Foreign Policy and Self-Defense: Bidinotto's Facts

Thanks everyone for all of the positive feedback on post 141. It got 63 sanctions! Sometimes, responses to posts really surprise me. I didn't expect this kind of warm response from that long of a post. I had to ask some people privately what they liked about it, wondering what was the message that resonated so much with people. Each person gave me a different response! I'd like to hear what people here thought was interesting about it. It'd help me understand what ideas were really important to people. You could also send me a private RoRMail if you don't want to say it publicly.

Post 161

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 2:56am

Joe,

To begin with, please understand that I do not want you to construe anything I might say here as a personal attack. I think we are both decent human beings. We both have the highest regard for the truth. And I am sure you will agree that the emergence of the truth is what really matters here.

Your thoughtful and eloquent response (post #141) contains numerous statements that I find rather baffling. To begin with, using the phrase �nuke them all� or �crush them all� is a pejorative smear which would require considerable definition to rise to the level of a floating abstraction. It�s a foolish parody. No sane person would advocate such a meaningless �principle.� You do your cause no service by repeating it.

You accuse another contributor of having the will to wipe out entire populations armed with no specific knowledge of the enemies he wants to attack. I would never go along with the idea of wiping out an entire population (if that is what he is advocating). In the case of Iran, we know that there is a huge percentage of the people there who do not support the Islamic fundamentalist regime. On the other hand, why do you assume that he has no knowledge of the enemy? Why would you throw out such an accusation so cavalierly? I find that puzzling, and it makes me wonder whether you are making a serious effort to understand opposing points of view.

You ask:

Are the people at ARI really informed enough to decide what specific wars we should fight, and how to fight them? � [These philosophical] principles aren't a substitute for knowledge. They're a form of knowledge, or possibly a tool for gaining it. None of this says you can skip the hard work. When anyone thinks that philosophy is a substitute for knowledge, or worse, that it's moral to ignore the facts in an attempt to be "principled", it's a perversion of philosophy.

All of that would be true, except that you are talking without any knowledge of the extent to which the ARI spokesmen have worked to obtain the relevant information. Once again, you appear to be making an assumption with absolutely no foundation for claiming it to be true.

What are the facts about the present day world that demonstrate we should pursue war with Iran�and with what means or strategy?

The facts are easily available to anyone who follows the news and studies reports from the experts. You know what Ahmadinejad has said about his intentions to destroy Israel and the United States. You know what the Iranian madrassahs and Moslem temples preach and that it is only a matter of time before more Americans die. You know about the intelligence reports which show definite plans to instigate attacks on American soil. You know about the Islamic militant bombings in New Delhi, Bali, Jakarta, Madrid, London and Bombay. You know Iran provides a safe haven for terrorist training camps. You know Iran has been directly responsible for ongoing support of the insurgency in Iraq. You know they are busy acquiring nuclear weapons. You know that the Iranian Constitution, passed right after the radical fundamentalists came to power, codifies "trying to perpetuate [the Islamic] revolution both at home and abroad�� And you surely know that without state sponsorship, terrorist acts would be ineffectual and infrequent.

Facts are not the real issue. I could spend hours chronicling such facts, but you would undoubtedly contest the truth of those facts which were inconsistent with your viewpoint. I say the facts are obvious. You say well what about this or that. Back and forth, ad infinitum. Trotting out more "facts" would be a total waste of your time and mine. If the above facts aren't enough, we must agree to disagree.

Regarding the horrific sacrifice of innocent American lives in Iraq, you say:

Where I have a problem is when a philosopher decides, regardless of the empirical facts, that it's necessarily sacrificial. That there's no possibility that it can't be of interest. And when they try to use philosophical premises to rule it out, as if facts were irrelevant�

I don�t know of anyone who shares my view that the war in Iraq is an altruistic abomination who would draw that conclusion without reference to empirical facts. What are the facts about post-Saddam Iraq that show clearly that our war effort has been a tragic waste and that it will ultimately result in a return to dictatorship?

Ongoing Shi�ite-Sunni sectarian violence (temporarily suppressed by the troop surge); utter passivity on the part of the Maliki government; the ruling Shi'ite�s call for Sharia to be adopted in family and civil law; an Iraqi constitution which makes significant concessions to Sharia law, thereby empowering Wahhabi extremists within the government; polls showing that a strong majority of Iraqis want U.S. military forces to immediately withdraw from the country; polls showing widespread Iraqi support for a fundamentalist theocratic regime; the open persecution of non-Muslims in Iraq; incompetence and indifference displayed on the part of U.S. trained police forces; ongoing efforts by Iraqi citizens to protect Islamic insurgents; the facts of history (failures of democracy in Arab nations); the current absence of anything resembling genuine democracy in that part of the globe.

Is that what you call �absurdly simplistic�? But even if you conceded that it was not �absurdly simplistic,� you have another out. You will say: "Prove there is no possibility that it could be worthwhile." In other words, prove there is no possibility that we can kill another thousand or so American soldiers and it will not work out better for us in the long run. Sort of like proving there is no God. But us �bomb-throwers� are guilty of �perverting philosophy.�

You then proceed to over-generalize and assume that your ridiculous �nuke them all� parody of a principle implies that we should proceed to bomb North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, England, Saudi Arabia and various European countries with large Muslim populations.

We have adequate evidence to act against Iran and we are hiding our heads in the sand as long as we let that particular malignancy continue to fester until it takes out another good segment of our population. I do not know of anyone with my perspective on national defense who is advocating attacking the other nations you refer to. It appears that significantly less drastic measures may be effective in neutralizing North Korea. I certainly hope so.

I would like to see more aggressive action taken against tribal sanctuaries for Al Quaida leaders in remote sections of Pakistan, but such military action would be strictly limited to those specific areas. England, France and Spain are not actively sponsoring terrorism, so any suggestion of military action against them would be totally ridiculous. If we have intelligence which shows that Saudi Arabia is being used for terrorist training camps, I would sanction bombing those delimited areas, not the general population. As I said, aggressor nations are the legitimate targets for our bombs, not just any country where terrorists might possibly be hiding (which would obviously include the United Sates).

The recent Iranian harassment of US Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz was not blurry at all. The Iranian government was obviously testing us, hoping to provoke us into actions that would have resulted in embarrassment and negative publicity for the United States. They got away with kidnapping British Naval officers�with no adverse consequences. They succeeded in making that particular escapade look ambiguous. I blame Britain for that. If they had attacked our warships, however, I have little doubt they would have been blown out of the water�and justifiably so. To our credit, we made clear that there was nothing ambiguous about it�just as there is nothing ambiguous about the thugs running Iran. If an aggressor nation succeeds in portraying themselves as �ambiguous,� it is likely due to the timidity of the victim.

A note regarding methods and strategy: �Rules of engagement� are generally a travesty of justice which arbitrarily place the lives of foreign citizens above the lives of our soldiers. The only situation that might make so-called �rules of engagement� legitimate would be a conflict where we are operating within the borders of an ally, with their permission, assisting them in repelling a foreign invader. In that situation, we would want to take measures to protect the rights of the innocent citizens of the non-aggressor. The 1990 �Operation Desert Storm,� where we came to the aid of Kuwait against Saddam Hussein, would be an example of such a conflict. Looks like we might have a potential point of agreement here. I can live with that.

I vehemently disagree that the �rules of engagement� binding the hands of our soldiers in Iraq and needlessly placing them in mortal danger is anything but obscenely altruistic.

Then you say, speaking of the consequences of using weapons of mass destruction against our enemies:

But how about alienating allies, pushing enemies to join forces, fighting wars where our justification is less that 100% certain (coupled with violence as if it was 100% certain), possible trading sanctions against us, weakening our military and economy, and who knows what else. The first part seems like a good case until you start looking at the rest of the factors, some of which may in some cases outweigh the first.

Here�s what Norman Podhoretz had to say about that:

"The opponents of bombing�not just the usual suspects but many both here and in Israel who have no illusions about the nature and intentions and potential capabilities of the Iranian regime�disagree that it might end in the overthrow of the mullocracy. On the contrary, they are certain that all Iranians, even the democratic dissidents, would be impelled to rally around the flag. And this is only one of the worst-case scenarios they envisage. To wit: Iran would retaliate by increasing the trouble it is already making for us in Iraq. It would attack Israel with missiles armed with non-nuclear warheads but possibly containing biological and/or chemical weapons. There would be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own. The worldwide outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties would make the anti-Americanism of today look like a love-fest.

"I readily admit that it would be foolish to discount any or all of these scenarios. Each of them is, alas, only too plausible. Nevertheless, there is a good response to them, and it is the one given by John McCain. The only thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has declared, is allowing Iran to get the bomb."
The Case for Bombing Iran

The plain truth is that we cannot sit on our hands and fail to act when the negative consequences of inaction are so clear. We cannot concoct worst case scenarios and use that as an excuse for appeasement. How did we know the future price of dropping the atom bomb on Japan, or the carpet bombing of major cities in Nazi Germany? If Truman had taken your advice, we would have launched the ground and sea invasion of Japan at the cost of untold thousands of American lives.

We are not omniscient. We did not know if the Japanese people would band together and plot and scheme to destroy us years later in retaliation. We did not know if the world community would condemn us and isolate us. How could we have possibly known? And what good would it have served to curtail action based on that unknowable? That�s what principles are for�to guide us in making decisions using the facts that are available, looking at the essential nature of the alternatives�not refusing to act because bad things might well happen.

This is how you characterize the viewpoint of ARI:

But instead of focusing on where they offer the most value, the philosophy, I think they stepped over the line and now are judged as amateurs who promote mindless violence. Instead of keeping it focused on a method of analysis and a standard of moral judgment, they've put the focus on their own foreign policy proposals.

Only those who ignore the details and nuances of their arguments could accuse them of being mindless. The truth is, based on what I have observed, most of the people who denounce them for preaching �mindless violence� are quasi-Objectivist libertarians. I have heard Yaron Brook many times on local radio treated with the utmost respect. He has been tremendously successful in helping a vast audience to see the enormous practical value of the Objectivist ethics for dealing with the threat militant Islam now poses for our nation�s survival.

One final point. You have suggested that ARI�s position amounts to a form of rationalism. The definition of rationalism is focusing on abstractions to the detriment of empirical facts. Which of these is an example of rationalism?

(1) The Spartan warrior who responds to the explicit threats of the Persians by building an army, equipping them with weapons and marching to meet the enemy long before they reach the outskirts of his city?

(2) The ivory tower philosopher who tells him it would be morally wrong to go to war until the evidence is beyond all question�i.e., until the Persian army is poised to attack on the edge of the city and countless innocent citizens will certainly die?

Post 162

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 9:34am

Hi Joe,

In answer to your query about sanctions, I have a few quick comments about what I liked in your post #141. Maybe more later if I have time:

When I said "decide from an armchair", I meant philosophers deciding they don't need to know the facts, they don't need to know actual military strategy, they don't need to know the costs, etc. They think because they have insights into the proper standard of evaluation, that that somehow leads them to having automatic knowledge of the full range of options available.

The above is so damn to-the-point that it made me grin. Philosophy is a tool for helping us live. It is not a magic eight ball of answers.

Take Bob Kolker's suggestion that we just nuke them all. Is this something you'd sign up for? Certainly it's a "crush them all" position. Without any specific knowledge, armed with just a single philosophical principle, he feels justified in wiping out entire populations. If you disagree with his position, is it because he isn't applying the principle far enough, or because there are relevant facts he's overlooking?

This tendency of philosophers, to assume that some philosophical insights provides them all the information they need to make complex decisions affecting countless lives, is what I have a problem with. Are the people at ARI really informed enough to decide what specific wars we should fight, and how to fight them? Are they drawing on some unknown expertise? I don't think so. They have decided, philosophically, what the ideal result would be (our enemies are destroyed), and they simply demand that we go do it, regardless of costs or risks. It's just another example of stepping beyond their area of expertise.

Their answer seems so simple, but,

1) Our enemies will not be destroyed

2) We�ll have more of them.

3) Our enemies will not be deterred by fear of our nukes.

I have a serious problem with people, even on this forum, who try to substitute philosophical principles for actual knowledge. Philosophy has two important functions here. One is to set the standards of evaluation. This can be moral or epistemological standards. And the other function is to provide principles of understanding, which gives us a deeper understanding based on far-reaching generalizations. In foreign policy, it gives us a standard of morality, our own lives. It also gives us principles, such as the retaliatory force principle, which helps us see some of the long range results of responding to initiations of force. But these principles aren't a substitute for knowledge. They're a form of knowledge, or possibly a tool for gaining it. None of this says you can skip the hard work. When anyone thinks that philosophy is a substitute for knowledge, or worse, that it's moral to ignore the facts in an attempt to be "principled", it's a perversion of philosophy.

Again, it�s not a magic eight ball of answers. If all Objectivists thought as the ARI I�d rather have George Bush as president again, and I can�t stand him!

Post 163

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 12:07am

Dennis, I don't take any of it as personal attacks, so no fears there. I hope you won't take anything I say as a personal attack either.

Given the length of your post, I'd prefer not to dissect it line by line. If I miss something you consider very important, please point it out.

-----------------

The first topic that should be addressed is the rationalism/intrinsicism. This conversation started off with a quote from Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein:

By that standard, �Operation Iraqi Freedom��which focuses on �liberating� Iraqis to vote in their choice of statist government, which hamstrings our soldiers with crippling restrictions, and which diverts our attention and military resources from worse threats, such as Iran�is utterly self-sacrificial and therefore immoral. And it will remain so even if, some years or decades down the line, the Iraqis establish a genuinely free country.

The last sentence is the real problem. It rules out the possibility of any value in this strategy, not by arguing it won't happen, but by saying that no value is even possible. As a hypothetical, it isn't an argument from empirical facts. It's an argument from some kind of philosophical dictate. It says even if the positive result happens, it still is utterly self-sacrificial. Why? If we're benefitting, how is it utterly self-sacrificial? The only way it can be is if we don't benefit after all.

So when you say "I don�t know of anyone who shares my view that the war in Iraq is an altruistic abomination who would draw that conclusion without reference to empirical facts.", it seems like you're overlooking these guys who in fact draw that conclusion even if hypothetically it was a huge success.

There's a wider issue of rationalism that deals with overly simplistic assumptions in foreign policy. But I'll deal with those individually.

--------------

The next topic I want to address is the idea that identifying our enemies is all that's necessary to decide how to respond to them. When I complained about Bob Kolker wanting to nuke them, I wasn't arguing that he incorrectly identified the enemy. But just saying that there are enemies in Iran does not in any way support the position that we should nuke them. The facts that he didn't bother to gather was what are the various options, the expected benefits, and the expected harm to our interests. Instead, he went strong on rhetoric and weak on justification. They're our enemies, and we should be aggressive an unapologetic. So nuke them.

You criticized me for assuming he doesn't have knowledge of our enemies. I didn't, and that line of thinking is a problem. Simply identifying enemies as such is not an adequate base of knowledge to decide how to act. Certainly a call for nukes should not be the default solution to having enemies.

A bit later, you ask "What are the facts about the present day world that demonstrate we should pursue war with Iran�and with what means or strategy?". You go on to list several facts that show that they are in fact our enemies. But you didn't finish answering the question. By what means or strategy should we fight oppose these enemies? Establishing that they are a threat does not answer this.

Well, I should say that I don't accept that it does. If you accept the idea the only proper response to identifying an enemy is to use unrestrained violence to wipe them out (the "crush them all" idea), then establishing them as enemies would be enough. I do want to note that this isn't the same as opposing them, even opposing them militarily.

---------------

I need to deal with some assumptions you appear to be making. The fact that I think much of the ARI policy choices is based on rationalism and simplistic assumptions does not mean many of the things you seem to think it does. It doesn't mean that I contest most of the facts, especially those dealing with whether Iran actually is a threat. I don't. Nor does it mean I demand we stay in ivory towers contemplating our choices forever. Nor does it mean I'm against a military confrontation with Iran. Nor does it mean I refuse to act because bad things might happen. Nor does it mean I demand omniscience. Nor does it mean that I dismiss their arguments because there is the possibility that things might go well in Iraq, or that I demand that they prove otherwise.

I don't know the source of these mistaken assumptions. One possibility could be that you're so used to dealing with pacifists and anti-Americans that you think any disagreement with the ARI folks is a disagreement about the conclusions, and not about the methods. So pacifists would argue not against a specific aggressive military policy, but against any at all. That's not the case with me.

Or perhaps you think that if I disagree with their methods, it's because I disagree with the standard of evaluation (rational self-interest). But that's not the case here either.

Or perhaps you think that because I disagree their methods, I must want the opposite in terms of military action. But I think it's quite reasonable to want military action against Iran without agreeing on the specifics.

Whatever the reason, you really need to stop assuming these kinds of things about me. I think it's reasonable, for instance, to think that war is appropriate with a country without assuming we need to nuke them. My opposition to a nuclear confrontation (in the specific case) does not make me a pacifist, or altruist, or anything else.

Further, by presenting it as if we have to choose to either be against military action, or for a specific, aggressive kind of military action, it supports my position that the aggressive policy is rooted in rationalism. It's promoting it as if it were the only alternative to inaction. There's an enormous range of possible actions to take.

You said "We cannot concoct worst case scenarios and use that as an excuse for appeasement." Who said we should? My point, over and over, is that we shouldn't pretend that principles are an excuse to not think, to not look at facts, to not try to understand what's going on. This doesn't mean rationalizing appeasement. It means not blinding ourselves to facts that could make our choices better.

If I question whether direct and overwhelming (possibly indiscriminate) violence is the best answer, I get labelled as promoting appeasement? This is the kind of blinding to facts I have a problem with. The principle that we should eliminate our enemies may be fine, but when an appeal to understanding competing values and alternative methods is equated with inaction, appeasement, or requiring omniscience, it just strengthens my point that the methods are simplistic. Evidently facts are things that get in the way of principled action!?!?

-----------------------

Is life so simple? Before, I mentioned that your ideas on foreign policy only make sense in some happy world where everything is clear and simple. I brought up the fact that our enemies attempt to blur their threat to us as an example. You seem to agree with that. But you follow it with:

If an aggressor nation succeeds in portraying themselves as �ambiguous,� it is likely due to the timidity of the victim.

I think that's an attempt to make things clear and simple again, when it's not. There are ambiguous cases. Sometimes we can present our side with convincing evidence. Sometimes we can't. I didn't use the example of Iraq, but it's fair enough. We had plenty of reason to suspect they were a threat, especially given that they would let our weapons inspectors do their job. We couldn't find the evidence afterwards. If they say, as so many have, that Bush lied as an excuse to get oil, how can we effectively respond?

Right before that, you said:

To our credit, we made clear that there was nothing ambiguous about it�just as there is nothing ambiguous about the thugs running Iran.

It was good that we stood up for ourselves, despite any ambiguity. I think it's important to make it clear that we will defend ourselves even if they manage to create an ambiguous situation. But making that kind of statement does not remove the ambiguity. They could still deny it, and people may believe them. Saying that we aren't going to wimp out because of possible bad press is different from proving that we are actually justified. In this case, I think there was a bit less confusion than normal, but I haven't heard much about how they presented the confrontation.

Another place where things are simple, and you want to focus, is on aggressor nations, and possibly nations that sponsor terrorism. Again, this is simple, and harks back to the good old days of fighting nation-states, where your enemy is clear and in the open, and victory is easily identified.

My problem with looking for these simple cases is that it ignores much of what's going on. We have plenty of enemies out there, and they aren't so conveniently identified and exposed. If the foreign policy principles only make sense in these obvious cases, they aren't very enlightening principles.

----------------------

Rules of Engagement.

I mentioned this before, but you bring it up again. You agree that these could be useful under some specific conditions. Good. But then you go on to say:

I vehemently disagree that the �rules of engagement� binding the hands of our soldiers in Iraq and needlessly placing them in mortal danger is anything but obscenely altruistic.

I already stated that I think the issue is that Iraq is being justified as an altruistic endeavor. You also believe it is an altruistic war. The rules of engagement are just a byproduct of this. I think focusing on them isn't appropriate since the real problem you have is the altruistic war in the first place. Of course the means are going to be consistent with the ends. But its the ends that needs to be argued against.

---------------------

I've tried not to restate my points from earlier posts. I haven't, for instance, gone over again the simplistic assumptions and tried to show that there are competing values and many considerations.

The bulk of your post seems to be the mistaken view that I am promoting inaction by suggesting that there are more alternatives that direct and overwhelming violence. Perhaps part of this is my own reluctance to make specific foreign policy proposals. I readily admit I am not an expert. I also don't want to confuse the philosophical principles with specific proposals, and as I stated before, this is a problem I have with others.

I hope if you check that premise, and see that that's not what I'm promoting, you'll find that we're more in agreement than you think.

Post 164

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 12:09am

Ethan, thanks for taking the time to respond. As that was the primary focus of my post, I'm glad to hear that you appreciated and understood my point. Thanks for clarifying it for me.

Post 165

Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 6:41am

For example, one of the things rules of engagement are designed to do is avoid killing some poor schmuck who just happens to be driving into an area the military is operating in on his regular day-to-day business. Rules of engagement say when someone has demonstrated sufficient threat to justify a response. Too strict rules hurt our soldiers, and too lax rules mean a lot of dead people who did nothing wrong. The right balance is important, and I don't think either extreme is correct. We should not allow a kill them all mentality, and I will also note that this can do pyschological damage to our own people as well, nor can we allow our soldiers to be hamstrung due to excessively strict rules. The unfortunate answer is that there is no black/white answer to this problem in the day and age of the terrorist. It was not even that easy with Nation states, and now it is that much harder.

Post 166

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 12:24am

Joe,

I completely agree with the quotation you cite from Brook and Epstein. We do not need to be omniscient about unknowable future empirical facts to condemn the Iraq fiasco as immoral, and the lack of such omniscience is not rationalism.

��And it will remain so even if, some years or decades down the line, the Iraqis establish a genuinely free country��

If I am driving through a high-crime area and witness ten well-armed gang members surrounding an innocent victim, I am choosing suicide if I get out of my car and try to stop them. I might not die�it is possible that they will decide I look like Chuck Norris and either scatter or ask me for my autograph�but I am engaging in an act of self-sacrifice. I would certainly take reasonable action to help the victim�call the police, try to create a distraction, etc. But I would be immoral if I tried to intervene. The same applies to the decision to try to convert Iraq into a democracy or a free country. There is not sufficient reason to believe that we will be successful to justify such action. That makes our decision to sacrifice American lives in such an effort immoral. Refraining from trying to stop a crime when there is minimal chance of your personal survival is not rationalism. It is prudence.

Brook and Epstein are not denying that it will be terrific if our intervention in Iraq suddenly transforms that toilet bowl into Atlantis. But they are saying that even in that best case scenario, it will not have been worth a single American life. The war will still have been a travesty. Our army exists for the self-defense of the United States, and any military action which jeopardizes the lives of soldiers for any other cause is immoral. Our armed forces are not a global liberation task force.

�Why? If we're benefiting, how is it utterly self-sacrificial? The only way it can be is if we don't benefit after all.�

No. Sacrifice means giving up a greater value for a lesser one. Soldiers agree to put their lives on the line to protect out freedom, not another nation�s freedom or any other outcome that might possibly benefit the United States. Anything else is a sacrifice. The principle involved is Patrick Henry�s: �Give me liberty or give me death.� How many men or women are going to sign up to risk their lives to persuade a foreign power to dispense with trade barriers or improve safeguards on nuclear plants? Both would benefit the U.S., but soldiers are not supposed to die for such reasons

Simply identifying enemies as such is not an adequate base of knowledge to decide how to act. Certainly a call for nukes should not be the default solution to having enemies.

Clearly it isn�t an issue of �having enemies,� but identifying which countries represent a genuine threat to American citizens. You made several comments suggesting that you were not convinced Iran could be singled out as an aggressor requiring defensive action. For example:

Are the people at ARI really informed enough to decide what specific wars we should fight�?

�But how about country like Afghanistan today, or Pakistan, or Iraq, where the government might be friendly to us and trying to get rid of the terrorism problem in their borders (to various degrees), but are unable. Nuke them all? Well, how about Great Britain then? How about European countries that have a large muslim demographic? What about countries like Saudi Arabia that are intellectual supporters of terrorism?

And you make similar references in your last post:

Another place where things are simple, and you want to focus, is on aggressor nations, and possibly nations that sponsor terrorism. Again, this is simple, and harks back to the good old days of fighting nation-states, where your enemy is clear and in the open, and victory is easily identified.

My problem with looking for these simple cases is that it ignores much of what's going on. We have plenty of enemies out there, and they aren't so conveniently identified and exposed. If the foreign policy principles only make sense in these obvious cases, they aren't very enlightening principles.

It was comments of this nature that prompted me to spell out the facts that justify specifically targeting Iran. I am puzzled about why you would want to muddy the waters in this way. In the case of Iran, for the reasons I mentioned, the enemy is �clear and out in the open.� In my prior post, I went on to explain why we would not want to pursue all out war with other nations at this time.

Foreign policy has always been complicated. There have always been plenty of �enemies� which were not so clear. Russia during World War II is an obvious example. They entered the war on the side of Germany, and were clearly a state with aggressive intentions. They only turned against the Nazi�s after Hitler launched an invasion against them. We formed an alliance with them for strictly short-range purposes.

Your comments on the ambiguity of the recent confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz is further evidence that it is important to spell out why Iran is the target here. You include Iraq as another example of alleged ambiguity. I completely disagree. Whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they were clearly not a threat in the way that Iran is, for all the reasons I indicated. Hussein was certainly helping to finance and sponsor terrorism, but he was not directly engaged in exporting Islamic terror. He was unlikely to do much in the way of serious damage on his own.

I agree that I should have addressed the issue of strategy more, and based on your last post, it seems apparent that military methods are really the crux of our disagreement.

The real issue involves certain phrases you use repeatedly: �unrestrained violence to wipe them out� and �overwhelming violence,� which you seem to equate with using nuclear weapons. The following comments by you further underscore that this is the essential issue:

Further, by presenting it as if we have to choose to either be against military action, or for a specific, aggressive kind of military action, it supports my position that the aggressive policy is rooted in rationalism. It's promoting it as if it were the only alternative to inaction. There's an enormous range of possible actions to take.

If I question whether direct and overwhelming (possibly indiscriminate) violence is the best answer, I get labeled as promoting appeasement? This is the kind of blinding to facts I have a problem with. The principle that we should eliminate our enemies may be fine, but when an appeal to understanding competing values and alternative methods is equated with inaction, appeasement, or requiring omniscience, it just strengthens my point that the methods are simplistic. Evidently facts are things that get in the way of principled action!?!?

The bulk of your post seems to be the mistaken view that I am promoting inaction by suggesting that there are more alternatives than direct and overwhelming violence.

But I think it's quite reasonable to want military action against Iran without agreeing on the specifics.

Taken together, these statements clearly imply that you do approve of military action�but not �direct and overwhelming� force. Neither of us has the expertise to recommend specific military tactics, but we can endorse the proper principles to follow. I like the way Ayn Rand defined such principles:

�When a foreign [enemy] initiates the use of armed force against us, it is our moral obligation to answer by force�as promptly and unequivocally as is necessary to make it clear that the matter is nonnegotiable�� (from The Wreckage of the Consensus)

And further:

�When a country is at war, it has to use all of its power to fight and win as fast as possible. .. It cannot send its soldiers to die as cannon fodder, forbidding them to win��
(Ibid)

She does not propose the use of �unrestrained violence.� She does not say that we must �wipe them out.� But she does say that we must use �all of our power,� to the extent necessary, and that it is immoral to sacrifice soldiers by using them as �cannon fodder� when we have technology available that would be much more effective. If winning dictates the use of direct, overwhelming, indiscriminate force, so be it. The alternative is self-sacrifice.

This amounts to doing what is required to neutralize the enemy with minimal military casualties. When you specifically proscribe the use of nuclear weapons, you are claiming to have the expertise to say conventional weapons are more effective at achieving victory while preserving the lives of our soldiers. I am willing to leave such decisions up to the military leaders, as long as they are operating on the premise that winning is the objective and that they are not to waste American lives to preserve enemy lives. If they have alternatives to nuclear weapons that are equally effective at preserving American lives, I certainly have no problem with that.

But �unrestrained� violence to �wipe them out� is not what ARI is advocating. It simply is not necessary. Hirohito remained defiant after Hiroshima, then thought better of it after Nagasaki. No one seriously suggested that we nuke Tokyo after he surrendered. No one recommended that we proceed �unrestrained� to �wipe them out.�

I hope you�re right that our views are not that far apart. Thank you for giving me the chance to explain mine.

Post 167

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 4:15pm

Hi Dennis,

Regarding the Brook and Epstein quote, you offer the suggestion that because actual expectations of establishing anything like a free nation is so slim, even if the results turned out positive, the original act would have been irrational/immoral. That's an interesting interpretation. The question is, are they commenting about the motivation (i.e., sacrifice our lives for the sake of Iraqis), or are they commenting about the results (i.e., that at the end of the day, even if a genuinely free country was created, it still wouldn't be worth the cost). Here you seem to be suggesting that they are focusing on the motivation, as the prospects for success are so slim that it can only be motivated by a desire to sacrifice our soldiers in the name of altruism. I'm not sure I buy that reading of their words, but it's possible that it was worded poorly.

The alternative interpretation, that the benefits are necessarily less than the costs, is what I've argued against from the beginning. The argument there, given the unrealistic, optimistic assumption of a genuinely free Iraq, is that there is no value in that at all. If even the best case offers no value, and the cost was only a single American life, then it is still and necessarily self-sacrificial.

In fact, after offering the other possible meaning of their comments, you go on to make this second argument (strengthening my belief that that was their intention argument). You say that our soldiers fight for our freedom, and nothing else is important. But this goes back to my earlier post. This is the belief that our freedom is not at all intertwined with the freedom of other nations or allies. This is the problem I've been arguing about the whole time. This is the rejection of a harmony of interests between rational nations, and the idea that we can go it alone in a hostile world, without possibly costing us anything.

If we could produce a genuinely free Iraq, with only a single soldiers loss in the process, you claim it still wouldn't be worth it. But this requires believing that a more secure world wouldn't be safer for us. That having another ally wouldn't improve our chances of saving future lives. And that by converting an enemy into a friend, which removes the possibility of future wars with them, we still wouldn't gain anything.

And don't respond that it's incredibly unlikely to produce a genuinely free Iraq, or that the cost is already far higher and can only be expected to be even higher. Those only matter if even in this dreamy, optimistic scenario it is in our interest. Those other factors just reduce the odds of it being a benefit, or reduce the projected benefit, or increase the cost. All of that may be true, and at the end of the day, it may not be worth it. But you are arguing here that it isn't an empirical question at all. You're arguing that there can be no benefit, by definition.

------------------------

Having enemies. You claim that it's not enough to recognize that we have enemies, but deciding which are a genuine threat to American citizens. I agree. But you go on to assume that only Iran is a genuine threat to American citizens. Or at least, that's the only way I can read your comments. You work to convince me that Iran is a threat, as if that settles the matter. It doesn't.

Is Iran the greatest threat? North Korea, as one example, ranks right up there in insanity and capability. Probably more in both. Why not target them first? I'm not trying to debate the point, but you seem to think just identifying Iran as a threat means we have to do something about it right now. But if there are many countries that are a threat, doesn't that mean we have to choose? What criteria do we choose with? Which is the biggest threat in terms of capability? Which is growing in terms of capability? Which is easiest to deal with? Can we do a cost-benefit analysis to figure out which of our actions would have the biggest impact for the smallest cost?

And then what should we do about it? Go to war? Nuke them? Blockade them? Surgical strikes? Encourage the youth to rebel, which has been argued is more sympathetic to the west and want reform. Wait until the youth take control from the older, hardline politicians? And before we figure out the best thing there, notice that each of these has different benefits and costs, and so goes back to the earlier question of which should we deal with first. If surgical strikes to prevent their nuclear program is enough, perhaps it would be better to target someone else first, or to do nothing so we can invest our money in new technologies that will save even more soldier's lives in the future.

Again, I'm only trying to show that this assumption that we can go from identifying enemies to going directly to war, without reference to any other options or expected costs and benefits, is simplistic and wrongheaded.

You argue that Iraq wasn't in the same league as Iran in terms of danger. That's possible. But again, there were and are other factors to consider. A possible nuclear weapons program would have increased their danger considerably, and prevent us from dealing with them effectively in the future. This would be a good reason to deal with them first, even if they are less of a threat. Also, because we were spending resources dealing with the no-fly zone, it could be argued that it was less of a cost to deal with them. Also, the pressure it put on Iran might have been expected to improve the situation there, especially if they had a democracy living next door as a fine example. There are lots of arguments for waging war with Iraq before waging it with Iran. Just as there are many fine arguments for going after Iran before Iraq. I'm not prepared to sit in my armchair and decide that one was philosophically better than the other. Nor am I prepared to let others. Again, this isn't an attempt to convince you that Iraq was a better target. It's simply an attempt to spell out the myriad factors involved.

And I should also note that the continuation of the war that we see today is another question entirely. We have many options, including pulling out now, toppling the current government and running it ourselves, fighting explicitly on a policy of self-interest instead of the frequent altruistic apologies, and so on.

-----------------------

Taken together, these statements clearly imply that you do approve of military action�but not �direct and overwhelming� force.

Actually, that's not true either. I'm not against direct and overwhelming force either. I am simply against going from identification of an enemy to going straight to a policy of "direct and overwhelming force". This is not an automatic and necessary response to an enemy. There are countless options, and when they are ignored as being weak or cowardly or appeasing, it's based on the faulty assumption that the best course of action is always a direct and overwhelming confrontation. We can call this the "macho premise". All enemies should be crushed quickly, immediately, and without consideration to any other factors. And anyone who doesn't agree is arguing for appeasement, cowardice, inaction, etc.

My problem is not with the conclusions, per se. Some sound like attractive options. My problem is with the method. And the method doesn't look so good. It looks like people are trying to define away benefits, ignore options, insult anyone who doesn't agree with immediate and overwhelming force, and claim that any pointing out of possible negative consequences is an argument for inaction. Yes, I've seen people bring up a countless number of points in order to escape making a decision. But I have equal hostility to those who reject facts in the name of being decisive.

------------------------

Your last bit argues for a strategy of direct and overwhelming force. Rand's second statement is right on. Her first is more of a challenge. I agree with the principle, but aren't there other considerations. As they say, the people who were directly responsible for 9/11 were the ones that blew themselves up. What about their support network? They're in hiding. Should we bother to distinguish between them and those innocent people around them? Or, in the name of proving the matter is non-negotiable, should we be very loose about who we bomb? I don't disagree with the principle that we should make sure it is non-negotiable, but I also don't think we shouldn't sacrifice our interests for the sake of principles. Principles should inform us, not control us.

--------------------

Are our views far apart? The main differences seem to be in the methods, which I've already highlighted.

What about the concrete policies? We might not be too far apart there either. I think we need to be a lot tougher with Iran, we need to do whatever is necessary to stop them from building a bomb, and we shouldn't be allowing their interference in Iraq or Lebanon or anywhere else. What specifically does this mean? Maybe it means war. Maybe it means surgical strikes. Maybe it means wiping out their current regime and walking away. Maybe it means encouraging our new "ally" Iraq to wage war against them. I'm open to possibilities.

My bigger concern is the more philosophical issue. We need to start presenting a foreign policy of self-interest. We need to give up the altruism.

The Iraq war, when it first got going, made a lot of sense. But even if the war was in our interests to start, it quickly become muddled in bad philosophy. Altruism became a key ingredient, with people arguing that we had to stay there for the sake of the Iraqi people. Democracy, as in unlimited majority rule, was promoted regardless of whether their Constitution created problems that would prevent them from ever being real allies. Self-interest was avoided in the name of altruism, giving incentives to minimize our benefits and maximize our losses. Even if the war is in our self-interest, we have to recognize that the culture we live in prevents us from ever effectively fighting it from a truly self-interested position.

What would happen if we went to war with Iran? Another attempt to create democracy and sacrifice for them? One thing I've learned with the Iraq situation is that sometime the best decision given a self-interested standard is not the best decision given our altruistic culture. While a direct war with Iran could be argued as the best solution from self-interest position (I'll let others argue that), surgical strikes may end up being a better solution because they're less likely to be corrupted. This is just another place where we have to consider more than just what is the ideal response.

I think the real battle we should be fighting is not a policy debate about how specifically we should wage a war, but a moral debate about the standards used. Yes, we have to use real concrete examples, but the focus should always be pushed towards the standards, not the concrete examples.

Post 168

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 4:31pm

Another excellent post by Joe.

Again, I'm only trying to show that this assumption that we can go from identifying enemies to going directly to war, without reference to any other options or expected costs and benefits, is simplistic and wrongheaded.

Absolutely correct, as the Soviet Union too during the Cold War was identified as the enemy, crushing them meant we in turn would be crushed. Obviously then other options were taken to combat the Soviet threat (proxy wars, military posturing, military spending, espionage, forming alliances, etc)

Post 169

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 6:08pm

"I think the real battle we should be fighting is not a policy debate about how specifically we should wage a war, but a moral debate about the standards used. Yes, we have to use real concrete examples, but the focus should always be pushed towards the standards, not the concrete examples." Joe R.

I was highly sympathetic to your points until this last.

This doesn't merely put the cart before the horse. It neglects why we're making the trip. The purpose of reasoning is to know how to act, concretely. I'm all for abstract moral debates. They're essential. But let's not minimize why they are a value.

Post 170

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 7:13pm

John, thank you and glad you agree.

Jeff, I'm not suggesting we should sever morality from making concrete decisions. But I do think we have a long way to go before rational self-interest is the accepted moral standard in our foreign policy choices. We can argue till we're blue in the face over what exactly to do with Iran, but as long as altruism is the accepted standard, there's no chance to get exactly what we want.

Where do Objectivists have the greatest value add? I think it's in arguing for a proper moral standard, and continually highlighting how other people are using a different standard. Most people agree that our foreign policy is screwed up and has been for years. But there are no real options put forward about how to make it more rational. We can't move towards a rational foreign policy without coming to terms with the standards of judging such a policy.

Not only is the value add high, but it's also a place where we have a chance of affecting the debate. These are powerful ideas that provide a lot of clarity to the different choices.

And of course, if successful, it also promotes the Objectivist ideal of rational self-interest as a personal moral standard.

If we did focus on going to war with Iran, for instance, we'll almost certainly end up with an undesirable result, even if we won the debate. The altruism and pragmatism will spoil the results. It may still be worth the attempt, but at some point we have to recognize that we got to where we are because of philosophy, and that philosophy needs to change.

All in all, I'd prefer to win the war than try to win every battle. It'd be nice to do both, but I don't think that's going to happen. As I stated in an earlier post, I think ARI has sabotaged the message of rational self-interest in foreign policy by putting the focus on their specific policies. Instead of a debate on what standards we should use to judge our policy choices, it's a debate on the choices directly, while the standards are left as chaotic and vague as usual. To the extent the people associated with ARI have managed to bring the standards to the foreground, I think they've really achieved something important.

Post 171

Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 2:31pm

Hi Joe,

You split the possible explanations of the Brook/Epstein quote into two options: (1) motivation/intention, and (2) final result. For the purpose of clarity, I prefer to label these as (1) intentional altruism and (2) unjustified long-term goal. I don�t think it is an issue of either-or. Both are correct, and the second necessitates the first. In other words, even if Iraq were magically transformed into Atlantis as a result of out intervention, the sacrifice of American lives to achieve that end was immoral. And the simple reason is that long-term speculation about possible future dividends cannot justify killing American soldiers.

The best way for me to illustrate that is to modify my earlier example so that the gang members are assaulting someone I know to be a scientist who has discovered a cure for cancer. In that scenario, I would be knowingly committing suicide but also doing something which, if successful, could possibly save my life one day. In other words, giving up my life in the hope that maybe, just maybe, I might somehow survive and reap a terrific benefit down the road.

Obviously my action to intervene would still be sacrificial�and so would the action of the United States in losing a single American life for a possible democratic (or even free) Iraq. Yes, it is possible that a democratic, secular Iraq might make the world a little safer. But that sort of calculus does not, in a rational foreign policy, justify the loss of a single soldier. I am not arguing that there is no benefit to a democratic Iraq. I am arguing that self-defense is the only moral justification for sending a soldier into harm�s way. Tearing down trade barriers and building safer nuclear power facilities might also make the world better off, but spilling the blood of American soldiers for such purposes is totally unjustified.

Brook and Epstein�s TOS article on the neoconservatve agenda (the original source of the quote you mentioned) makes clear that altruism was a key factor in the Bush administration�s decision to pursue war with Iraq, and that�s why that particular war was fundamentally wrong from the start This neocon viewpoint is a resurrection of Wilsonian ideals:

�According to Wilsonianism, America must not restrict itself to going to war when direct threats exist; it must not isolate itself from the rest of the world�s troubles, but must instead engage itself and work with others to create a world of peace and security��

Bush openly endorsed that philosophy in his second inaugural address, saying that American security requires that we bring democracy to all corners of the earth. Furnishing the Iraqi people with a functioning democracy was one of three goals Bush announced in the run-up to �Operation Iraqi Freedom.� Although Bush explicitly endorsed the idea of Americans sacrificing their lives for the �freedom of strangers,� his pundits understood that this notion would only sell if cloaked in the garb of �practical necessity.� Your posts seem to endorse much of the neocon thinking in terms of potential long-range benefits for the United States. Here is Brook and Epstein�s answer regarding such �practicality�:

��America is an independent nation whose well-being requires not that all nations be free, �but simply that they be non-threatening. And this can be readily achieved by instilling in them fear of the consequences of any aggression whatsoever against America.�

Military action is justified only when there is a direct threat; i.e., when it is literally a choice between American lives and the enemy�s lives�right now. When that occurs, soldiers agree to take that risk so that ordinary citizens do not have to. The fact that lives might be saved down the road is irrelevant. The fact that there was minimal likelihood of success in Iraq just made our sacrifice�and the inherent immorality of the war-- much more obvious. The fact that the best possible scenario does not warrant killing a single soldier is the more fundamental issue. Speculation is great for the stock market, but not for military strategy. Life and death is only a legitimate risk when life and death are at stake.

---------------------------------------

I would not deny that the choice of potential military targets is a complex issue, but I certainly do think it is fairly obvious with respect to Iran. North Korea�s economy is in such bad shape that its� two-bit dictator seems likely to cave in for the sake of economic concessions, so I�m hopeful war will not be necessary. I could be wrong, obviously. But in the war on terror, it is clear that Iran is the prime mover. I don�t think that�s complicated at all�and that threat is much more immediate.

Saddam Hussein was never a major player in Islamic terrorism. Yes we needed to neutralize any weapons of mass destruction he might have had, but, once again, the threat was not nearly so immediate as with Iran. I suspect that a few surgical bomb strikes would have been the best way to take out his weapons. We could have bombed suspected targets and advised him that he could make the choice whether to disclose their actual location, making clear that he left us no option. Instead, we used ground troops to topple Hussein�again sacrificing thousands of soldiers needlessly. When we leave, Iraq will soon return to being the exact same threat it was under Hussein. I do not have any specific ideas about how to proceed in Iraq from this point. My only concern is that we do whatever would minimize further loss of American lives.

The enemy we must target to stop militant Islam is the country that openly foments such terror, and that is chiefly Iran. I have heard Yaron Brook (and even Leonard Peikoff) discussing their hopes that there might be an internal overthrow of Iran�s theocratic regime. The problem with that is this: we have no control over when or even if such an overthrow will happen, and we need to put a stop to the terror now. That�s why we need to go to war now�before more Americans die in our streets.

-----------------------------------------

Regarding other considerations beyond war itself, as I said before, I would support bombing of the tribal villages in Pakistan where Al Quaida leaders appear to be hiding under the protection of their fellow villagers. But I do not think that would put an end to terrorism. Strategic bombing raids on Iran�sending them the clear message that we will not tolerate any nation sponsoring terrorist training camps or promoting militant Islamist teachings in their madrassahs and mosques--may sound simplistic to you, but I do not see where you have clearly outlined any feasible options to that. The longer we postpone such action, the greater the likelihood that more Americans will die.

My bigger concern is the more philosophical issue. We need to start presenting a foreign policy of self-interest. We need to give up the altruism.

I could not possibly agree with you more. Beyond that, there may be some validity to your contention that ARI may have been well-advised to emphasize the standard more than the specific policies (although I agree with those policies). I am not crtiticizing what ARI has done, but I would say that is a reasonable argument. As you say,

To the extent the people associated with ARI have managed to bring the standards to the foreground, I think they've really achieved something important.

Post 172

Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 3:08pm

What is this nonsense about sacrificing soldiers?

Dennis Hardin wrote:

Hi Joe,

You split the possible explanations of the Brook/Epstein quote into two options: (1) motivation/intention, and (2) final result. For the purpose of clarity, I prefer to label these as (1) intentional altruism and (2) unjustified long-term goal. I don�t think it is an issue of either-or. Both are correct, and the second necessitates the first. In other words, even if Iraq were magically transformed into Atlantis as a result of out intervention, the sacrifice of American lives to achieve that end was immoral.

Who is sacrificing American soldiers? Just listen to yourself for a moment, these soldiers volunteered themselves, they were not forced to fight this nation's wars. They are not your lives to sacrifice so this is just utter nonsense. You have no right to complain about someone else's choice to risk his life to fight a war anymore so than you have a right to complain about a police officer risking his life to keep our streets safe.

I am not arguing that there is no benefit to a democratic Iraq. I am arguing that self-defense is the only moral justification for sending a soldier into harm�s way.

The self-defense of what? Your rational long term interests. We have a right to defend that, to defend not just our life but that which makes living possible, our property, our right to trade with others freely, our right to live free from violent threats.
(Edited by John Armaos on 1/19, 3:11pm)

Post 173

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 1:44am

Who is sacrificing American soldiers? Just listen to yourself for a moment, these soldiers volunteered themselves, they were not forced to fight this nation's wars. They are not your lives to sacrifice so this is just utter nonsense. You have no right to complain about someone else's choice to risk his life to fight a war�

Holy Fratricide, Batman! Volunteer soldiers are just cannon fodder!!

I have great confidence in your ability to figure this "nonsense" out for yourself.

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 1/20, 2:14am)

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 1/20, 2:18am)

Post 174

Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 5:26pm

Dennis, explain how anyone is sacrificing soldiers who are willingly, that means without coercion, fighting this war? Considering that they are not your lives to complain about them being sacrificed, the only legitimate complaint you may have is your tax dollars being sacrificed as that is taken from you without your consent. But you have no right to show indignation over the supposed sacrifice of lives you have no say in nor can you on their behalf complain about their supposed sacrifice as they willingly chose to fight. You have no say in what people want to do with their own lives.

Post 175

Monday, January 21, 2008 - 10:52pm

John,

But you have no right to show indignation over the supposed sacrifice of lives you have no say in nor can you on their behalf complain about their supposed sacrifice as they willingly chose to fight.

Do you suppose maybe there might be some soldiers who volunteered for the military but do not think we should be in Iraq? I have the right to show indignation about anything that I regard as unjust�and you know perfectly well that a great many volunteers do not agree with the war, but have no choice about going once they have signed up.

Why This Soldier Can�t Support This War

Is it okay with you if I complain on his behalf?

And I have the right to show indignation when those �volunteer� soldiers�most of whom may not have any grasp of the ethical issues involved�have their lives put in jeopardy every day by stupid, altruistic restrictions and �rules of engagement.� And I have the right to show indignation when those same �volunteer� soldiers are sent to die in combat missions that could have been executed with bombing campaigns�but for our government�s altruistic concern for �minimizing innocent casualties� due to Just War Theory.

They are being sacrificed, regardless of whether they may have initially volunteered or not. And you had better believe I am going to get indignant about it.

Post 176

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 6:54am

Dennis you certainly can show indignation over the rules of engagement that endanger a soldier's life needlessly (that is if the rules are not reasonably arrived at, but we need rules of engagement nonetheless) which I'm right there with you showing that indignation, I do believe there are problems with the current rules, but to show indignation over their deaths because you deem the war to be purely altruistic and not in our interests at all, is your confusion, not mine, nor is it a good enough reason to say the war is not in our interests, only a good reason to change the current rules of engagement. Secondly those who volunteered and are complaining about fighting a war that they think is unjust are nothing else but fair weather soldiers. If they didn't like fighting wars they should've thought of that when they signed up for service, they must stand by the consequences of their own actions and take responsibility as an individual who made a free-will choice to enter the military, thus they will not get any sympathy from me. But what would you suggest? That at the drop of the hat any soldier could just renounce his service and get out of the military without any consequence on any whim because he doesn't like being a soldier?

Finally those soldiers who did volunteer, who do believe in the cause of this war, who do think it is in our interests to fight and are fighting for values that they hold dear, could not in anyway be construed as being sacrificed.

Post 177

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 10:45am

John,

If a young person volunteers to join the army because he wants to fight to preserve our freedoms, and then finds himself getting sent to Somalia or Iraq or Vietnam where the government�s purpose has little or nothing to do with self-defense, you would call him a �fair-weather� soldier with no right to complain? That�s giving a blank check to the Pentagon to treat human beings like cannon fodder.

I am not arguing that they engage in mass desertion. But I certainly am defending their right to vocally protest what they are being asked to do. (And mine.)

Finally those soldiers who did volunteer, who do believe in the cause of this war, who do think it is in our interests to fight and are fighting for values that they hold dear, could not in anyway be construed as being sacrificed.

If they are killed or maimed as the result of altruistic �rules of engagement� or �Just War Theory,� as many are and will continue to be, it remains a sacrifice. They have a right to expect that their military leaders will prosecute the war using rational principles and not send them into harm�s way unnecessarily.

Post 178

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 11:07am

The sooner we demonize our enemies and dispense with them the better our chances for survival.

By "demonize", do you mean exaggerate or outright lie about their actual intent and motivations?

By "enemies", do you include all the innocent people who do not bear any ill will, but who, via the process of "demonization", have been lumped in with the actual malefactors? Do you mean "all Muslims in any Muslim-dominated" nation?

By "dispense" do you mean "kill every single one of them"? If so, how do you propose doing that?

If you clarify these ambiguities, then perhaps we can examine whether this proposed course of action will "better our chances for survival."

Post 179

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 11:24am