Thoughts.

“Walking the Line”

They say that truth can be stranger than fiction.

But I know that in many of the true stories that I have been told there is some stretching or altering of the truth and so what passes for complete truth often contains a bit of fiction. And I know that many pieces of fiction contain at least a grain of truth. So there is a line somewhere in there, between truth and fiction. Sometimes that line is broad, sometimes that line is fine and we all must walk that line every single day. Each and every day we all choose what we accept as the truth and what we take to be fiction

I’ve encountered thoughts about lines in other blogs recently but I think that in regards to this whole surreal war in Iraq it is the line between truth and fiction that is the most important line. Thoughts about that line and Iraq bring my mind to an old question.

Out in the middle of a dark wilderness a tree falls to the ground. Does that falling tree make any sound if there are no people there to hear it fall? And that question leads me to another.

A mother, who lost her son in Iraq, sits weeping in the dark. Does she make any sound if there are no people there to hear her sobs?

But is the mother real; is her existence truth or fiction? Can I really know that she exists just because I saw on the news that another young man has died in Iraq? She could have died years ago; there may be no sobs.

But if she does exist where does she draw her lines between truth and fiction?

Does she recall the times when he was a baby lying there, on his back? Did he smile and beam with delight and bounce his arm and legs up and down when he would look up at the vision of his smiling mother’s face?

Does she picture him as he was dying; was he lying there, on his back? Does she see in her mind his arms and legs moving in agony? Does she see on his face his final vision of his horrific last moments as his eyes glazed over with death? Where does she choose to draw her lines?

In her mind, does he run to his friends back when he was young? In her mind, does he run to help a dying comrade moments before he himself would die?

Does she recall him as a baby, how he smiled and laughed when he was quickly lifted high into the air? Does she think about how he will be forever silent as he is lowered so slowly into the ground?

And where does she draw the line about his final breath? Is that breath a loud cry of agony or is it a hushed whisper about a mother?

If a soldier lies dying in Iraq and his last breath is a loud cry or a hushed whisper does he really make any sound if there is no news crew there to record it?

If a mother sits alone, in the darkest maternal wilderness of loss, and she lets out a hauntingly horrific, inconsolable scream, does she actually make a sound?

In a surreal war, it all depends upon where you chose to draw your lines.

Question Set 1

 

I think now would be a good time to include a question section so that people have something to respond to without them having to slog through all of the details in the reports.

 

1.Do you believe that there are any important similarities between Iraq and the United States or do you believe that only the differences in our two nations are important?

 

2.Would you be in favor of the Iraqi people having some sort of an official vote on our presence in their country? Do you think that the Iraqi people would vote for us to stay or do you believe that they would vote for us to leave their country? Should the United States government respect the will of the people of Iraq if such a vote were taken?

 

3.What do you think would happen if the people of Iraq were to ask the people of the United States to show them how a democracy is supposed to work? Would the people of the United States respect that request from the people of Iraq and provide the Iraqis with a demonstration of democracy in action?

 

4.If the people of Iraq were to ask the people and the government of the United States to give a demonstration of democracy in action by solving the American immigration problem in such a way that seventy-five percent of the American people considered the solution to be a good one and considered that solution to be good enough to endure for generations would Americans be willing and able to meet that challenge?

 

5.Can Iraq solve any of its divisive domestic issues?

 

6.Can America solve any of its divisive domestic issues?

 

7.Have you considered the possibility that the reason that Iraq is such a disaster is that Americans don’t even know how to run our own democracy and solve our own divisive domestic issues?

 

 

Old Yankee

 

 

 

Iraq Problem Investigator Report

 

Session Two Before Thoughts:

 

I am not as nervous as I was before the first session but I am not as calm as I could be. Things would be a lot better for me if we hadn’t gone with that “Iraq is too much like the U.S.” idea. I have tried to think of some way to start with that and actually get somewhere but I am quite clueless as to how to go about it. It looks like a dead end road to me.

 

My mind keeps wandering back to the Wright brothers. They must have gone down at least one dead end road on their way to success; there must have been ideas that just didn’t work out.

 

Somehow they got passed it.

 

Time to go. O.Y.

 

 

Session Two

 

“Car Builders, Drivers and DNA”

 

Old Yankee:  Okay gentlemen. We left off our last session with the idea that perhaps Iraq was too much like the United States. I have tried to figure out how to move along with that idea but I haven’t gotten anywhere with it.

 

Anybody else have more success with it?

 

Tom: I haven’t been able to do much with it either.

 

About the best I could come up with is that perhaps U.S. policies involving Iraq focus too much on the differences in our two nations at those times when the similarities in the two nations are more important and U.S. policies focus on the similarities in our two nations at those times when the differences are more important.

 

So it could be that the U.S. needs an approach with a better “differences versus similarities” balance to it.

 

But I have not got a clue about how to find a more properly balanced approach.

 

Old Yankee:  Did you get anywhere with the idea John?

 

John: I am not sure? Our first session reminded me of an idea that had been rolling about in my head a little while back.

 

Assume that you had an old car that worked, but it had a lot of problems, and you were going to try to build yourself a brand new car. Would you start by building one that was just like the old car that was having problems?

 

Old Yankee:  No. That would give you two cars with the same problems. You would build a new car to get rid of the problems that you had with the old car.

 

Tom: I agree. You would try to fix the problems with the old girl to get yourself a better car. But you definitely would not duplicate the old car, as is.

 

John:   How would you try to fix things?

 

Tom:  I would try to list all of the problems in the old car that I wanted fixed. Then I would go back to the original design plans for that car, maybe add some improvements and I would try to figure out how to eliminate the problems in the old design so that the new car that I was going to build would be new and improved.

 

John: Right. But what if you didn’t do that? What if you did duplicate the old girl, as is, and your duplicate just wouldn’t start up?

 

Old Yankee:  Then you probably assembled it wrong or something.

 

John: Or?

 

Tom: Or you might have overlooked some important piece or pieces, maybe you left something out because you weren’t looking at the original blueprints, the original design specs.

 

Hmmm? Perhaps the U.S. didn’t check out the original specs enough to see how you go about building a new nation when we tried to build a new democracy in Iraq? Now that’s an interesting idea.

 

John:  What if we did that sort of thing with Iraq? Perhaps the United States tried and mostly succeeded in duplicating our nation over there. But what if in some ways we duplicated our nation “as is”…

 

Tom:  …and in other ways we left out important pieces? So we could have duplicated parts of our democracy that work fine, duplicated some parts that don’t work all that well for us in the U.S. at the moment AND left out some really important pieces because we didn’t look back and thoroughly check out the original blueprints for building our democracy.

 

John: In the real world when things don’t work as expected you look back to see what parts aren’t working up to specs and what details might have been overlooked. And you go back to the original design plans to check things out.

 

Old Yankee:  I am not sure how you go about checking for missing or defective parts when it comes to democracies. We might need to look back to the American past for clues, but I don’t think that the history books would help us very much.

 

John:  Well, let me try continuing with the car idea for now.

 

Let’s say that, long ago, your grandfather designed and built a great automobile. You inherited that automobile and you somehow learned how to steer it and work the pedals well enough so that you could drive it. Would that mean that you now have all the expertise required to design and build automobiles?

 

Old Yankee:  No, driving skill doesn’t equal designing and building skill. There are lots of Americans who know how to drive a car, but that doesn’t mean that they all know how to design and build cars.

 

John:  And that’s how it is with our democracy.

 

Present day Americans did not design or build the American democracy, we inherited it. And just because we learned how to “drive” our democracy it does not mean that we know how to design and build a working democracy.

 

People seem to forget that we inherited our democracy. We didn’t design it or build it; we just grew up in it. That’s a lot different than the Iraqi situation. We tried to give them a turnkey operation. We came in and freed the place, helped set up a government, set a day to vote and assumed it would start. But we couldn’t give them our childhood and all the things we would have learned growing up in a democracy. There are lots of possible missing details that the U.S. could have overlooked.

 

Tom: Not just details, John! We left American DNA out of the picture entirely!

 

John: Excuse me? American DNA?

 

Tom: Our shared knowledge, experience and beliefs, the things that we all learned growing up in America, all the things that make us Americans. That’s what I call our “American DNA”. Our American DNA can be vital to our survival as a nation and can help us in all sorts of unexpected ways.

 

Here’s an example of how that American DNA can work for us.

 

Imagine that all adult Americans woke up one day to find that each of us had been placed in our own individual time machine, with all of us scattered throughout the universe. Not just scattered in space but scattered throughout space and time, unable to communicate with each other, each of us totally isolated and on our own. Now imagine that to get back home to the present we all had to reach an agreement and that we all had to enter the same details of that agreement on each of our time machine keypads.

 

Could Americans come to an agreement and enter in the same details on their keypads in that situation?

 

John: It wouldn’t be possible, not if we were scattered all over and couldn’t communicate with each other.

 

Tom: But what if we were all told that to get back to the present we all had to participate in a very special scavenger hunt and that our first task was to meet up at some agreed upon place on a specific date in the past? We were required to reach an agreement on when and where in the past we would all meet. To prove that we had all reached an agreement, each of us needed to enter in the same month, day of the month, year and place of our meeting on each of our time machine keypads.

 

Would it be possible then? Would Americans be able to agree, without communicating in any way, on what date and place to enter in on their time machine keypads?

 

Old Yankee:  No. It still would not be possible. We would need to be able to communicate with each other if we wanted to reach an agreement on what we should all enter on our keypads. Wouldn’t we?

 

John:   Hmmm? No!

 

We might not need to communicate at all!

 

Would each of us have a database with all recorded history on it?  Would we have some way to check out historical information?

 

Tom: Yes. Assume that we all had access to all recorded history and we were all free to look up anything we wanted to. We could check dates, places and historical events, but we could not communicate with each other in any way. Could each American figure out what every other American would enter in on his or her time machine keypad?

 

John: Actually I think we all could. At least I know the day, month, year and place that I would enter in on my time machine keypad. And I think most Americans would be able to figure it out, too.

 

What about you, Old Yankee? Think about what everybody else would enter in. Can you figure it out?

 

Old Yankee:  Give me a minute to think about it…

 

Oh!

 

I know it now and I agree with you. I think most Americans would also be able to figure it out as well.

 

Tom: Right!

 

Programmed into every American is our American DNA. It is the information that we all share, the things that we all learned growing up in America. Even naturalized citizens would have some of it. There are some things we Americans just know because we grew up in America and that American DNA can be vitally important to our survival as a nation.

 

John: And if the Iraqis are similar to us they would also have a version of that sort of DNA, but it would be a different Iraqi DNA. They don’t have our American DNA and they can’t use our shared knowledge set, but they do have an Iraqi DNA and their shared knowledge set would be as important to them for their survival as our American DNA is to us for our survival.

 

Old Yankee:  The Iraqis have a different history, a different shared knowledge and a different set of survival skills. They had been living in a dictatorship.

 

Tom: That’s a pretty big difference. A person who grew up in a democracy would need to learn a new set of survival skills if he suddenly found himself living in a dictatorship.

 

You can openly criticize the leaders in a democracy if you disagree with their actions, or even start some sort of grassroots effort to change things. Do that sort of thing in a dictatorship and you could wind up six feet under the grass roots and get your family killed as well. Similarly, a person who grew up in a dictatorship would also need to learn to react to things differently if he suddenly found himself living in a democracy.

 

John:  So the two nations would both have this sort of “DNA” but there would be differences in the two versions.

 

Old Yankee: Let’s call it “cultural DNA” or “CDNA” for short.

 

Tom:  Sounds good.

 

John:  We all react to things in the present in ways that reflect what we have learned and our cultural ideas and beliefs are passed down through the generations in our society. So the idea of a cultural version of DNA makes sense. But a lot of people would take the CDNA idea to mean that the situation in Iraq is hopeless. That they just aren’t able to run a democracy over there because their cultural DNA just won’t let them do it no matter what we do. But there are other possibilities because the CDNA is based on learned behaviors and ideas.

 

Tom: Right. Whereas biological DNA is a hardwired, hardware thing that is difficult to change, the CDNA is a programming type of thing, a software problem. People and cultures change all the time, mostly in small steps but sometimes in large steps. There is no reason to assume that the Iraqi culture cannot change and adapt to a democratic system. But like you suggested with your car idea, there may be some pieces that we left out when we tried to help them build a working democracy and the CDNA is certainly a big piece. The trick will be finding any other important missing pieces and figuring out how it all works.

 

Old Yankee:  Searching through the American past looking for answers will be time consuming and tedious.

 

John: But maybe we should be looking for the right questions and not looking for the right answers so directly.

 

Tom’s time machine example seemed impossible to me at first but now it seems to me that all Americans would be able to figure out what to enter in on their time machine keypads. It’s when I thought about what every other American would enter that the solution became obvious.

 

You find what to enter in on your time machine keypad by asking yourself the question, “What would other Americans choose as the date and place from the past to enter in on their time machine keypads?” The question forced me to use my American CDNA, the knowledge set that I share with other Americans. I had to think about what other Americans would be thinking to figure out the answer.

 

So finding the right questions might be the easiest way for us to find the right answers. And if we try to search for the right questions by relying on and using our American CDNA it could make things much easier and much faster. It could turn the impossible into the possible.

 

Tom:  Oh. I see what you’re getting at. The American people make the American democracy work and the American people use their shared knowledge and beliefs to do it. Much of our shared knowledge and beliefs have been passed down to us through the generations and so the important pieces that make our democracy work have been passed down and stored in our collective memory, our American CDNA.

 

That makes our American CDNA a filtered version of American history; the important stuff that makes our democracy work is included in our shared knowledge and the unimportant stuff has been filtered out over the generations. So the American CNDA contains all the important ideas and learned behaviors that have been passed down through the generations; the things that make our democracy work. And if the American CDNA is used to make our democracy work then the Iraqi CDNA could be used to make their democracy work.

 

So it seems likely that the solution to the Iraq Problem would need to be based on things contained in the American version of cultural DNA and then somehow converted to be compatible with the Iraqi CDNA.

 

John: Intriguing! The possibility that the solution to the Iraq Problem could be stored somewhere in our shared American knowledge.

 

Well Tom, I think we now have something new to think about!

 

Old Yankee: Well then I think that this would be a good place to stop this session. Thank you gentlemen.

 

After thoughts:

 

Well that went better than I expected it to.

 

It took me a bit to figure out that time machine problem but I did finally get it. If you didn’t know the answer right off or if you still don’t know the answer it’s no big deal. You’ll figure it out on your own just like I did.

 

I have got to tell you that there is something odd about these two guys. I mean other than the obvious nuttiness of them trying to use inventor’s methods on the Iraq Problem.

 

There is a strange optimism about them. I don’t know if that optimism comes from the ego that makes successful people successful, the cockiness that comes from their successes or if it is from some innate “can do” spirit? But it is there and it is palpable. It may even be slightly contagious since I am a little more optimistic about our chances for success when I am with them. Reality always seems to hit after I leave the session.

 

I suppose that back in the time before the first airplane flight there must have been people who were absolutely convinced that such manned flight was impossible. And there would have been plenty of failures to support that “impossibility”. The Wright brothers must have ignored that “reality” and gone with their fantasy.

 

I guess that successful people turn their fantasies into reality while unsuccessful people let their fantasies be crushed by the “reality” of others.

 

That’s all for now.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

With thought and respect,

 

Old Yankee

Iraq Problem Investigator Report

 

Session One Before Thoughts:

 

I decided that it might be a good idea for me to jot down some of my thoughts before and after each session and include them in my report.

 

Right now I am feeling a rather unpleasant mix of anxiety and pure dread. Something like what it used to feel like just before a big final exam, the kind where a whole semester of work was at stake. Am I prepared enough for this? Could anybody be? What am I doing here? All those questions and more are going through my mind. I want to be a part of this investigation but I question whether or not I am up to the task of being a “sort of a moderator” who gets things going. I have thought a lot about how I should start things off but it feels like I am the captain of the Hindenburg.  “Okay gentlemen, let us celebrate our flight on this hydrogen filled airship by the smoking of victory cigars. Let’s light ‘em up!” Baaaboom! Crash and burn.

 

I just want to get this first session over with. O.Y.

 

 

Session One

 

“Troublemakers, Airplanes and Automobiles”

 

 

Old Yankee:  Okay gentlemen. Here we go. Rather than starting things off with the resumes of your lifetime accomplishments let me give you two a quick way to let people learn something about how you two think.

 

I would like each of you to suggest something specific that the people of Iraq could do that you believe would be beneficial and would somehow change things for the better. It has to be a specific idea, not some general and vague “just learn to get along with each other” kind of thing.

 

We’ll start things off with John.

 

John:   I would like to see the people of Iraq say something like this to America:

 

“Gee whiz America, you’re right. We here in Iraq aren’t moving quickly enough and we aren’t running our new democracy well enough. I guess we just don’t know enough about running a democracy. But you Americans have lots of knowledge and experience in democracy matters. We Iraqis think that what we really need is for you Americans to show us how it is done. We need to see Americans solve an American domestic issue so that we have a present day example of how a modern democracy works. Then we can learn from your example of how you solved one of your present day problems. Once we have a good enough example to follow we might be able to do a better job over here.”

 

Tom:   Uh oh! Look out America. When John starts talking like this you are about to get whacked with something.

 

John:   Am I getting that predictable? Oh well. Here’s the rest of what I would like to see the Iraqis say to America.

 

“We Iraqis would like to see America solve its immigration problem. But please understand that a solution that just barely meets with majority American approval won’t be good enough. We need to see you solve the problem in such a way that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with the solution.

 

You see, the situation that we are in over here in Iraq is one where people are very divided and we need to get the vast majority of Iraqis to agree on something in a way that will endure. So we need you Americans to take on an issue where you Americans are very divided and show us how you deal with that sort of thing; we need you to show us how the people in a democracy solve big divisive issues.

 

So we, the people of Iraq, would like to see you, the people of the United States, solve your American immigration problem in such a way that seventy-five percent of the American people agree that the solution is a good one; and seventy-five percent of Americans agree that the solution is good enough to endure for generations.

 

The United States is a nation with a wealth of knowledge and experience in the ways of democracy. And so the United States should have no great difficulty in showing us Iraqis how it is all done.”

 

If the Iraqis did something like that I believe that it would have a positive effect on their situation. It would cause people in the U.S. to have fits, of course, but it should benefit the Iraqis.

 

Tom:   Wow! I love it. It puts America on the spot in a way that should please and benefit the Iraqis, and a seventy-five percent approval sets the bar pretty high but American history and the constitution say that seventy-five percent approval is possible. If the Iraqis did as you suggest then every time we Americans complained about how slowly or poorly things are going over there the Iraqis could shoot back with, “Gee you’re right. Oh? By the way, how’s that American immigration thing going? Have you solved it yet? Are you getting close to the seventy-five percent solution? We really need you to show us how this democracy thing works. Could you please hurry up and solve that problem so that we can learn from you?”

 

Old Yankee:  Okay Tom. Now it’s your turn.

 

Tom:   I would like to see the people of Iraq begin to use the power of the voice of the people in a democracy. One way to use that power would be for the Iraqis to have a national vote, or the equivalent of a vote, on a number of important issues put in the form of national ballot questions that could influence their destiny as a nation. The push for such a vote could come from a grassroots effort or from the government but a vote on the right set of ballot questions should help them.

 

Ballot questions like: Should the Americans remain to assist in Iraq or should they leave? Should the insurgents cease their military actions? Is the government in Iraq the only group that is authorized by the people of Iraq to mount and direct military actions?

 

In a democracy the will of the people can have great power and if the people of Iraq could use the power of the ballot, the power behind an official vote of the people, it could benefit them greatly. Non-binding ballot questions would be less risky than binding ones, and I do not know what their political system permits, but with something like an official vote on a number of important questions the people of Iraq could make their will known and begin to take control of their national destiny.

 

In a democracy the ballot can be more powerful than the bullet.

 

John:  Yes. I can see how that might work and be a benefit to the Iraqis and give them a sense of control.

 

Plus, all the different groups, groups inside or outside of Iraq, that are trying to influence the situation over there would have to figure out how their actions would influence the national vote. A group that uses violence might curb their violent actions in an attempt to influence the vote. And a reduction in violence could give the Iraqi government a chance to gain more control. So the right set of ballot questions could be quite useful.

 

But you do realize that some Americans would be against the idea of giving the Iraqis the chance to vote on our continued presence?

 

Tom:  The possibility of such an Iraqi vote would have an influence on any group with an interest in the Iraq situation, even on groups of Americans. Americans who want us to leave Iraq would be all for the vote if they believed that the Iraqis would quickly vote to boot us out of their country, but there would be Americans who would be against such a vote. So yours isn’t the only idea that might benefit the Iraqis and cause some Americans to have fits.

 

Old Yankee:  Hey, should I be referring to you two as investigators or calling you troublemakers? Anyway, those two ideas should give the readers some small sense of how you two think. Now let’s move on to the basic Iraq situation.

 

People are looking for some sort of new direction in regards to Iraq. But finding a new direction that gets us to a solution might require looking at the problem in a new way. Do either of you have any ideas that would give us a new way of looking at things in the Iraq Problem?

 

Tom:  Well the more I look at it the more it seems to me that most Americans are starting with variations of the same false assumption.

 

Some people believe that what we have to do is to somehow get the people in Iraq to be more like us and somehow get their democracy to be more like ours. While others believe that it isn’t possible to get the people in Iraq to be like us, and that it is impossible to get Iraq’s democracy to be like ours. Both views share the idea that we haven’t done it yet; we haven’t made Iraq just like us. But there is evidence that suggests that we have already created a democracy in Iraq that is too much like our own democracy.

 

If you look at the United States over the past decade or two, you see a nation very divided over lots of different issues and Americans angry with other Americans. So much so that the states have been divided into red states and blue states.

 

John:   It sounds like we are a country in some sort of Civil War mode.

 

Tom:   Right. Two colors for states, great animosity among Americans, constant battling and bickering, and a government with an inability to get much done domestically. And America has a two party system, a polarized two party system of late. So if we were to try to create a new nation that was just like ours, but one with a multi-party system, what would that new multi-party nation look like?

 

John:   I think it would look a lot like Iraq.

 

Tom:   That’s how it looks to me. It looks like we somehow managed to create a nation that is very much like our own. Our democracy is polarized and theirs is too. We can’t get much done domestically and they can’t get much done domestically. Political compromise doesn’t happen for us here or for them over there. 

 

John:   Interesting idea. The possibility that the reason why we have failed is that we have succeeded.

 

Old Yankee:  But Tom, we don’t have the death toll or problems here that they have over there.

 

Tom:  That all depends upon who is doing the counting or looking at the problems.

 

In the abortion battle in the U.S. the pro-life people would put the death toll somewhere in the millions. There was a death toll associated with the civil rights battles that occurred in America during the last hundred years; people killed just because they weren’t the right color and today hate crimes still occur. We have gangs ruling some of our streets, drive by shootings, murders and all sorts of violence here. The U.S. is not a peaceful utopia and neither is any other present day democracy.

 

My point is that there are many ways in which the U.S. and Iraq are similar and people are missing those similarities.

 

Old Yankee:  Why would those similarities be important?

 

Tom:  Because people come up with solutions that are based on their underlying assumptions. If people base all of their “solutions” on an assumption and then none of those “solutions” work it may be because the underlying assumption is faulty.

 

Some people think that the Iraq situation is hopeless. Why? Because they believe that the Iraqis are very different from us. Others think that the situation over there would improve if we could get them to be more like us. That is another way of saying that they are presently very different from us.

 

But what if the problem is that they are too much like us? In that case all of the “difference” based solutions would fail but solutions that are based on the similarities in the two nations might work.

 

John:  Well that is certainly an interesting way of looking at it and it would give us a new way to approach the Iraq Problem. You may be on to something Tom because …

 

…it is known that there are a number of working democracies in the world and that each democracy is unique, meaning that no two democracies are absolutely identical in every way. Which means that each democracy is somehow different from all of the others. India is different from the United States and the U.S. is different from Mexico and so on.

 

Now consider the possibility that some of those differences are very important. Things that work in India and are important in India might not work very well in the U.S. or in Mexico.

 

Tom:  Oh! I think I see where you are going with this. Some of the things that make the Indian democracy uniquely Indian are really important in India but are not important in the United States. And so if the United States focuses too much on the differences between the U.S. and Iraq it could wreak havoc in Iraq.

 

Old Yankee: Okay you two. Stop right there! You guys are losing me. How does any of that make sense or matter?

 

John:   Start with the idea that each of the world’s working democracies is unique and then treat that idea as something that is always true; like some sort of a rule that we can use. That means that if Iraq is to become a working democracy then it will become a unique democracy and Iraq’s democracy will somehow be different from all the others.

 

Are you with us so far?

 

Old Yankee:  Yes, I get that.

 

Tom:   Now let’s come up with another rule.  Rule 2:  Some of the things that make a democracy unique are really important in that democracy.

 

That rule means that some of the things that make the democracy in India unique are really important in India and you can’t just get rid of those things in India just because some other democracy doesn’t need them. And the same would be true for Iraq if it were to become a working democracy.

 

So some of the things that would make Iraq a unique working democracy would be really important for Iraq and you couldn’t just get rid of those things in Iraq’s democracy just because those things weren’t needed in some other democracy.

 

You still with us?

 

Old Yankee:  I think so.

 

John:  Now imagine that Iraq is a working democracy and that the U.S. is only worried about the things in Iraq that are different than they are here in the United States and that the U.S. tries to get Iraq to change ALL of those “different” things in Iraq and that the U.S. actually succeeds in doing that. What would happen to Iraq’s uniqueness?

 

Old Yankee:  Iraq’s uniqueness would disappear. It would no longer be a unique democracy because all of the things that made Iraq unique would be gone. But the first rule states that all working democracies are unique, so then Iraq could not be a working democracy in that situation because that would violate the first rule.

 

John:  And the same basic thing would be true if the U.S. got the Iraqis to change all of those “different” things about Iraq before Iraq became a working democracy. Those changes would get rid of all of the things that would make Iraq unique and would therefore prevent Iraq from becoming a working democracy.

 

Old Yankee:  But the U.S. hasn’t made Iraq exactly like us yet. So we haven’t changed ALL of those “different” things and we aren’t likely to do that any time soon.

 

Tom:  True. But it might only take changing ONE important thing or a few important things to mess up a new democracy and the U.S. is trying to get Iraq to change. And Iraq appears to be getting worse, farther and farther away from becoming a working democracy.

 

 John:  And that is what you would expect to happen to Iraq if those two rules were true and the United States were doing just what it is doing. The more that we were to try to make Iraq like us the worse things would get over there.

 

But you need to understand that we are not saying that that IS what is going on. At the moment we are just looking for new ways to view the Iraq Problem. And we are coming at it like investigators and running a quick test.

 

Tom:  Here’s how it works. We try to brainstorm up some idea. Then we come up with some way to test that idea to see how the idea measures up; in this case to see if there is any way for the idea to be possible.

 

We started with the idea that maybe Iraq was too much like the United States. Then the next step was to try to figure out if there was any way possible for that to be a problem for Iraq. Could making Iraq too much like the U.S. cause problems for Iraq?

 

John:   So we looked at democracies and came up with a few rules that most people could agree with. Democracies are all unique and that the things that make each democracy unique might be important and by using those two rules we were able to show that it might be possible to mess up a new democracy by trying to make it just like another democracy.

 

That doesn’t mean that the U.S. did mess up Iraq in that way, it just means that it is a possibility and it is a new way to look at things. And that is a part of what we wanted to do in this first session, find a new way to look at the Iraq Problem.

 

Tom:   Something you need to keep in mind is that, in our little group, we are trying to do a number of things at the same time.

 

John:    Right. We aren’t just trying to see the Iraq Problem in a new way. We are also trying to get the readers to see and think about the Iraq Problem in a new way. Not because our way of looking at it is the right way but because things don’t seem to be working in Iraq and we all might need new ways to look at the Iraq Problem if the U.S. is ever going to find a solution.

 

Tom:    John and I both know something about invention and how things work in the real world. The modern jet and the modern automobile are both quite different than the planes and cars from a hundred years ago and the reason for that is simple. People tried to improve those inventions.

 

Over time, people worked to solve the problems with airplanes and automobiles. They tried and failed and tried again and sometimes they succeeded. Each step of the way people were building on the previous successes and learning from the failures.

 

John:  Different groups of people worked the problems and figured things out. They added new ideas and innovations. They learned what worked and what didn’t. That is what inventors do and inventors are investigators trying to solve mysteries. Investigators think, come up with new ideas, innovate and solve problems. And investigators build on the work of other investigators.

 

Tom:  That is one of the things that we are trying to do here, with the Iraq Problem.

 

We come up with some ideas here and those ideas get some reader thinking. That reader starts with our ideas and he improves upon them. He starts his own group and they work the Iraq Problem, improving on what we came up with, getting closer to a solution. A woman reads their work and ours and figures out a way to improve things even more or gets an even better idea and starts her own group. Each group works the problem, trying to improve and innovate. That’s how inventions happen and that is how things are improved in the real world.

 

John:   You see, Old Yankee, there is no way for us to know who we are most like in this problem-solving process. Are we, in our little group, like the Wright brothers and will we be the first to the solution? Or are we more like the people who preceded the Wright brothers? The Wright brothers were not the first people to attempt manned flight. Many people laid the groundwork that the Wright brothers built on.

 

Tom:    That is the nature of invention, innovation and investigation. Using what others have learned, learning from their failures and successes. It is all a part of the tried and true methods that are used to solve problems.

 

All around us are the examples of how successful those methods are. Modern jets and automobiles, televisions, computers and cell phones. These methods are known to work on all sorts of problems and investigators use those methods to solve all sorts of mysteries.

 

John:    Tom and I both know that we are not the only people who want to find a solution to the Iraq Problem. There are other investigators out there. But which group of investigators will find the best solution? It could be our little group but it could be some other group. Part of what we are trying to do here is to show those other investigators what our approach is and what we discover so that they have more to work with.

 

Every investigator knows, that at any moment, he could be headed down a dead end road with little chance of solving the mystery. If we make some wrong turn here, in our group, there may be others who are able to spot where we went wrong and their investigation might be better able to find the best avenue to take to get to a solution.

 

But for us, we have a long way to go before we run up the white flag. And we now have a new way to look at the Iraq Problem, the possibility that Iraq is too much like the United States. To us it seems like something to look into and see where it leads our investigation. Other investigators may see things differently.

 

Tom:   Yes. We now have a new way to look at things and that was the big thing we wanted to accomplish in this first session.

 

Old Yankee:  It sounds like you guys want to end this session here.  Should we stop?

 

Tom:   Sounds good to me. Another part of the tried and true methods is taking the time to stop and think.

 

John:  I agree. I need some time to process what we came up with today.

 

Old Yankee:  Okay then, that will be the end of this session.

 

{Editor’s note: I think that I should point out that my reports are not a word for word, real-time recording of the sessions. As editor I cut out all sorts of things and include only what I consider to be important enough to include in my report. Because of that the report could give you the false impression that things went smoothly and quickly or that the session was much shorter than it actually was. O.Y.}

 

After thoughts:

 

I have to admit that, even though some interesting ideas were presented, I was disappointed with our lack of progress today.  I was relieved when it was all over; relieved of the pressure of being a “sort of a moderator”, but just when it seemed like we might actually get somewhere they wanted to stop.

 

That “Iraq is too much like the U.S.” idea looks like a dead end to me but they have solved more problems than I have so maybe they know what is best in terms of what roads we should look down or when it is the best time to end a session.

 

As I write this I am thinking about Orville and Wilbur. They must have had a lot of disappointing days but they kept on going. Maybe that is the difference between the successful people and the unsuccessful ones. The successful people aren’t stopped by the disappointment. They somehow turn it into a positive learning experience and keep on moving. Some progress is better than no progress I suppose?

 

Anyway, that’s all for this report on the first session.

 

Once again I thank you so very much for your time.

 

Sincerely, with though and respect,

 

Old Yankee

Iraq Problem Investigator Report

Getting tired of all of the endless arguments about Iraq? Tired of the ranting, raving, grumbling and whining that all get America nowhere? Are you looking for a new direction for America? Do you want to witness real problem solving in action?

Then come one, come all and witness the wonder of reasonable and sensible Americans in a search for a solution to a problem. Watch with amazement as Americans figure things out! Stare in awe as people learn! See these and other spectacles unfold, here, right before your very eyes! Oh. And bring your reading spectacles if you need them.

Okay, that’s enough of that silliness. Just trying to get your attention. It’s time for an introduction.

I go by the nickname “Old Yankee” and I am just an average American guy with no great claim to fame or fortune and I have somehow managed to get myself involved in a very bizarre situation that involves Iraq.

There were these two men, Tom and John, well known men with a past history in solving big time problems. Both of these men had a track record of successes; a record of attacking problems and actually getting the job done by finding solutions and they were within earshot of me and they were having a fairly animated discussion about Iraq.

Tom, for some reason, asked me for my opinion on the subject. (Okay. He caught me eavesdropping. Hey! You would have listened in if you were there.) I replied that it looked to me like the Iraq problem was a problem with no solution and from their reaction to that you would have thought that I had just run over their brand new puppy with my car.

It went something like, “That’s terrible! That’s awful! How can you think that? How can you say that? Where’s your evidence? What do you base that opinion on?”

And then both men, in unison, said, “The reason that the Iraq Problem is still an unsolved problem is that nobody has treated the Iraq Problem like it is an actual PROBLEM!!”

It was like they had been rehearsing that line for weeks and had been waiting for someone to use it on. Maybe I should have just nodded in agreement and walked away at that point but instead I asked them to explain what they meant and that’s when things got interesting.

They said that, in their opinion, the Wright brothers were detectives of a sort, investigators on the case, trying to solve the mystery of manned flight. They felt that the same was true for other successful inventors. It was true for scientists, engineers and true for all sorts of successful problem-solvers throughout history and that it is still true today. To Tom and John a problem-solver is an investigator who solves a mystery. And an investigator uses scientific methods, runs experiments, asks questions, gathers facts and gleans valuable information from small clues all in an attempt to solve some mystery.

I never really thought of it that way before but their way of looking at solving problems and the process of invention made sense to me. Plus, I recognized these two guys and I knew of their successes and I knew that their opinion would have been based on how they had successfully solved big problems. So I figured that their way of looking at things was probably a pretty good way. I didn’t know what any of that had to do with the Iraq problem, of course, but it all made sense. The discussion continued and I slowly began to understand what they were trying to say.

Throughout history, all sorts of people have solved all sorts of problems; all sorts of people have investigated and solved all sorts of mysteries. And the most successful of those problem-solving detectives used the same basic tried and true methods to get the job done. Different people, different problems, different mysteries and different solutions but the same basic methods were used to find those solutions.

Tom and John were saying that the reason the Iraq Problem had not yet been solved is that nobody had yet used the tried and true methods of problem solving to search for the solution to the Iraq Problem. That, too, made sense to me and at some point I blurted out a question.

“Well, maybe we should start using those successful methods in our investigation of the Iraq Problem?”

It wasn’t supposed to be a real question. I was trying to say that maybe it was time for the United States government to start investigating the problem and using those successful methods or maybe it was time for the American people to start doing it. I definitely did not mean “we” as in the three of us but that is how Tom and John took it.

What happened after that is a bit of a blur; a rapid discussion about what role each of us would play in our investigation. There were some quick votes to decide things and in a flash it was all set up.

In the voting I “won” all sorts of jobs in a series of landslides, two to one victories. In other words, the jobs that nobody wanted I got. I “won” the job of being a “sort of a moderator”, the person who is supposed to be a catalyst and get things going and tries to keep things moving along. Among my other stunning “victories” was my election to the position of secretary, the person who records the problem-solving sessions and types them all up. The editor position is also mine, as well as the publisher position, the person who makes it all available to the public.

But it wasn’t until I walked away from that first meeting that I realized what I had gotten myself into. Tom and John are successful investigators but there are too many examples of me walking around clueless for me to stake any claim to being a detective. Plus the Iraq Problem is a very serious problem, one that literally involves life and death. And I know that if every American compiled a list of the top one hundred people who should be included in some attempt to solve the Iraq Problem that I wouldn’t be included on my list or anybody else’s list.

I was in way, way over my head and I wanted out. But as I was flitting about in a tizzy it dawned on me, the nature of the unique and bizarre opportunity that lay before me.

Think about it.

A challenging, maybe even impossible to solve problem, two successful investigators and an average guy who gets to tag along, participate in the investigation, type it all up and make it available to the public. I had inexplicably stumbled into the position of a “Doctor Watson” working with, not just one, but two real life versions of Sherlock Holmes.

I know that the whole thing sounds nutty and ridiculous but what would you do if you found yourself in that situation? Would you join in on that once in a lifetime opportunity or would you pass on it?

At this point you have probably figured out that this blog is the public record of a search for solutions to the Iraq Problem. Two real life problem solvers are conducting the investigation and their eavesdropping, Dr. Watson wannabe, “Old Yankee” sidekick gets to participate and report about it. Is that totally nuts or what?

Please understand that this blog is not meant to be a joke. It is a deadly serious report about a deadly serious problem. My being included in the investigation may be ridiculous but the problem is not and the investigation is not. Scientists, inventors and investigators all use tried and true methods to successfully solve their mysteries and this blog is about how two topnotch problem-solvers focus their talents and those methods on the Iraq Problem.

I do not pretend that I know or understand the methods that these two men speak of, but I will try to learn about those methods and tell you about what I learn. As previously stated, I am no detective, but I do have a unique opportunity here and I will try to do my job to the best of my limited abilities and I will publish my report of the sessions, here, in this blog.

You should have enough information at this point to decide whether or not you want to continue to monitor this investigation.

I thank you so very much for the time you have given me.

Sincerely, with thought and respect,

Old Yankee