The Autochthonous P : President Bush
Family/Friends
Volunteer Support
Groups
Groups
Personal Perception
Countervailing
Communications
Communications
Public Protests
Primary Injunction
Secondary Injunction
Intervening Injunction
Comparative process
blocked by direct order
as commander in chief.
blocked by direct order
as commander in chief.
God Term Comparative Process
Blockers
Our troops are fighting for our
freedom. We must fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight
them here. God is on our side.
Insurgents are terrorists. Iran is part of the axis of evil. We are winning the war. Have patience. We must all sacrifice to preserve our freedom. Seal our borders to keep terrorists out.
and the beat goes on...
Blockers
Our troops are fighting for our
freedom. We must fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight
them here. God is on our side.
Insurgents are terrorists. Iran is part of the axis of evil. We are winning the war. Have patience. We must all sacrifice to preserve our freedom. Seal our borders to keep terrorists out.
and the beat goes on...
Demonstrative Realities
Unimpeded Communication
World Opinions
Coerced enlistment as part of
Primary Injunction through
lies, fear, and guilt.
Primary Injunction through
lies, fear, and guilt.
The
Soldier's
World
Soldier's
World
Ancient communication process
now thought to be extinct.
now thought to be extinct.
To imply, as the graphic obviously does, that both the families of the Iraq troops and the volunteer support efforts function as a Primary Injunction is the aforementioned bitter pill. Let me explain [he said hoping both that the reader will allow him to try to justify a point that on its face is not only wrong but reprehensible, and that he can in fact do so.]
The Administration
The gist of the Primary Injunction is that the invasion of Iraq was justified and necessary to defend our freedom. The responsibility for that monstrous mendacity lies with President Bush alone. My personal belief is that our president is drifting ever deeper into megalomania and that in his heart of hearts he is an evil person, but my beliefs about Mr. Bush are not relevant to the value of these concepts. To ignore him as the source of this double bind would be naive so I will just say J'Accuse in passing and get on with it.
The Civilians
The Machiavellian process that ensnares the friends and families, and to a lesser extent the support groups, of the troops into the Primary Injunction begins with the fact that they had no role in the decision to invade Iraq, and yet they have an enormous personal stake in the outcome. In contrast, the decision makers have no stake in the outcome in terms of personal relationships with the troops. [For writing convenience only I will label everyone involved in the support of the troops as individuals ---family, mates, friends, organizations etc. as C for civilian; everyone in the chain of command, and government as A; one or all of the troops as T. The apprehension experienced by T's assignment to Iraq frequently impacts much of C. There is obviously strong incentive for C to view the assignment as vital to the defense of our country- a patriotic duty in direct support of our freedom. Unlike the troops themselves, C is not exposed to the actual dangers of combat, this decreased need for alertness to their immediate environment should give them more opportunity to evaluate all the evidence and avoid being caught up in the double bind. What they are exposed to directly is the opposition to the war, the facts and revelations that contradict the official line. Unlike the troops they can weigh the facts in a safe environment, and come to a personal decision about the validity of the war and act on that decision to either support the war or join in the protests. While the facts are overwhelmingly contradictory with A's position it would still be difficult for C to doubt the official line. To disbelieve would mean that the lives of their loved ones might be sacrificed for a spurious reason resulting in emotional torture for them, but if the cause is just, the then possibility of sacrifice becomes noble, a much easier burden to bear. The double bind clincher is produced by a critical onus placed on C by A.
"What kind of message does that send the troops"?
This contemptible guilt bomb is dropped on C by A for the purpose of bludgeoning C into equating love and loyalty for T with the decision to invade Iraq. Nothing could be more disingenuous. The only message A sent to the troops was devoid of any participation or consideration for how T would react, it was simply an order to invade. A now seeks to pass ownership of the decision to invade on to C by taking advantage of C's loyalty to T, along with the unspoken but implicit fear that sending a message to T that did not support the invasion might somehow put T in greater danger. Not only is this fallacious argument low life cowardice, it is irrelevant to T's safety. The greatest danger to T are the IUDs. When one of these roadside bombs goes off as the troop carrier passes death comes to T or not as a simple matter of explosion mechanics, it does not make a tinker's damn whether T felt supported or not. None.
It is this guilt/fear scam that drives the intervening injunction impeding C's ability to make a reality comparison between the Primary Injunction and the Secondary Injunction and passing that analysis on to T. When C is confronted with data contrary to A's assertions the analysis is instantly truncated by virtue of the handy dandy plethora of godterms A has prepared for C. eg. "We are fighting terrorists in the streets of Bagdad so we don't have to fight them in the streets of Washington". C recites these godterms like some holy mantra so automatically, so ritualistically, that negative thoughts are quickly dissipated. Just as C has a variety of godterms to avoid genuine evaluation so they are supplied with the proper godterms of support to recite to T. eg. "You are a hero. We owe our freedom to you". As time passes, more and more of C is seeing through the fog of the intervening injunction and becoming aware of the truth, but for them the dilemma continues. How can C possibly convey to someone whom C loves, and who is in constant danger of losing their life in C's name the simple unvarnished truth... that the official line is a lie- that the alleged holy cause is unjust, and that we are no safer, perhaps less so, despite their sacrifice.
Clearly C needs some of the courage they attribute to T.
The Troops
While the double bind can be emotionally distressing for C it is far more devastating for T. First both C and A, as well as much of society have a patronizing, paternalistic view of T, a view I call the Santa Claus Affect---- that T will believe what those in authority and their loved ones tell them. But unlike children who get to sleep peacefully through their parents harmless deception, T is constantly, inescapably confronted with a grim reality that matches nothing T has been told, and it is the tension between these mutually exclusive "realities" that wears away at T's mental stability. In today's world, unlike in times past, it is impossible to isolate T from the onslaught of information and observations that tear away at the fabric of the "noble cause" they are told to believe.
The Secondary Injunction:
Personal Perception
T was sent to Iraq with a carefully, if not competently, orchestrated scenario of what to expect, but T's subjective experiences were vastly different. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no grateful populace, only a country in ruins, an elusive, shifting, resistence using discarded weaponry for which T had inadequate defenses. Nothing T can see matches the predicted goals or the claimed progress. This disjunction between the official line and T's first hand experiences is greatly exacerbated each time T is rotated back and exposed to the peace of home only to be pushed back into the battle zone. In order to receive any real comfort from the Support the Troops effort, T must disengage from T's own perceptions and experiences. As time drags on, and on, this effort to believe the "home front" becomes more and more difficult. And yet because T's life is in immediate, enduring danger the need to believe the official line is great. Imagine T driving a vehicle down a road, there is a pile of trash along the roadside just ahead, T will pass it in fifteen seconds, will T die then, and will that death be a callous, calculated sacrifice to support a lie? Impossible to believe- and impossible to ignore.
Countervailing Communication
In the pre Viet Nam era of warfare a lone T was also sometimes exposed to an instant reality that contradicted the official line, but those T's were far more isolated. Their field of perception was limited to their immediate surroundings, a single bunker or squad. Communication across distances was limited to a crackling voice over a short wave radio, and that line of communication was rigidly controlled by the chain of command. But in today's cyber world there is a patulant electronic network facilitating unsupervised communication between the whole of T. The controlling net of official line information has been neutralized by the blog. Within the confinement of that once censoring net a single T might have had doubts about the veracity of the official line but with little chance to have those doubts reinforced by others with the same doubts. Today's T communicate between themselves and the world at large along a cyber superhighway over which A has no control. A's incomprehensible response is simply to ignore these countervailing communications and continue to tout the official line as though A was speaking for T. This head in the sand response only intensifies the negative impact of the contrariety between the primary injunction and the secondary injunction.
Public Protests and World Opinion
Similarly T is well aware that most Americans think the war is a mistake and of the fact that world opinion of American policies is in a tailspin. The stress and the impact of the double bind is greatly intensified when T is rotated back to the safety of home only to be thrust again and again into the combat zone with the knowledge that most Americans disapprove of T's action and the primary injunction, rather than bringing comfort and resolve becomes a mockery, with T's very existence at stake.
The Double Bind Sequella
One can not imagine circumstances under which the double bind holds no negative consequences for T. The disparity between the primary injunction and the negative injunction cannot be resolved. There is no one world , no plan with only positive outcomes, no compromise without conflict. No ceremonious accolades praising T as the heroic defenders of our freedom can overcome the putrid stench of failure, of lies, of abandonment once T returns home. Were Bateson's double bind model totally applicable, T would return home claiming victory over evil, never understanding the changes in the homeland T left. Never again could T trust his/her own perceptions, or accept the reality of a world that moves on oblivious to T's suffering- trapped forever in a fantasy world of heros and just causes that never truly existed ; becoming less and less capable of functioning in the realities of now. Sadly, inexcusably, that is the fate that awaits thousands of young men and women who wanted only to serve, but instead became expendable pawns in an egomaniacal game of power and control.
While the parameters of the double bind are essentially universal, there is wide variation in the way T perceives it. Many see its contradictions even in the midst of battle, and many of them become embittered with the knowledge that they have been deceived. Some become angered and in a bizarre do as they have been done to rage strike out at the innocent and weak. So we have Abu Ghraib and the rape and murder of noncombatants. Others spiral down into despair and end their own lives. But no one escapes unharmed.
We are not ready to face the inevitable consequences of our neglect; to accept our responsibility for becoming part of the deception that destroys the ones we seek to support. How can we support and protect our troops, and still tell them the truth ?
I don't know.
Unless....
A Zen Master holds a stick over the head of his student. He says " If you say I am holding a stick over your head, I will hit you with it. If you say I am not holding a stick over your head, I will hit you with it. If you say neither, I will hit you with it."
Enlightenment comes to the student. He reaches up, takes the stick from the Master's hand and walks away. This is a parable.
The Administration
The gist of the Primary Injunction is that the invasion of Iraq was justified and necessary to defend our freedom. The responsibility for that monstrous mendacity lies with President Bush alone. My personal belief is that our president is drifting ever deeper into megalomania and that in his heart of hearts he is an evil person, but my beliefs about Mr. Bush are not relevant to the value of these concepts. To ignore him as the source of this double bind would be naive so I will just say J'Accuse in passing and get on with it.
The Civilians
The Machiavellian process that ensnares the friends and families, and to a lesser extent the support groups, of the troops into the Primary Injunction begins with the fact that they had no role in the decision to invade Iraq, and yet they have an enormous personal stake in the outcome. In contrast, the decision makers have no stake in the outcome in terms of personal relationships with the troops. [For writing convenience only I will label everyone involved in the support of the troops as individuals ---family, mates, friends, organizations etc. as C for civilian; everyone in the chain of command, and government as A; one or all of the troops as T. The apprehension experienced by T's assignment to Iraq frequently impacts much of C. There is obviously strong incentive for C to view the assignment as vital to the defense of our country- a patriotic duty in direct support of our freedom. Unlike the troops themselves, C is not exposed to the actual dangers of combat, this decreased need for alertness to their immediate environment should give them more opportunity to evaluate all the evidence and avoid being caught up in the double bind. What they are exposed to directly is the opposition to the war, the facts and revelations that contradict the official line. Unlike the troops they can weigh the facts in a safe environment, and come to a personal decision about the validity of the war and act on that decision to either support the war or join in the protests. While the facts are overwhelmingly contradictory with A's position it would still be difficult for C to doubt the official line. To disbelieve would mean that the lives of their loved ones might be sacrificed for a spurious reason resulting in emotional torture for them, but if the cause is just, the then possibility of sacrifice becomes noble, a much easier burden to bear. The double bind clincher is produced by a critical onus placed on C by A.
"What kind of message does that send the troops"?
This contemptible guilt bomb is dropped on C by A for the purpose of bludgeoning C into equating love and loyalty for T with the decision to invade Iraq. Nothing could be more disingenuous. The only message A sent to the troops was devoid of any participation or consideration for how T would react, it was simply an order to invade. A now seeks to pass ownership of the decision to invade on to C by taking advantage of C's loyalty to T, along with the unspoken but implicit fear that sending a message to T that did not support the invasion might somehow put T in greater danger. Not only is this fallacious argument low life cowardice, it is irrelevant to T's safety. The greatest danger to T are the IUDs. When one of these roadside bombs goes off as the troop carrier passes death comes to T or not as a simple matter of explosion mechanics, it does not make a tinker's damn whether T felt supported or not. None.
It is this guilt/fear scam that drives the intervening injunction impeding C's ability to make a reality comparison between the Primary Injunction and the Secondary Injunction and passing that analysis on to T. When C is confronted with data contrary to A's assertions the analysis is instantly truncated by virtue of the handy dandy plethora of godterms A has prepared for C. eg. "We are fighting terrorists in the streets of Bagdad so we don't have to fight them in the streets of Washington". C recites these godterms like some holy mantra so automatically, so ritualistically, that negative thoughts are quickly dissipated. Just as C has a variety of godterms to avoid genuine evaluation so they are supplied with the proper godterms of support to recite to T. eg. "You are a hero. We owe our freedom to you". As time passes, more and more of C is seeing through the fog of the intervening injunction and becoming aware of the truth, but for them the dilemma continues. How can C possibly convey to someone whom C loves, and who is in constant danger of losing their life in C's name the simple unvarnished truth... that the official line is a lie- that the alleged holy cause is unjust, and that we are no safer, perhaps less so, despite their sacrifice.
Clearly C needs some of the courage they attribute to T.
The Troops
While the double bind can be emotionally distressing for C it is far more devastating for T. First both C and A, as well as much of society have a patronizing, paternalistic view of T, a view I call the Santa Claus Affect---- that T will believe what those in authority and their loved ones tell them. But unlike children who get to sleep peacefully through their parents harmless deception, T is constantly, inescapably confronted with a grim reality that matches nothing T has been told, and it is the tension between these mutually exclusive "realities" that wears away at T's mental stability. In today's world, unlike in times past, it is impossible to isolate T from the onslaught of information and observations that tear away at the fabric of the "noble cause" they are told to believe.
The Secondary Injunction:
Personal Perception
T was sent to Iraq with a carefully, if not competently, orchestrated scenario of what to expect, but T's subjective experiences were vastly different. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no grateful populace, only a country in ruins, an elusive, shifting, resistence using discarded weaponry for which T had inadequate defenses. Nothing T can see matches the predicted goals or the claimed progress. This disjunction between the official line and T's first hand experiences is greatly exacerbated each time T is rotated back and exposed to the peace of home only to be pushed back into the battle zone. In order to receive any real comfort from the Support the Troops effort, T must disengage from T's own perceptions and experiences. As time drags on, and on, this effort to believe the "home front" becomes more and more difficult. And yet because T's life is in immediate, enduring danger the need to believe the official line is great. Imagine T driving a vehicle down a road, there is a pile of trash along the roadside just ahead, T will pass it in fifteen seconds, will T die then, and will that death be a callous, calculated sacrifice to support a lie? Impossible to believe- and impossible to ignore.
Countervailing Communication
In the pre Viet Nam era of warfare a lone T was also sometimes exposed to an instant reality that contradicted the official line, but those T's were far more isolated. Their field of perception was limited to their immediate surroundings, a single bunker or squad. Communication across distances was limited to a crackling voice over a short wave radio, and that line of communication was rigidly controlled by the chain of command. But in today's cyber world there is a patulant electronic network facilitating unsupervised communication between the whole of T. The controlling net of official line information has been neutralized by the blog. Within the confinement of that once censoring net a single T might have had doubts about the veracity of the official line but with little chance to have those doubts reinforced by others with the same doubts. Today's T communicate between themselves and the world at large along a cyber superhighway over which A has no control. A's incomprehensible response is simply to ignore these countervailing communications and continue to tout the official line as though A was speaking for T. This head in the sand response only intensifies the negative impact of the contrariety between the primary injunction and the secondary injunction.
Public Protests and World Opinion
Similarly T is well aware that most Americans think the war is a mistake and of the fact that world opinion of American policies is in a tailspin. The stress and the impact of the double bind is greatly intensified when T is rotated back to the safety of home only to be thrust again and again into the combat zone with the knowledge that most Americans disapprove of T's action and the primary injunction, rather than bringing comfort and resolve becomes a mockery, with T's very existence at stake.
The Double Bind Sequella
One can not imagine circumstances under which the double bind holds no negative consequences for T. The disparity between the primary injunction and the negative injunction cannot be resolved. There is no one world , no plan with only positive outcomes, no compromise without conflict. No ceremonious accolades praising T as the heroic defenders of our freedom can overcome the putrid stench of failure, of lies, of abandonment once T returns home. Were Bateson's double bind model totally applicable, T would return home claiming victory over evil, never understanding the changes in the homeland T left. Never again could T trust his/her own perceptions, or accept the reality of a world that moves on oblivious to T's suffering- trapped forever in a fantasy world of heros and just causes that never truly existed ; becoming less and less capable of functioning in the realities of now. Sadly, inexcusably, that is the fate that awaits thousands of young men and women who wanted only to serve, but instead became expendable pawns in an egomaniacal game of power and control.
While the parameters of the double bind are essentially universal, there is wide variation in the way T perceives it. Many see its contradictions even in the midst of battle, and many of them become embittered with the knowledge that they have been deceived. Some become angered and in a bizarre do as they have been done to rage strike out at the innocent and weak. So we have Abu Ghraib and the rape and murder of noncombatants. Others spiral down into despair and end their own lives. But no one escapes unharmed.
We are not ready to face the inevitable consequences of our neglect; to accept our responsibility for becoming part of the deception that destroys the ones we seek to support. How can we support and protect our troops, and still tell them the truth ?
I don't know.
Unless....
A Zen Master holds a stick over the head of his student. He says " If you say I am holding a stick over your head, I will hit you with it. If you say I am not holding a stick over your head, I will hit you with it. If you say neither, I will hit you with it."
Enlightenment comes to the student. He reaches up, takes the stick from the Master's hand and walks away. This is a parable.
Back to Precipitous Patterns Content page
PLEASE SCROLL UP, I DON'T KNOW WHY IT SENT YOU HERE.
