In the modern world, I think there is a place for to connect this kind of analysis with action. The way a Powell-Wolfowitz conflict or a Peres-Sharon conflict will go is based in large part on the reaction in the streets of the world, and these conflicts will determine the course of history. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any easy way to predict how. This realization may be one reason why the tendency exists to deny that these conflicts are important. In determining whether they are or not, we must ensure that the threat of an unconfortable answer doesn't get in the way.
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> kelley wrote:
>
> >does anyone psychoanalyze the masterminds of our war machine?
>
> I don't know, but someone should. Why not?
>
Why? I honestly don't understand why anyone (orther than his/her spouse, therapist, etc) would have more than merely aesthetic interest in the psychology of either terrorists or masterminds. Surely every personality, even of identical twins at birth, is unique, but yet there are innumerable people who could/would fulfill any social function (terrorist or, at a lower level of humanity, secretaries of state or chiefs of joint chiefs of staff) that one might mention. Were psychological theory X true and complete, and had we perfect psychological profiles of the whole of Nixon's administration, it might have a sort of sunday supplement interest (sometimes I do read sunday supplements), but it would surely not increase in any way our understanding of the Vietnam War.
Carrol