About the war in Nastonia...

This thread is to be used in conjunction with a poll that I'm putting up in a moment. To participate, read the proposal below and then take the poll.

---------------------------------------
The hypothetical country of Nastonia is a harsh dictatorship with torture and murder of political prisoners and very few freedoms. It has been this way for decades and it is not likely to change in the foreseeable future without outside help.

There is a proposal that the United States liberate the country by military attack. If we go to war with Nastonia, although there is no guarantee, we will almost certainly be successful in deposing the dictator and this will probably result in a much freer nation.

It will result in about 1,000 American soldiers killed in action and about 4,000 wounded in our all volunteer army. It will also certainly kill several thousand innocent Nastonian civilians in the bombing. Other injuries and deaths will be the dictator, his henchmen and some of his standing army.

Supporters say this war will save tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands of lives in the future, that it will spread freedom, that it will be a blow against tyranny, relieve suffering of oppressed Nastonians, and generate future revenues from increased free trade. They say that it would be morally wrong to tolerate continued rule of this despot and his torture and killing.

Those who oppose going to war with Nastonia point out that we are not under any threat of attack. Therefore, they say, we are not acting out of self-defense and have no right to kill the thousands of innocent civilians.
---------------------------------------

Participate by responding the RoR poll "About the invasion of Nastonia..."

Post 1

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 1:46pm

The poll has been submitted and awaits admin approval before it is visible.

Post 2

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 4:14pm

Does Nastonia have a history of attacking and/or threatening its neighbors, countries which are peaceful and prosperous, or peaceful and developing? Are these countries accepting refugees from Nastonia?

Is the dictator known to conspire with other regimes hostile to the US or her trading partners?

Is there a resistance effort anywhere in Nastonia? Is it an organized effort?

What is Nastonia's economic base? Is it diverse? How do they survive?

How educated are the people of Nastonia?

Not knowing much, other than the dictator is a full out bully, I'd have to answer with #5, that the poll is flawed. Bullies are dealt with in a variety of ways by the free world, often never involving military action.

However, if the poll was about Iran, I'd say turn the place to glass.

Post 3

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 5:43pm

For Teresa:

You asked,

Does Nastonia have a history of attacking and/or threatening its neighbors, countries which are peaceful and prosperous, or peaceful and developing? Are these countries accepting refugees from Nastonia?

There have been squabbles with one neighbor, who is usually peaceful and moderately prosperous - sometimes leading to bloodshed, but not recently.

Is the dictator known to conspire with other regimes hostile to the US or her trading partners?

He is very secretive. We have suspicions but nothing concrete.

Is there a resistance effort anywhere in Nastonia? Is it an organized effort?

Yes, and it is organized, but it is small and not likely to have any success.

What is Nastonia's economic base? Is it diverse? How do they survive?

Oil. No. They are able to sell oil through long term contracts to many other countries and on the open market.

How educated are the people of Nastonia?

About average - significantly less than the highly developed countries but better than the poorest nations.

Not knowing much, other than the dictator is a full out bully, I'd have to answer with #5, that the poll is flawed. Bullies are dealt with in a variety of ways by the free world, often never involving military action.

Assume that there is NO other way that this bully can be dealt with. Everything else had been tried many times. You are the President and the proposal is before you (and the country is not Iran). You have to decide which of the answers best fits your inclination. If you still believe the hypothetical is flawed, please tell me what is missing. The intent here is to make two determinations 1) which of the proposals supporting statements is most accurate and 2) what is the moral position that governs this decision.

Thanks.

Post 4

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 5:50pm

So far three people have indicated that the hypothetical is flawed. I've provided answers to the questions that Teresa asked. But the idea is force everyone to arrive at the point where they act as if are they are the Commander in Chief and must make a decision. The intent is to examine what one is using to determine where this call for a hypothetical stands on the spectrums of national self-interest, practicality, and morality. Hope that helps. Let me know if you still think it is flawed and how so. Thanks.

Post 5

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 7:07pm

Steve,

The hypothetical answers to my real questions were somewhat helpful.

Good things come in small packages. I would totally focus on the resistance efforts that already exist, bombard the nation with resistance rhetoric, become a complete pain the ass rumor mill against the dictator, exploit his every unsavory weakness (stupid fears, crazy attractions, etc.) I'd use my good relationships with private business to persuade them to hire every Dane newspaper cartoon artist to come up with depictions of the dictator betraying his people and his principles in every conceivable way.

Then I'd call the great "Captain Crunch" himself, and convince him that hacking into the dictator's servers and data bases are in his best interest.

Then I'd sit back and watch the cookie crumble on satellite television. Chances are pretty good that before I'm through, the dictator will have blown his own head off.

I won't have to order a single shot to be fired. ;)

Strictly hypothetical, of course.

Post 6

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 7:16pm

You could always try assassination politics ;-)!

Post 7

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 7:25pm

Steve,

Very quickly... As you describe it, I don't see clear grounds here for invasion. Were Nastonia to be a nation with demonstrated practices of invading other nations (demonstrating aggressive behavior), producing and using WMD, harboring/aiding international terrorists, issuing threats against our own country, interfering with our ability to travel to or trade with other nations, etc., then that would be another matter, and invasion would be justified.

The case of Iraq was another matter completely. If, by chance, the tacit analogy that you are attempting to draw here is between Iraq and your "Nastonia," that analogy breaks down on a number of grounds.

Post 8

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 8:02pm

Hi Robert,

No, the hypothetical is NOT a secret stand-in for Iraq. I should have said that in the introduction.

It is a made-up example that I tried to keep free of recent history. The purpose is to elicit responses we can 'chew' on for a better understanding of the moral, practical, or self-interest reasons for going to war.

Post 9

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 8:04pm

The entire concept is flawed from the get-go. Only individuals have rights. If I know that some individual or individuals are under threat or use of violence, then of course I have the right to offer assistance or, in an obvious case, such as a purse snatcher that I have witnessed in action, to take reasonable action to intervene on behalf of the victims. No one has the right to force me to intervene, however.

Yet it is being postulated that somehow the state now has the right to use money that it has extracted from me, presumeably by force, to intervene on someone else's behalf. If we are talking about a traditional state, limited (in theory) by a constitution or some such convenient fiction, and in theory justifying its existence morally and ethically by necessity, as in that only a state can prevent (shudder) ANARCHY!, then on what calculus does it base its attack upon a peaceful neighbor? Moral outrage? Altruism? There is no immediately obvious currency or uniform measure by which such a decision can be considered as opposed to other alternative.

If the state were being operated as a profitable free market entity, of course, then, depending upon its contractual obligations to its citizens, it could presumably act to protect non-subscribers, including initiating force, so long as it could justify its actions to the subscribers, owners, stockholders or other investers or legitimately interested parties.

For example, ACME state might observe that in a nearby locale, there was very poor protection of property against thieves - which encompasses this situation, considering one's body to be one's property. Like a restaurant giving out free samples of cookies, ACME could take action on the basis of projected profits from future prospective customers. Any major private security company today could do the same, calling in, witnessing and in some cases acting to intervene in some obvious breach of security, even though the victims were not paying customers, on the grounds that it would generate good-will and free publicity perhaps, and possibly generate immediate customers.

Post 10

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 8:34pm

So, Phil, does this mean that because you believe in anarchy that you are not capable of making a judgment as to whether the United States, as currently configured, would be moral or immoral in invading Nastonia under the situation described?

Post 11

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 2:56am

I voted it would be immoral to invade, and I think Phil raised some good points. Looking at the big picture, I don't see how any state could raise the funds to invade Nastonia without resorting to taxation, which I do not agree with. Of course, I see no problem if private individuals or groups wished to lend their time and/or money to the liberation effort.

Post 12

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 1:27pm

Jonathan,

Let's assume that you traveled to Nastonia as a private person. Then by yourself or with some local resistance fighters, you were trying to liberate Nastonia. So, far I assume that everyone would agree that you're acting within your rights.

If you manage to assasinate the dictator or kill some of his henchmen - they are certainly not innocent so you are still within your rights. But what if an innocent individual is killed? At that point we have to look at what would reasonably be expected to happen based upon your actions and on whether you were acting in self-defense (two separate but related issues).

If you were using reasonable care to target only the henchmen and it was not reasonable to expect a civilian to wander into a particular area at a particular time, they I'd say you were not guilty - if Nastonia is as serious a rights violater as I've painted it. Although this is getting real iffy at this point. I think you have to find the link to self-defense in any case to have certainty.

If you were in Nastonia, thinking about whether or not to join the local resistance, and were rousted by soldiers, then any actions on your part to get free - even if it resulted in the death of innocents - would be part of self-defense.

If someone decided to set off a bomb to blow up a building that housed the Nastonia Ministry of Justice, but also housed several private businesses that had nothing to do with the government, then they would be killing innocents without any right. That shows the difference between self-defense and a terrorist.

That is how I parse these things. I think we are always obligated to take it back to the level of self-defense. And self-defense means paying attention to the "self" as well as the "defense" part of the phrase. As an individual you are defending an attack or threat against you. As a nation the defense is of the nation - implying an attack or threat of attack on the nation.

Post 13

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 2:29pm

Steve, for the record, I agree with what you said in Post 12.

Post 14

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 5:02pm

Jonathan,

I saw that we were in agreement. I should have acknowledged that to avoid any confusion. Thanks for mentioning it.

I was just taking the opportunity to explore the use of the concept of self-defense from the individual person's viewpoint, but inside of the context of a war of liberation. (Obviously inspired by your comments.)

My intent is to take every opportunity to show the necessity of working from a basis of self-defense - to show that otherwise an argument will be morally adrift when it comes to entering war.

Post 15

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 6:23am

What if the Nastonians made a regular habit of having civilian hospitals and other places with "innocents" next to all of their military installations? What if, in the course of the war, they never wore uniforms and instead mixed with the population, who often supported them (sometimes but not always, it is chaotic there), and attacking from within "civilian" groups? Then what can I do?

Post 16

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 10:26am

Kurt,

You asked,

What if the Nastonians made a regular habit of having civilian hospitals and other places with "innocents" next to all of their military installations?

If our country were under attack or threat of attack, then self-defense gives our country the right to respond and the duty to respond and deaths of civilians are the moral responsibility of the attacker - all the more so for choosing that vile tactic. It wouldn't matter where the civilians or military were located.

What if, in the course of the war, they never wore uniforms and instead mixed with the population, who often supported them (sometimes but not always, it is chaotic there), and attacking from within "civilian" groups?

These are questions of military tactics. Issues like these are problems when it is not a war that is being intiated, like a rescue operation. Say Nastonia was holding some Americans hostages. The Commander in Chief orders a special ops team to effect a rescue. It is going to be harder for them and there might be some civilian deaths. But we would not be morally responsible for the deaths of any civilians that occurred in a rescue attempt.

My intent here has not been to discuss military tactics or to talk about eliminating or reducing civilian deaths or about avoiding military incursions. It has only been about how do you determine when it is moral to go to war. Going to war is different from almost any other action a nation takes. It is an action that guarantees the death of innocent civilians and for that reason is only justified if it is a matter of self-defense.

Post 17

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 - 7:08pm

Ah, and there is the rub. There IS no rational way for a "nation" to decide when it should go to war, especially in these kinds of hypotheticals.

Going to war entails money up front and risks of losses. That much is evident, even against a far inferior (militarily) foe.

How do you decide, as a monopoly state, whether going to war with country A is cost effective, as opposed to going to war with countries B and C, or putting your resources into purely defensive armaments or giving it back to the citizens, or a million other possibilities?

You can't. There are too many variables and elusive indeterminents for any top-down heuristics to function. However, calculations equally complex are carried out via distributed processing in the market by the billions every day. A state monopoly cannot rationally assess prices, relative or absolute, except by reference to similar or commensurate market pricing. But in this case there is no similar or commensurate example to go by.

If I'm a manufacturer of widjets and are making a decision about whether to move into a new market, I can look at the prices and costs and call in marketing experts to give me other useful data until I have enought information to make an informed decision. The evidence that this works is all around us.

But if I'm a state monopoly trying to assess whether the state is providing a proper and adequate supply of justice, how do I make such as assessment? Perfect justice can only be had at an infinite cost. We know that parameter, but it's not enough by a long shot. So, how much to spend on police, forensics labs, district attorneys, judges salaries, the law library, public defenders, prisons, etc.?

Without a competitive market price to compare to, there is no rational way to make any of those assessments. Your hypothetical military action is just one of many examples of an insoluable dilemna called the state.

Post 18

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 2:52am

Phil,

Every single aspect of this thread, the hypothetical, the poll and the responses have been related to a single, clearly defined question: When is it morally permissible to go to war. It shouldn't be news to you that we live in a world full of countries - every one of which has a government. And I think you know this isn't a new condition - it extends way back in history. And the great suffering visited on humanity by wars is why this question is asked.

Your nattering on about top-down heuristics, cost effectiveness and market pricing are so absurd in this context.

Say that you learn a psychotic killer is about to snatch a child of a playground. Do you think about whether you have free minutes left on your cell phone this month before you call in a warning? Do you do a cost accounting of some kind? Do you announce that this isn't an answerable question because it involves a state monopoly on police services who can never deal with market complexities?

I can't believe that those are the kinds of reasons you threw up when asked a moral question. Do you advocate anarchy on accounting principles or do you find a moral justification for your political beliefs?

You said,

Your hypothetical military action is just one of many examples of an insoluable dilemna called the state.

I don't buy it Phil. That's just a cop-out. Either a government or a government-like entity (call it a protective agency headquartered in what we call America - and who cares if there are two or three or no others in this part of this continent) is deciding whether or not to invade Nastronia.

And the decision will be moral or immoral regardless of whether that is a consideration on the part of those making the decision or not.

So let's say that the CEO of Acme protective agency has that proposal in front of him. I guess you are going to say that for him there is no morality - only the bottom line. If it is profitable to go kill thousands (not in defense since his clients haven't been attacked) off he will go - maybe the idea is to open a new market in this country. Or, maybe he runs the numbers and decides that even if had clients in that country it is better to lose them and take a temporary hit in Acme's reputation and lose a little bit of market share rather than take on such a large conflict. (Then he can take the money saved by not protecting a few Nastronia clients and set up a new ad campaign and get new customers).

Post 19

Thursday, April 5, 2007 - 6:04pm