Wired for War?

Wired for War, by P.W. Singer

An interview with author P. W. Singer which first aired in early 2009 was rebroadcast on National Public Radio this week.  I happened to catch it on the second (or third or fourth) time, but not the first.  Singer is a technological warfare expert who wrote “Wired for War”. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99663723

The premise of the book and the focus of the rebroadcast conversation is the capability we have to resort to sanitized warfare through the increasingly sterile use of killing machines.   Our advanced technology can provide a better way to overcome our enemies.  Pilotless drones are an example of the technical capabilities we now possess to wage war with less risk to our own military personnel.  A “pilot’ in Nevada can fly a heavily armed drone into a target in Pakistan using a computer screen and a joy stick much like a computer game.

This is a civilized way of conducting war and can serve to end its pernicious effects more promptly, right?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  According to Singer, the disengaged warrior may be prolonging, rather than expediting, war through advanced technology.  Warfare analysts like Singer point out that wars conclude when people lose the desrie to fight them.  Winning the hearts and minds of people is as important as winning on the battlefield.  Without boots on the ground creating relational trust in dealing with the civilians affected by war, the reasons to resist military conquest only increase.  When the will of the people to wage war subsides, wars end.  High technology applications of military power without personal engagement has the tendency to heighten the will and the resolve of insurgency, according to Singer.

I’m no military strategist and cannot offer a reasoned opinion on Singer’s perspectives, but the interview made me think about our exclusive use of force as a means of peacemaking.  Coercive outcomes seldom last.  People forced against their will to behave in ways not of their own choosing, may briefly comply, but are not convinced to continue to do so.  We can all quickly find the means of avoiding, circumventing or defeating the coercive influence others choose to force us to acquiesce to their power.

In short, without the ability to build, maintain and enhance relationship, does mere power over others accomplish anything of lasting value?  It would seem that in war as in all other forms of relational transformation, unless we spend the time, invest the resources and commit to build trust among our adversaries, merely forcing them to do as we demand will simply forestall the potential for peaceful outcomes.  Certainly, the use of force may be necessary to avoid exploitation or change the leverage between adversaries.  However, drones alone will not win the war.

Partisan Polarization: Enough Yet?

In the wake of the historic Senate party line vote on health care reform last week, the New York Times commented on the state of US politics over the last generation.  See:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/us/politics/24assess.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=partisan%20polarization&st=cse Political commentator David Herszenhorn recounts the increasingly rancorous divide that has characterized the political process.  Over the last thirty years, partisanship has become the goal of politics.  In describing the Senate vote Herszenhorn noted it to be:  “the culmination of more than a generation of partisan polarization of the American political system, and a precipitous decline in collegiality and collaboration in governing.”  Never before in US history has such a fundamental shift in public policy been accomplished through strictly party line up or down voting.

The only surprise is that we should be surprised.  The inevitable and predictable outcome of positional “negotiation”  is escalation and heightened adversarial posturing.  When I choose to win at your expense, you have but one rational option:  compete back.  If you choose any other conflict response you have chosen to be exploited by me.  If we engage in a competitive death struggle collaboration is not an expected outcome.  The best we can hope for is a compromise which is in essence a stalemate achieved after we have neutralized each other’s power and settled for less than either of us would have desired.

Collaboration is a conflict strategy which flows from a vastly different source of power.  The power in collaboration is creativity and the increase in value to each participant.  Competition and its highest form of resolution (compromise) amount to a zero sum game in which the “pie is fixed” and the total value is simply distributed between us.  In contrast, collaboration enables us to create value and increases the likelihood that our mutual interests can both be realized by exploring options neither of us would have considered independently.  Collaboration cannot be achieved exclusively through competitive means.

Only time will tell if this latest example of ultimate competitive policy making will serve the interests of the public in the long-term.  When close to half of the positional constituents have been disenfranchised and branded as “losers” in the exchange the likelihood of satisfaction for most affected is slim.

Is it possible that like the George Clooney character in “Up in the Air” when we achieve the milestone of 10 million miles through denigrating the relational impact of our quest to win at all costs it will all seem empty?  Perhaps the time has come as a culture to begin to prepare for the post-modern world of collaborative policy making by acquiring a new and vastly different skill set.  When the resources are limited and the need is great only collaboration as a public policy strategy will generate additional value.  It is time to put partisan polarization behind us.

Movie Season 2009: What is the message?

One of our family’s favorite holiday traditions is to hit the multiplex and take in as many of the first run movies as we can. This year has been no exception. From Princesses and Frogs (with five grandkids how can you miss that one?) to Sherlock Holmes, there is enough film fare to interest almost any movie goer. 

With still a week to go in the season of film feasts, what is the message that has resonated most? Relationships, it’s all about relationships. Yes princesses can kiss frogs and find their true love and the world’s most wily detective needs the assurance that his ever-present Watson will not leave him for a woman. Indeed, “it’s complicated” when a prime of life woman tests her mettle with an ill-advised fling with her ex-husband who is seemingly frozen in adolescence. 

But perhaps to this point the flick that has caused me the most pause is “Up in the Air”. This George Clooney big screen vehicle was purportedly written with “world’s most gorgeous man” in mind. 

The movie highlights the contemporary fixation on absolute autonomy and tests the premise that the ideal life is one free from the baggage of all that ties us down, including those pesky relationships that hinder our journey to self fulfillment. In Clooney’s case, his role called for religious pursuit of his 10 million mile frequent flyer status with American Airlines. Only six before had accomplished such a feat (fewer than the number of people who had “walked on the moon”). 

In his role as the consummate corporate hatchet man, Clooney racked up the miles flying from his home in Omaha across the nation and around the world terminating people on behalf of the bosses who couldn’t do it themselves.  He notes that being on the road for 322 days a year leaves him with the distasteful consequence of being at home for the other 43 days. 

The master traveler, Clooney’s character can spot the quickest airport security line (the one with Asian travelers because they travel far more than others and have learned the value of slip-on shoes). He loves the priority status that comes from being an elite traveler with reserved lines at the airport counters, the rental car and hotel reservation stations. In fact, his loyalty to vendors of travel services was the one thing he expected to be rewarded in life. 

In contrast, it seemed to create little concern for him that countless employees were terminated with his quick wit despite their long years of service to “the company”. His family was a stranger to him and his sisters barely knew him. 

The relationship tensions reach a peak when a freshly minted college graduate successfully convinces his company that virtual terminations over the internet can serve more customers at less cost of travel and much greater profits in a time of peak demand for the services of CTC (Corporate Termination Consultants). He argued that only the experienced face-to-face expert “terminator” could do the job of facilitating transitions of employees “engineered” out of their positions at less risk and greater success. 

In the meantime, his long forestalled love interest began to flourish exactly as he approaches his long coveted 10 million mile status. Alas, the elite lifetime executive platinum status proved empty without a relationship reason to enjoy it. His female companion proved exactly as she represented herself: uncommitted. Ironically, his sisters leaned on him to intervene to save a wedding from evaporating due to a future groom’s lack of commitment attack. Aloneness came to rest in ways he had ignored until all else proved empty of its promise. 

Relationships are the essence of human existence and all our efforts to minimize, control or eliminate their hurtful effects prove illusory.  We cannot be inoculated from the disease of loneliness. 

In the end, the way in which we nurture, protect and endure the relationships that matter will be the mark of the life well lived. Improving our skills in this arena may be the best time we can spend.  Everything else is “up in the air”. 

Avatar: The Future of Bioethics is Now

Avatar, the recently released big budget movie by James Cameron, has taken the entertainment industry by storm. Normally “not to be pleased” film critics cannot find enough complimentary words to print. With a $300 million price tag to produce, Avatar has become an instant “cult hit”.

Audiences leave theaters in awe of the computer generated special effects that reportedly have transformed the movie viewing experience to a state of virtual reality. In addition to achieving ultimate movie-making technology, the story line is a compelling account of a science fiction that may be less fiction than it is real science.

The story of Avatar explores the ability of a human to inhabit the mind and control the body of a lesser being created by science to accomplish tasks considered too dangerous for the human to engage in. The manufactured humanoids are sent to an inhospitable planet where war is being waged for control of the universe.

Sound like a better way to wage war? Sound far-fetched? Perhaps science is far more capable of creating this fantastic world than most moviegoers would expect.

The word “avatar” derives from a Hindu word representing the embodiment of the god Vishnu in typically lesser forms of being some of which are god-like and others much less so, including turtles, fish, boars or lions. Vishnu was embodied in countless life forms all created for specific purposes to achieve the intent of the god who engendered them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar

The word came into popular American culture through the language of Internet gaming in which players created virtual selves to live, play and potentially die to live again in the game “Habitat” first created in 1986. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/magazine/10wwln-guest-t.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=avatar&st=cse&oref=login As players created their “online persona” they lived vicariously through their surrogate in playing the game by engaging in virtual activities which hopefully they would never choose to participate in “the real world”. Their avatars could murder, maim, deceive and steal with impunity.

How could this fiction possibly be realized through science? It is much closer to reality than we might wish to admit. The science of transgenics has accomplished amazing feats in the laboratory which movie makers could only wish to recreate for the big screen. Truth in fact is stranger than fiction.

Would you like to manufacture a natural fiber much stronger than steel? How about combining the genetic code of a spider with that of a goat to create goat’s milk with the strength characteristics of a spider’s web? Outlandish, you say! Done. BioSteel® is the product of a Canadian company which comes from its “spidergoat” created by combining the genomes of spiders with those of goats.

Barnyard experimentation is one thing, but human experimentation is something entirely different. Right? Wrong. In Amherst, Massachusetts genetic engineering company Advanced Cell Technology created human embryos resulting from the injection of human cells into cows eggs. South Korean research company Maria Bio-Tech created a “hu-mouse” by injecting human stem cells into mouse embryos The living altered embryos were implanted into to a mouse womb with a litter of healthy “hu-mice” delivered thereafter. And just for the fun of it, Cambridge University researchers created “she-male” hermaphrodite human embryos by implanting male genes into female embryos. These chimeras (part one life form and part another) are scientifically capable of creation in infinite varieties.

Make no mistake about it, as a human born with a bi-cuspid aortic heart valve, I am very interested in creating a pig which would carry my own genetic code so if the time arrives that a valve replacement is medically necessary, I can harvest a perfect body part for the task. But because I can, should I?

More critically, because we might be able to create human-like forms in the lab for the purpose of conducting warfare, scientific experimentation or medical therapy should we?

At present, no federal laws in the US prevent these outcomes. Only human restraint does so (if in fact such experimentation is being restrained rather than simply not reported).

All significant human scientific advances raise ethical concerns. The time has long passed for us to seriously consider and engineer the ethical limits, conditions and consequences of genetic experimentation. Only a multi-disciplinary dialogue will provide the breadth and depth of discourse necessary for this critical conversation. Scientists, ethicists, lawyers, physicians, policy makers and the public must be invited into this discourse lest one segment of society hijack the possibility of a reasoned outcome.

In all the debate and diatribe surrounding health care reform, dialogue concerning bioethics has been noticeably absent. For the sake of humans, avatars, chimera and other life forms capable of being “born” in our laboratories, the time to convene this dialogue is now.

What’s In a Name?: More Than Intended

I was born a Smith (along with all the originally pure people). However, at 28 years and as a newly minted attorney in Detroit, I discovered there were four other Larry Smith attorneys in the neighborhood. The day I received a confidential psychiatric report intended for another Larry Smith attorney’s client, I realized this problem could become more than a mere inconvenience.

After conferring with family and friends, along with my wife and two young children we all marched off to court and became Bridgesmith’s. That was the name we chose because Linda was born a Bridges and we honored both families in combining our two birth surnames. Neither of us can agree to this day whose “s” was lost in the transaction. I argue that it was mine, because the missing “S” is a capital letter. Linda won’t agree.

We’ve noted that the name we created is unique out there because we have found no other Bridgesmiths. Not even with the Internet. Although most assume I am the descendant of English masons who specialized in building bridges, I’m really of Scotish descent. We all know what the Scotch are famous for: whiskey and fighting (that’s because golf came first). There’s plenty of evidence that the genetic strain is strong in my ancestry (except for the golf part).

Who knew a name change 30 years ago could foreshadow the work I enjoy most? Building bridges between people and the organizations in which they find themselves is the most gratifying work I can imagine. I don’t anticipate retirement as an option because the work I get to be involved in is so satisfying.

And then, this guy named Steve Joiner became a colleague. Is that irony or something more intentional?

H1N1: The Path to Health

My granddaughter recently had a bout with the dreaded “swine flu”. She’s fine, has recovered fully and loves the attention she received during her “recent distress”.

However, a moment at the doctor’s office when she was tested and H1N1 was confirmed reminds me of a truth our culture is loathe to embrace. The doctor announced the test results and added, “Now, you don’t have to get the shot.” She found great comfort in that reality. She believes the illness is more welcome than the inoculation. “From the mouths of babes!”

Our culture’s worship of comfort masks the value of embracing conflict. Young trees are made stronger by the winds which stress the root system and create a healthy support network. Children kept safe from germs in a sterile environment are far more likely to contract disease.  People who are willing to deal with the conflict before them are far more successful and emotionally centered than those who escape it at all costs.

Our aversion to discomfort makes us weak. Our avoidance of conflict renders us susceptible to the trauma of unresolved turmoil.

What if like the corporate culture at Johnson & Johnson, “We welcome conflict”? Might we become more resilient, more innovative, more personally and organizationally healthy?

Conflict competence comes from embracing the inevitability of difficult moments, acquiring the skills to negotiate these shoals and anticipating the opportunities seized by going there with confidence.

Who needs the inoculation when the real thing might be better for us?

How 3M Encourages Collaboration

In today’s business environment, it is always encouraging to see companies that encourage collaboration.  Here’s an article that appeared in Business Week that explains how 3M Encourages Collaboration.

Taking a Different Approach

Last week, the Institute for Conflict Management hosted 29 middle school students to discuss a different approach to conflict.  This is the first of six sessions for the 2009-2010 school.  Take a look at, Students Take Class Aimed at Resolving Conflict, which appeared on News Channel 5.

Collaboration: Idealism or Pragmatism?

I was fortunate to a attend a breakfast meeting last week with John Siegenthaler, the former editor of the Nashville Tennessean and founding editor of the USA Today newspaper. His topic was leadership lessons which arise out of failure.

John is noted for his courageous work in the tumultuous civil rights culture of the 60’s in the South. Among many other notable accomplishments, John was an assistant to Robert (Bobby) Kennedy, U.S. Attorney General in the John (Jack) F. Kennedy presidential administration. Of these two famous brothers, John Seigenthaler said Jack Kennedy was the idealist and Bobbie the pragmatist. Jack’s visionary ideals of an improved society could be accomplished only by the hard nosed use of strategic legal tools wielded effectively by Bobby.

In support of the Freedom Riders’ efforts to desegregate lunch counters through out the South, Bobby dispatched Seigenthaler to Alabama to extract the freedom riders from the jails and hospitals of Montgomery following a brutal attack by a mob who burned their bus and savagely beat the civil rights activists. John was severely injured when he attempted to rescue one of the freedom riders.

Although heroism was attributed to John for his actions in that heated climate, he indicated that he felt more a failure than courageous. He blamed himself for his inability to bring reason to mob mentality, to convince Alabama governor Patterson to protect the freedom riders and change the culture of violence. His sense of failure in this moment shaped his character and work to follow.

John spoke further of his concern about the state of journalism today in which the media appears to take partisan positions and fails to engender transformative dialogue about matters of consequence. In his view, partisanship, or positional posturing serves as a sign of declining civility and the ineffectual nature of the fifth estate. He recalled wistfully the role of journalism in prior conflicted eras, like the civil rights environment of the 60’s. In his view, principled journalism fosters respectful inquiry, factual development and facilitates the exploration of creative responses. In contrast, blind partisanship merely escalates the conflict without providing avenues of solution. It takes both idealism and pragmatism to engender the collaborative environment out of which creative solutions can be developed and implemented.

A few weeks ago, Randy Lowry and I were asked to facilitate a retreat of a state legislative coalition in advance of the state’s legislative session. I had my doubts that we could break through the partisan mindset of elected state officials. in contrast, what we both discovered was that these officials were as hungry for training and experience in collaborative outcomes as doctors, nurses, lawyers and accountants. At the end of the retreat, they were asking for more training and requested greater involvement by facilitative leaders in legislative development and skill building.

Our time with the legislators and the recognized power of collaboration and consensus building reminds us that these practical skills are the creative place where idealism and pragmatism meet. Partisan positioning severely limits the ability of people to create new solutions, devise innovative outcomes and develop mutually beneficial results.

We are infinitely more capable than people who merely reduce problem solving to declaring the loudest voice the winner and relegating great ideas to the waste bin of trivialized losers.

Let’s be enthusiastically idealistic pragmatists and pursue the power of collaboration.

Lawyer Day 2009

This is the day lawyers get to celebrate their profession and the many contributions they have made to our nation and our communities. We do not have to look very far to realize how many lawyers are in significant positions of influence in government, business, agencies and community development initiatives.

As one of those lawyers, I find myself both proud and occasionally shamed by some of our profession’s accomplishments. Without lawyers, our federal and state constitutions would not have the staying power and vitality to live flexibly and protect individual and collective rights for over 200 years. Corporations are led by lawyers. There are more lawyers in Congress and government than any other profession. Most US presidents have been lawyers. In fact, with only 5% of the world’s population, the US has at least 70% of the world’s lawyers.

On the other hand, the profession I entered over 30 years ago is a far different field than I first knew it to be. My first business card stated that I was a “Counselor at law”. Today, it says I am an “attorney”. What’s the difference? The legal business and the prevailing model of profitability and economic success is the reality practicing lawyers must rely on to “pay the bills” and put the kids through school.

As a result, the business of law and the culture of adversarial representation has transformed the practice of law in the eyes of many into a business that profits at the expense of those it purports to serve. Some complain the legal practice model of the “billable hour” is an unjustified and potentially unethical incentive for waste and inefficiency contrary to the client’s best interest. Some critics believe that conflict is improperly prolonged by a financial reward which is provided to the one who can prolong the fight the longest.

Law firm managers are finding the current economic climate inhospitable to the status quo and numerous experiments are being engineered to promote both the profession of law and the business of law with the client’s interest as the highest priority. “Alternative billing” and “fixed fees” are buzzwords that signal a possible tsunami in the legal services model.

However these innovative initiatives turn out, one fact remains: lawyers are critical to our society and great lawyers are recognized as problem solvers for their clients. That means that collaborative law, mediation, settlement counsel, negotiation and expedited litigation will all become valuable tools with which lawyers will become increasingly proficient in order to reclaim the public trust in the profession. Trusted advisers are those whose professional skills meet the client’s needs and for which the client finds value sufficient to gladly pay the bill.

The days of lawyers as trusted adviser will return, and soon. As lawyers learn the strategic skills of conflict management, their clients will both respect and trust them.

In the meantime, go hug a lawyer. We need love too.