MONKWIRE | michael a. innes

CTlab Spin-Out Project

Posted in Monkwire by Mike Innes on 09.02.2010

I’ve spent the better part of the last week building a new site for CTlab’s Current Intelligence blog, which at some point in the next couple of weeks will be migrated out from under CTlab housing into its own domain and platform. For those who’ve been following CI, the first thing you’ll probably notice is the greatly expanded format: CI will no longer be one blog, but many; moreover, it won’t be many blogs, but multiple columns and sections… the format, in general, will be something more akin to what we used to call a “magazine”. That’s the direction in which I’m taking it, and the prospect is exciting.

Tagged with:

Recent Reads: Metaphors, Architectures of Conflict, and Forever Wars

Posted in Monkwire by Mike Innes on 24.01.2010

Since leaving the day job to focus on research and writing, I’ve been nose-deep in readings of one kind or another, and thoroughly enjoying the experience. Some recent reads that are worth your time:

____________________________________________________________________

Metaphors We Live By. Illuminating, but infuriatingly limiting. This classic from Berkeley cognitive linguist and Democratic party framing guru George Lakoff (along with co-author and much less feted Mark Johson) was the first of a long reading list I’m exploring on analogical reasoning. Its emphasis on textual analysis strikes me as both culturally contingent and missing some key insights from the realm of material culture on artefact transfer and physical metaphor. Still, an absolutely essential read. It left me wondering, too, about Lakoff’s involvement in politics. He spent a career developing theories of metaphor, but became a guru on framing – which is a distinct realm of thought, albeit as multidisciplinary as that of metaphor. Did Lakoff reframe himself to better appeal to an audience?  A cynical thought. I’m not yet sufficiently familiar with the corpus of Lakoff writing to detail whether his work on framing pre-dates his public persona as the political go-to guy on the subject – or indeed, whether he ever bridged his thinking on metaphor with frame analysis, implicitly or explicitly. I’m looking forward to finding out.

____________________________________________________________________

The Edifice Complex. One of the angles I’ve been pursuing in my research deals with the interface between architecture and conflict. This book is an excellent primer.  Deyan Sudjic, former architecture critic for The Observer newspaper, ranges widely on the creepy flirtation between architectural practice and the political and financial context that shapes its output. The prose is accessible, frequently witty and acerbic, and the text is thick with historical color. Anyone who’s followed recent debates in American academia on the relationship between social sciences and the military will also appreciate Sudjic’s text: its privileged glimpse into the world of disciplinary hubris and rampaging ego makes anthropologists in Iraq and Afghanistan look like a pretty modest bunch by comparison.

____________________________________________________________________

The Forever War. NYT’s foreign correspondent Dexter Filkins‘ memoir of almost four years in Baghdad, from the 2003 invasion through the height of Iraq’s insurgency, is one of the most compelling war diaries I’ve ever read. Filkins claims to have been careful in how he went about his business, taking measures to mitigate the dangers he exposed himself to, but you wouldn’t know it from the quality of his reporting. Whether embedded with Marines in the battle of Faluja or going for solitary runs along the banks of the Tigris River to maintain his sanity, Filkins repeatedly frames his experience as a prolonged exercise in psychic alienation. Architectural metaphors abound: his characterizations of the Green Zone, as well as the NYT’s own increasingly fortified compound, are similarly hard reminders of the difficulties involved in knowledge formation in crisis zones.

____________________________________________________________________

The Forever War. I originally read Filkins’ The Forever War because I wanted to know whether his text was meant to be a tribute to Joe Haldeman’s post-Vietnam science fiction classic, first published in the late 1970s. This is the original Forever War, about a military campaign that takes a 1000 years to fight. Force projection in this tale requires jumps of hundreds of light years, and due to the dynamics of relativity, the few soldiers who survive their missions only age by a handspan of years while the rest of humanity has leapt forward by centuries. The cultural disconnects and social alienation experienced by veterans, inspired by Haldeman’s own experiences in Southeast Asia, are amplified and extended: English has become an archaic language maintained only for communication with returning troops, humanity develops into a cloned hive-mind, and veterans settle on an isolated planet where they can be among their own kind. The book was contentious when it was first published, and an entire section on the revolt of the post-war settler-veterans was initially left out – so if you get a chance, read the later omnibus edition, which includes the full story. (Note: apparently, Ridley Scott will be using the film technology James Cameron developed for Avatar to adapt this classic  to the big screen. One to watch.).

The Jesus Rifle

Posted in Monkwire by Mike Innes on 19.01.2010
Tagged with: , ,

The Military-Evangelical Complex

Posted in Monkwire by Mike Innes on 19.01.2010

Noted at Juan Cole’s Informed Comment, as item 4 in a list of Top 10 Counterterrorism Scandals 2010:

George W. Bush claimed that he had misspoken when he called his ‘war on terror’ a ‘crusade.’ But it turns out that the Michigan company that makes rifle sights for the US military inscribes them with Bible verses. The capture of the US Air Force Academy by Christian fundamentalists is worrisome enough, but a Military-Evangelical Complex is truly frightening.

What to say? One more in a litany – pardon the term – of similar cases. I want to write something about prepubescent states that pretend to maturity and adulthood…

Tagged with: , , ,

Cadbury Board Accepts Kraft Takeover

Posted in Monkwire by Mike Innes on 19.01.2010

I guess this means we can expect the Caramilk filling to be much cheesier from now on…

Tagged with:

Stewart on Lawrence

Posted in Monkwire by Mike Innes on 16.01.2010

I’m watching Rory Stewart’s narration of the life of Lawrence (yes, that Lawrence). On difficult terrain: can’t patrol it with small units, because those units can then be ambushed; can’t garrison it, because units there couldn’t be resupplied. So much of it remains empty, most of the time, “and an empty space on the map is a dangerous thing.”

Omnivore 13/01/2010

Posted in Datadump by Mike Innes on 13.01.2010

I’m going to be heads down for the next few weeks, preparing lectures and writing chapters. Any posting I do will be necessarily brief; I’ll be back in full swing after the hump.

    Omnivore 11/01/2009

    Posted in Datadump by Mike Innes on 12.01.2010

    Energy Politics: Gazprom, Meet Google

    Posted in Monkwire by Mike Innes on 08.01.2010

    If you thought Gazprom’s approach to managing customer relations  - or its role as an extension of Russian geopolitics – was a problem, just wait for this one: according to the NYT technology blog “Bits”, Google, “which consumes vast amounts of electricity to run the computers in its data centers, last month created a subsidiary called Google Energy. It then applied for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be allowed to buy and sell power much like utilities do.”

    Fear ye, for the apocalypse draws nigh…

    Puts a new spin on Google Wave, I guess… For more on this latest move towards world domination by the Tyrrell Corporation Google, read here.

    Tagged with: , ,

    Message to Exum: Political Endorsement Doesn’t Make it Right

    Posted in Monkwire by Mike Innes on 08.01.2010

    I’ve been following with interest some of the discussion of MGen Michael Flynn’s views on intelligence reform for the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. It revisits the debate on civil-military relations that came up back in September when Flynn’s ISAF boss,  General Stanley McChrystal, was publicly lobbying for his population-centric campaign plan before the White House had approved it. It also gets into some of the finer points of intelligence procedures and analysis. Much of the punditry, though, is simply missing the point that there are serious problems with the substance of the report, that go beyond just the relative merits of the fora through which it was publicly released – like how it was prepared, who it’s actually directed at, it’s ultimate impact on the mission, etc. Those problems extend far beyond the issues picked up by US commentators, who appear to be blissfully unaware of the impact on their friends and allies. I’m preparing something in-depth, or at least a bit more thoughtful than this brief missive, but for now, I’ll just draw attention to Andrew Exum’s profoundly misguided view that ex post facto political endorsement of Flynn’s actions somehow cancels out the problems of form that accompany the report’s release.

    More to follow.