do this? The answer is provided by StratFor's geopolitical weekly article Obama's tightrope walk, and a series of related reports on Syria. In this article the binary choice that US had in either getting involved or staying away from the conflict in Syria is presented as a moral problem. Use of chemical weapons was a morally bad idea and to stay quiet on this was morally bad on part of the US so something had to be done about this. This is interesting to see as a matter of looking at the American moral landscape. This is also important to understand. The other choice, that is not to interfere in the Syrian conflict, is complicated to look at from an American perspective. However, this has also had a moral perspective. The simplest explanation of this is that the US have been very deeply involved with the Muslim world for more than over a decade. Although they have tried very hard to reform them (for good, from their vantage point) but their efforts have not borne much fruition. As a result a choice was to leave the Syrians on their own and let them evolve while they try to handle their problems themselves. In the article it is also stated very clearly that if the US had gotten involved there would definitely be at least a few deaths and atrocities, as it was inevitable, and that the US would have to bear the blame for all that in the media and elsewhere. As a conclusion, the US abandoned a position of higher morality to choose a position of weaker morality with fewer political consequences and did not get involved in the action. 

This is extremely important to understand and to analyze. Understanding this could have collateral intellectual advantages, even if there weren't any monetary rewards. Specially if the problem of this binary choice is presented to a congregation of Muslims and tell them that the US had to ponder over it for a while to decide which way to go, either no one would believe that the US looked at it from a moral perspective, or people would be disinterested. On the other hand, if you ask people on as to who is messing up Syria, Libya or Egypt, chances are that a large number of Muslims would point to the usual suspect, the US. That is why it is important to at least prolong this discourse a little bit so as to develop a better reflection for the people and also to provide them with more light to reflect upon. It could be good for you to read on irrespective of which part of the world you are from. 

Any idea that the US can act morally in handling conflicts or solving wars in nearly incomprehensible in the Muslim world at least. Moreover, Muslims believe in the superiority of the morality of war of Islam as well as they believe in the superiorities of moralities of other aspects of Islam. But a theological discussion is beyond the scope of this article. The truth is that the US has acted a lot more responsibly in dealing with the episode concerning the chemical weapon attack this time specially as compared to its all the previous interactions and interventions in the Muslim world. This must be appreciated. This precedent could also set a trend that could be better for the future of the whole world. President Barrack Obama and his cabinet must be applauded for this decision.

The question is that why does the US have to intervene and find an intervention morally binding? Good intentions, if any, always get diminished under the smog of negative criticism and the potential animosity that the US invites as a result. This has been answered more comprehensively by George Friedman that there is a moral camp in the US too that finds it imperative to intervene and deal with issues in which oppression is involved and atrocities are inflicted. Irrespective of whether this camp of humanists belongs to the civil society or elsewhere, the camp is important and interesting in its own right. That this camp of humanists is actually humane should be taken for granted on the face value. And this camp should be kept engaged for better appreciating various cultural ideas. Such camps can be useful in bringing about meaningful changes in the overall political climate of our world.

StratFor teaches us many other things too. It is a stated policy of StratFor that they are non-partisan and unbiased in preparing and presenting geopolitical intelligence. They also state that they pledge to do this despite the fact that pure non-partisanship and objectivity are impossible. Of course, if you are a Cuban then most of your loyalties will be Cuba, no matter how much you tend to favor a party that is in conflict with Cuba. This is a decent expectation as well. National pride, patriotism and loyalty are emotions worth cherishing. To this end, StratFor lives up to its stated objectives as much as possible as well. Recently StratFor republished a 2005 article that it published in 2005 concerning possible Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and its permanent dilemma. The article was reposted in light of the recent death of Ariel Sharon. It is a very detailed and indeed enlightening article. In this article George Friedman admits that jews encroached the lands of Palestinians as an aftermath of the holocaust. George also throws considerable light on aspects such as the Israeli methods of reducing Palestinian presence in Israel, Gaza and elsewhere. This is commendable in its own right. It is commendable specially given that the US has almost unanimously been believed to be a backer of Israel in almost all of the Muslim world. Any acknowledgement from a mainstream American think tank that uses words like "encroachment" to state the nature of, well, encroachment of Palestinian lands by Israelis is not only commendable but also extremely surprising. It would be additionally very nice of StratFor to find a better word for the struggle of Palestinians for this type of extreme oppression. StratFor continues to use the word terrorism to color all sorts of actions of Muslims. Or either the term terrorism should be described more broadly. I think that this comment of mine is self explanatory and does not need any further explanation apart from the fact that I am not advocating terrorism but only asking for its application to be limited to contexts in which it is actually terrorism that is being referred to. Where the oppression against a group of human beings is so extreme that they have to retaliate with unusual means to express their discomfort, the word terrorism should either not be used or it should be stated that it is being used with slightly different connotation. That no matter how minute that difference in connotations is intended would be less meaningful than the expression of the gesture itself. 

StratFor teaches us many more things than geopolitics of conflict, or merely geopolitics itself. Elections don't matter, institutions do is a very enlightening article written by Robert D. Kaplan. Apart from learning that the author knows that prevalence of widespread bribery in countries where institutions are poorly administered, it is nice to know that how the various Western institutions work. It is indeed a very liberating personal experience to have lived in the European countries and to have interacted with their bureaucrats in various offices such as police stations and passport offices. In the Western countries if the state owes you a right, it delivers it you immediately without any further mention or hint of an extraordinary favor that has been done, possibly by going out of the way. Whatever is your right is yours and the personnel feel naturally obliged to deliver it to you irrespective of whether you are affluent or destitute, an orphan or a son of an influential bureaucrat does not matter at all. This is a beauty of the organization of the Western countries and their institution that no amount of admiration can do justice to its elegance. Honesty comes for free in the European countries with a smiling face. We should hope that this remains like this forever. We also hope that it would change in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and India as well.

Another relevant article is about American Public's Indifference to Foreign Affairs. It is a pity to learn that an average American does not even know how to locate various countries on the world map. Michael Moore covered this to some extent in his Fahrenheit 9/11. This article also depicts the same. That americans are merely bothered about what is happening in the world unless it really starts to bother them. As a matter of fact it is a good thing that they do start getting bothered when it needs to be bothered. Otherwise, rest of the world would be at complete and isolated mercy of American foreign policy.

One of the very interesting things about the above mentioned article is that american foreign policy is now bent on taking a more hands-off approach to overseas conflicts. This is incredible.  

StratFor also does not shy away from writing about seemingly minor issues that apparently have no relevance with geopolitics. Have you ever considered that what is the role of a calendar, that possibly only has an aesthetic value at best in our daily life, with the grand geopolitical schemes? StratFor thinks that it does. Read geopolitics of the Gregorian calendar to find the appeal of one calendar system over the others.

In Asian status quo one learns about the nature of conflict between the Japanese and the Chinese. For many people of the world this would be an altogether new thing. They resemble a lot and it is hard to tell apart a Japanese from a Chinese. Their languages also possibly sound similar to the novice. Why then a conflict? But don't Indians and Pakistanis look alike and speak almost the same language?

If you have a decent basis in finance, then new investment platforms raise questions about China's banking system is for you. This is fun to read. At least one develops a view of how financial markets function in wake of hostile banking systems. 

I shall bounce back to where I started this discourse. In the beginning we were talking about StratFor and its prediction of Russia's resurgence as a regional hegemony. Reports Ukraine's Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge and Ukraine and the Little Cold War talk about how Russia is playing its hand in Ukraine. It is also worth noticing that how it affects the Western European countries. It is also quite interesting to read that how the US is shaping its behavior relative to it.

George Friedman used to write very well. He still maintains his tradition. Now StraFor has a whole team of seasoned writers with it. Robert D. Kaplan's articles are very enlightening and shows a picture from different perspectives. 

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  Achilli Family | Journeys