The Distance... Matters.

I don't know about you but I'm a huge fan of the late great George Carlin. He did a bit one time that was not only funny as hell but key in understanding conflict. It has to do with distance. In a nut shell, "The guy on TV is a REAL A-S--S-H-O-L-E!! but the person next to you in line is a real asshole. The further one is away from the conflict and all the consequences, the easier it is to decide to keep it going. There has to be a name for this in the study of conflict but it escapes me now. I thinks this applies across the spectrum of conflict from very small (Family, office, church) all the way up to warring nation states. I've seen it in small companies where the guy that runs the business does not like getting his hands dirty assigns the unpleasant task of firing someone to a subordinate. I can hear the thought process now, "Why should I take the risk of a going postal reaction when I have an underling who can?" Moving up in size and complexity the idea still works.

One large corporation buys another and thousands are laid off, the CEO's are most likely not directly affected. There is no downward lifestyle change. This makes the sale easy. This is Capitalism after all, so it is up to the workers to fend for themselves. The state can pick up the tab in unemployment, food stamps, and other social services. So it goes with outsourcing. There are many places labor is pennies on the dollar compared to here in the USA. It's true companies who stay here with our more expensive labor face the prospect of being put out of business by the competition. Once again, those at the top are by and large unaffected. The needs of the employees and the needs of the company are in conflict. It is easy for those in leadership positions to choose the needs of the company over the needs of the employees. As things are now structured, it is their job to do so. They are legally bound to maximize profits for share holders. Other needs like job security, are secondary. Why are things structured this way and who benefits? Ahhh, there's the class / rich vs. poor frame again!

I think open war works in much the same way. It is easier for Presidents Bush and Obama to continue the so called war on terror / occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, attacks on Libya (not really hostilities mind you), Yemen, Somalia and god only knows where else knowing they or their families will never be affected. Will either man's daughters ever see combat? Perhaps not totally impossible but highly doubtful. I don't mean to say neither Bush or Obama has a soul or a conscience, I think both do but lacking a really personal stake makes the decision to keep the wars going easier. If leaders had to truly lead from the front how different would it be? If they had to personally clean up some "collateral damage" how would they change their thinking?

While thinking on this idea of distance in conflict I could not help but wonder about some of the most evil leaders in recent history. Did Hitler ever picnic at Auswitch Concentration Camp to see first hand how the "Final Solution" was going? If he did, I never herd of it. Did Pol Pot ever make an official visit to Tou Sleng? I've never her of it if he did. I could go on and on but I think you got the point.

I think recognizing the idea of Distance is important. I wish more decision makers were aware of it. It is easy to read in a dry DOD report, Secret police document or see on our highly edited nightly news but there is no substitute for direct experience of Collateral damage.