Reason.com

Print|Email

New at Reason

| January 4, 2005

Brian Doherty explains why Bill Kristol may have to settle for a nice game of MechAssault 2: Lone Wolf to fix his war jones this year.

← Will Eisner, R.I.P. | Main | Goner Gonzales? (Veiled Subscription Pitch) →

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|1.4.05 @ 5:19PM|

"Never mind Mr. and Mrs. America (or Mr. and Mrs. Soldier), who may be tired of the seemingly endless bog down in Iraq..."

Oh really? Then why did Bush just get re-elected? Don't assume Mr and Mrs Anything share your sentiments, Brian. They don't.

Skip|1.4.05 @ 5:19PM|

It would have been a more impactful piece if the author wasn't so convinced that Mr. Kristol is Satan.

|1.4.05 @ 5:28PM|

Forgive me, but I think you are off-message in today's America, Brian. I mean, how the hell are you supposed to have an empire without wars of conquest?

You are living in the past, my man.

|1.4.05 @ 5:29PM|

Wouldn't it be cheaper for Reason to just lay Doherty off and syndicate exile.ru's War Nerd instead?

|1.4.05 @ 5:34PM|

Then why did Bush just get re-elected?

How about cause Bush screwed up, but "Kerry would be worse"? Don't presume to know the curious synaptic processes of Bush voters.

|1.4.05 @ 5:48PM|

Todd Fletcher,

Could be that most them didn't expect the U.S. to invade Syria or Iran or North Korea. Indeed, your statement appears to try some similarity in thinking between Bill "Rambo" Kristol and El Jefe Bush which may not exist. :)

drf|1.4.05 @ 5:53PM|

you mean... you mean...

al kaida/iraq and WMDs were red herrings? there were other agenda at play in going to war in iraq?

horrors.

|1.4.05 @ 6:03PM|

Actually, Gary, if you could read you'd see that that quote mentions only IRAQ.

|1.4.05 @ 6:10PM|

Machiavelli has a saying that, once you take away the generalizations and exaggerations that mark his style, applies here pretty well. "War can not be avoided, only postponed to one's disadvantage." A better way of putting it is if the differences between states are such that they are seriously considering war, then barring some major change (regime change in Iran, say) it becomes difficult, if not impossible to avoid war. Both sides take actions which will benefit them if war comes. These actions anatagonize the other side, either directly, or simply because it convinces the other side that the enemy is planning for war, and so on down the vicious circle. As the saying goes, if you want war, prepare for war, and once the preparation starts (and Iran, at the very least has started them) it becomes a matter of picking your time and place.

|1.4.05 @ 6:28PM|

Todd Fletcher,

I think its fairly clear that I can read. A more useful (and truthful) dig would have been to have attacked me regarding my reading comprehension skills. :)

Of course it appears that Pavel's criticism was infinitely more insightful and useful than mine and I should have left it at that.

|1.4.05 @ 6:29PM|

Mr. White, somehow we managed to avoid war with the Soviet Union for 45 years, allowing proxies and the inevitable "major change" to do the job. Similarly, we have avoided war with China, notwithstanding major disputes for decades (such as our formerly-beloved Taiwan).

How has Iran started "preparations" for war?--because they want to avoid being the eternal lackies of a nuclear Israel/US, God's old and new chosen peoples? The nerve!

North Korea, on the other hand, has taken aggressive steps, repeatedly, towards it's neighbors. What's going on now is the long, slow art of diplomatic line-drawing, which may or may not work.

gaius marius|1.4.05 @ 6:30PM|

"War can not be avoided, only postponed to one's disadvantage."

of course, mr white, that's because machiavelli wrote in a perverted world of italian city-states which had decayed into total anarchy -- a true hobbesian natural state of war, all against all.

outside of that context, that maxim is merely silly, and the goal of civlization to avoid that context.

however, i must say that such a condition -- anarchy, war of all against all -- seems to be exactly what the neoconservative nihilists like kristol desire to immanentize, whether intentionally or not.

gaius marius|1.4.05 @ 6:31PM|

"... the goal of civilization is to avoid that context." apologies!

|1.4.05 @ 6:33PM|

It's that Pre-Emptive strategy. (actually only a coward or a bully uses).

I guess if I were on the "axis of evil", I would be tooling up for a gunfight.

Warren|1.4.05 @ 7:19PM|

Bill Kristol has been completely wrong about everything.

David Rossie|1.4.05 @ 7:24PM|

Brian,

I share your relief over the marginalization of the Weekly Standard warmongering. But are we merely in a hiatus between pre-emptions? One war per term might be achievable, especially with another terrorist attack.

|1.4.05 @ 7:31PM|

One war per term might be achievable, especially with another terrorist attack.

Sometimes I wonder if they're planning to wag some dogs...

|1.4.05 @ 8:06PM|

We avoided war with the soviet union only because of the nuclear danger and luck. We came close in 1961 and 1963, and then in 1989 the soviet union collapsed. We have avoided war with China so far, but probably can not much longer. China's millitary believes that conflict with the united states is inevitable, and my whole point is about self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course we can avoid war both with China, and Iran by withdrawing all of our troops from the world and reverting to isolationism. Maybe this would be a good thing for us, but i seriously doubt it will be for anybody else. As for the perverted world of politics in rennaisance Italy, is the current middle east not a similiar snake pit?

|1.4.05 @ 8:09PM|

Another point, Iran has started preparing for war by launching a proxy war with Iraq and by repeatedly threatening the destruction not just of our Israeli allies but of the United States as well. We're the great Satan, remember? And then there's Hizbollah, the troubles in the Herat region of Afghanistan, their diplomatic efforts to isolate us....

|1.4.05 @ 8:12PM|

Of course we can avoid war both with China, and Iran by withdrawing all of our troops from the world and reverting to isolationism.

Um, you seem to be suggesting that we need to fight a war against China. A war against a nuclear power, not to mention a major trading partner.

OK...

Maybe this would be a good thing for us, but i seriously doubt it will be for anybody else.

Whether or not isolationism is a good thing for us, I find it interesting that you simply dismiss national self-interest as a concern that pales compared to the needs of the rest of the world.

Let's have some fun here: "We could always cut taxes and eliminate the social safety net of welfare. Maybe that would be a good idea for some people, but not for other Americans. So we should leave welfare programs in place."

Would you care to argue against that statement?

|1.4.05 @ 8:16PM|

w.e. white,

Even if were to accept your proposition it would still require accurate categorization, which you have yet to perform.

gaius marius|1.4.05 @ 8:23PM|

don't be paranoid, mr white. iran is no more a threat to us than pakistan or india or israel or france. another nation with a nuke. breathe easy -- soon they'll all have 'em. the genie is out of the bottle.

such paranoia served to make us the great satan in the first place in iran, going back to 1952 and mossadeq. we clearly started this -- or rather, picked it up from the british. when we started fucking with their sovereign affairs, they couldn't have put the united states on a globe.

We have avoided war with China so far, but probably can not much longer

again, slow breathing... china wants trade, not a war it can't win. so long as we don't stay too high on our horse, insisting that its our god-given right to micromanage kazakhstan but that china has no right to administrate the uighurs, we would be fine and make china a partner.

as it is, with them holding trillions in treasury debt, we'd be smart to mind our p's and q's.

As for the perverted world of politics in rennaisance Italy, is the current middle east not a similiar snake pit?

the current middle east is far from the anarchic battleground of 15th c northern italy -- though its closer since 2003. if we keep to the principles of western civilization (instead of abandoning them), there is much we would accomplish.

|1.4.05 @ 8:24PM|

I made the point about isolationism benefitting americans but not the rest of the world, not because i believe it to be true, i believe all will suffer, it was meant to tweak the nose of leftists who are reluctant to use american power to support american interests, but are more than willing to have us help others. I actually approve of both uses of power when they can be effective. And I do not want a war with China. It is a terrifying possibility, and I would like to find a way out of it. Short of isolationism, i just don't see one now. The Chinese government has replaced Communism with hyper-nationalistic fascism. Its one child policies has led to a surplus of boys in its younget policies, and these boys will soon become young men, violent disruptive and likely to have their violence and disruptions turned against outsiders. We still live in a Hobbesian world internationally. We can't just pretend trade and tourism and tv will bring peace and love.

Mike|1.4.05 @ 8:26PM|

We have avoided war with China so far, but probably can not much longer. China's millitary believes that conflict with the united states is inevitable, and my whole point is about self-fulfilling prophecies.

I think Wal-Mart alone will keep that from happening. Who would make our little "support our troops" car magnets if we went to war with China?

|1.4.05 @ 8:35PM|

If China is so concerned with trade, why does it reserve the right to invade one of its biggest trading partners? Remember Taiwan? Man doesn't live on bread alone, you know. Or money. Governments, and the people who support them have other goals too. National pride. Revenge. Xenophobic nationalism. Think this describes the USA? Maybe it does, but it describes China better.

|1.4.05 @ 8:36PM|

Because I know the paranoia of many people, I should make the following clarification. I am, to all intents and purposes, an atheist. I'm not some crusader looking to spread the word of god. I quoted Jesus in my last post, not because he's the son of god, but because he coined a good phrase.

|1.4.05 @ 8:40PM|

Why do these dudes have such a stiffy for war anyway? The neocons I mean. I remember before 9/11 Kristol and the rest seemed to have it bad for China. That, for the reasons mentioned above, wasn't going to happen but luckily we got an excuse to fool around in the middle east.

I can't think of any rational reason (like resources) so the war jones seems to involve some desire for the moral clarity and sense of direction that allegedly comes from armed conflict, after the soft, decadent, prosperous 90s. They were called "national greatness" conservatives before "neocons" if I recall.

We don't have the ground forces to invade anyone else for a while, but I wouldn't put it past these jokers to bomb something.

|1.4.05 @ 8:44PM|

People who advocate war, must want war? Did Roosevelt and Churchill want war? Or did they see war as inevitable? Mr. Kristol, Me, and many other people could be wrong about the dangers we face. We can be blinded by ideology, fear, ignorance, or just wrong honestly. But I don't get a hard-on for killing people. I don't want to kill people, or to have people killed in my name. I simply don't let what I want colour (completely) what I believe to be true.

|1.4.05 @ 8:50PM|

w e white-

Maybe Kristol doesn't exactly want war. But they always identify whoever the greatest threat is at the moment and conclude that we have no choice but war. Being aware of threats is a good thing. Concluding that all-out war is always necessary is at best pessimism and at worst bloodlust. Not every threat merits a war.

|1.4.05 @ 8:54PM|

To put it another way, there will always be a threat out there somewhere. If every threat merits war then we will always be at war. What did Madison say about preserving liberty during a state of perpetual war?

|1.4.05 @ 9:02PM|

Mr. Madison was right to wish to avoid perpetual war. But a cursory look at human hustory suggests that that's not necessarily possible. Again, I should make clear, would could probably avoid any war, at least in the near to intermediate future, by simply reverting to isolationism. We'll suffer, but less than other people, and the suffering will be economic, not millitary. If you want that, say, so. If not, explain how we can stay involved in the world, try to mitigate its problems, and avoid war.

|1.4.05 @ 9:20PM|

"Who would make our little "support our troops" car magnets if we went to war with China?"

This is super funny.

|1.4.05 @ 9:20PM|

"We'll suffer, but less than other people, and the suffering will be economic, not millitary."

Why will we suffer economically ? Is this a reference to an alternate future where China seizes all Saudi oil-fields or what ?

|1.4.05 @ 9:26PM|

If not, explain how we can stay involved in the world, try to mitigate its problems, and avoid war.

So basically, Mr. White. The only positions one can hold is isolationism, or the Bush doctrine.

Silly me, and here I thought the point of using America's hegemony on a global scale was to keep us out of wars.

Regardless of your view on the most effective way to achieve this, you are prima facie not achieving it when your first response to every ostensible threat to peace is war.

|1.4.05 @ 9:39PM|

as it is, with them holding trillions in treasury debt, we'd be smart to mind our p's and q's.

Easy there, Captain Hyperbole.

I'll give you a chance to restate the amount of debt held by China, allowing for the fervor you had yourself worked up into over someone mentioning Machiavelli allowing you to mention Hobbes.

|1.4.05 @ 9:42PM|

We can quote Machiavelli, and we can say we don't WANT war, but the world would be a better place if we understood war simply doesn't WORK.
At least it doesn't truly accomplish the long-range goals any well-meaning person has.

I'd be willing to admit that there may have been a time when a war could have worked, but that would have been thousands of years ago when the world was much more disconnected. Even then, I'm not at all sure.

Imagine the good that would result from half the thought that goes into planning for war going instead into ways of avoiding conflict.

If it's good quotes that we want, check out AntiWar.com several times a day. Dubya should cancel his subscription to Weekly Standard and get to know Justin Raimondo on-line. It would save our tax money too. (Not to mention what he could save by not being a warmonger.)

Drawingblood.com|1.4.05 @ 9:52PM|

Props for referencing the War Nerd from Exile.ru, who does have a stiffie for war but nevertheless opposes sucker schemes like this neocon wannabe Iron Chancellorshipping.

Anyway Kristol makes me nauseous, as does the attitude that "US interests" should actually undergird one's reasoning about world affairs. Uhm, I guess cuz we're like the free country and "if Rome falls, what is safe?" or some softheaded variation on this very well-worn confidence trick? Did I miss the polsci class and thus am locked forever in hopeless naivete? National brotherhood's about as phony as Jesus' resurrection, and unfortunately as widely credited.

Hopefully Iran and North Korea are going to lighten up, but war's hardly "inevitable." Bombing Syria I can see, but they better be prepared for diminishing returns and real earnestlike deployments of Syrian insurgents to make everything even messier. And I don't buy that $3000/month (!) garbage about poor, poor Syrian soldiers BRIBED into irsurgency by the nefarious jihad cabal. Like the War Nerd said, "When you lie to other people, it can work. When you lie to yourself, you pay. We're going to be paying for a long, long time."

|1.4.05 @ 9:58PM|

"Another point, Iran has started preparing for war by launching a proxy war with Iraq"

Though Iran is definitely up to no good in Iraq, mostly through its covert and not-so-covert machinations involving the Shia Islamist parties, they could cause a lot more mayhem right now if they wanted to. And I think a big reason for the Bush Administration's kid-gloves approach to the Iranian nuclear weapons program has been its recognition of this fact.

It'll be interesting to see if the Administration changes its approach to dealing with the mullahs following the January 30 elections, assuming that they're held on time.

|1.4.05 @ 10:51PM|

w.e. white,

Even if were to accept your proposition it would still require accurate categorization, which you have yet to perform.

Eric II,

Assuming most of the candidates aren't assasinated.

|1.4.05 @ 10:58PM|

w.e. white,

The thing about war is that it is a rather unpredictable affair. I am sure that the Athenians thought war with Sparta would lead mostly to the suffering of Spartans; in the end it brought the Athenians to their knees. Of course the Spartans ended up getting the pointy of the stick after a time too.

And the PRC isn't fascist. Do learn to use terminology in at least a remotely rationale fashion.

Finally, by your binary, hyper-nationalist rhetoric you are indeed proving yourself to be a fan of war, even though you deny such. Total war and absolute peace are not the only choices between two countries and never have been, though you seek to argue otherwise.

|1.5.05 @ 12:47AM|

Writing of "wars": anyone else notice USC routing Oklahoma? Wow.

|1.5.05 @ 1:02AM|

Bill Kristol's first loyalty is to the Israeli government. This fealty has a long pedigree. Note that after the 1996 report "A Clean Break" written by Kristol and other neocons for the Israeli government, they start a campaign to put forth the report's goals laid out for the Israeli government as something America must do in its own interest. Fabrication and exaggeration of Saddam's WMD capacity are part of this campaign.

"Only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq . . ." the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) founder Kristol wrote in another 1997 report. Kristol's Weekly Standard magazine is owned by News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox News Channel.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/011604Leopold/011604leopold.html

|1.5.05 @ 1:21AM|

Kristol has scant loyalty to conservatives. Back when Bush was looking as if he might be vulnerable, Kristol said: "If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," to the New York Times. The Weekly Standard editor added that the neo-conservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neo-liberalism!

|1.5.05 @ 3:50AM|

As a libertarian, I approve of the private USC defeating the government-owned Oklahoma. :)

Kevin

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 9:24AM|

But a cursory look at human hustory suggests that that's not necessarily possible.

my god, mr white. you're a nietzschean too.

i've encountered a flight of trigger-happy paranoid nihilists on this board, and i wonder to what extent it is a component of the libertarian movement in practice -- even if it isn't part of the orthodoxy as many of its practicioners see it. it seems many are ready to use unrestrained liberty to induce war of all against all out of sheer insecure delusion.

Easy there, Captain Hyperbole.

lol -- ok mr goiter -- instead of "trillions" i'll substitute "hundreds of billions" -- about $450 billion in dollar-denominated assets, of which a couple hundred billion is treasury. but of what difference the zeros? it's easily a debilitating amount in any case which could easily cripple the american financial system if used to that end -- or even unintentionally.

i'm afraid that they're much more important to us, as a practical matter, than taiwan -- much to taiwan's nervousness, i'm sure.

but if you're an unreasoning paranoid ideologue, that might not prevent you from going to war with them anyway. especially if your name was bill kristol.

|1.5.05 @ 9:28AM|

not to change the subject, but how much fun would it be to pwn kristol's n00b a$$ in MechAssault2?

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 9:43AM|

If not, explain how we can stay involved in the world, try to mitigate its problems, and avoid war.

by dropping the delusion that every third-world border crossing is an affront to the pride and heroic glory of Our Great Nation.

our country is in the grips of one of the great popular delusions of modern history -- not at all short of the racial/aryan delusion that beset europe in the century between 1840-1940.

people like yourself, mr white, have to ween yourself from the narcissism that allows you to believe that every action of every nation is part of a conspiracy against you -- or concerns you at all -- simply because it may affect you in some small way.

similarly, the idea that the affairs of all men can or should be controlled and made "noble" by issuing imperial decrees from washington if the military stick is large enough -- it isn't true, and you'll find that a large-enough military stick is never large enough, and serves only to consume you.

there is a different way: put your army away until someone is massing theirs on your borders; behave with prudence, integrity, and above all self-limitation; and help instead of manipulate.

this is not a fairytale utopia; bad things will happen, and wars will be fought. but they can be much fewer and farther between if lies are not glossed over and quickly accepted as the rationale for paranoid heroic action.

|1.5.05 @ 10:21AM|

lol -- ok mr goiter -- instead of "trillions" i'll substitute "hundreds of billions" -- about $450 billion in dollar-denominated assets, of which a couple hundred billion is treasury. but of what difference the zeros?

Just short of $200 billion in treasury assests. What of the difference in zeros? Are you serious? 1. Facts, sir. You seem to be a guy that is quick to jump on people for misstatements. I was correcting a gross misstatement.

And if you can't see the difference in owning "trillions" and two hundred billion, I'm not sure we should continue. Your original statement increased their treasury holdings by at least a factor of ten!

|1.5.05 @ 10:42AM|

I think gaius seriously misunderstands the "popular delusion" that underlies support for the war.

That popular delusion, at least in my case, boils down to an acceptance of war in Iraq as the least bad alternative that we were faced with.

Consider Alternative 1: The ever-popular do nothing, or at least do nothing different. There is no reason to believe that continuing to treat the Mideast with kid gloves via the UN or other purely diplomatic means, would have done anything to change the fundamental dynamics of the region, and thus would have done nothing to reduce the continued export of terror from the Mideast to the US and the West.

Perhaps this export of terror was tolerable when it was only a handful of dead folks every so often, but I submit it was no longer tolerable after 9/11, and with Iranian or Paki nukes, and Baathist germs and chemicals, on the horizon. Make no mistake - do nothing would result, in the fullness of time, in the full panoply of WMD in the hands of governments with long histories of supporting terror attacks against the US.

Perhaps Alternative 2: Give the terrorists what they want, at least in part. Throw Israel to the wolves, withdraw all military forces from the region, and allow the Baathists, the Palis, and the Islamists free reign. How rewarding terrorism is supposed to reduce terrorism is unclear to me, to say the least.

That leaves Alternative 3: Do something to change the dynamic in the Mideast, to convert it from its current dsyfunctional, terror-exporting ways into something less dangerous to us. Once you land on Alternative 3 as the least bad alternative, then the strategic case for going into Iraq is well on its way to being made.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 10:45AM|

Your original statement increased their treasury holdings by at least a factor of ten!

something china itself may be forced to do if they intend to maintain their dollar peg, fwiw, mr goiter. indeed, at the current pace, they will reach $1.1 trillion by 2008.

i don't expect them to, of course, continue what sumners called "the financial balance of terror" up to that level.

in any case, the point remains: war with china is a fiscal disaster of the first order for all parties, and cannot be countenanced. it is in precisely this manner that trade helps ensure peace -- and we should embrace it, because such assurance is perhaps the only silver lining in the truly unfathomable debt we americans have amassed.

of course, that didn't stop the great powers. the trust in men to behave rationally is obviously misplaced.

|1.5.05 @ 10:46AM|

something china itself may be forced to do if they intend to maintain their dollar peg, fwiw, mr goiter. indeed, at the current pace, they will reach $1.1 trillion by 2008.

Which is still half as much as your original statement.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 11:19AM|

war is very rarely the "least-bad" alternative, mr dean -- and never when your war is elective.

yet you contend that it was not elective:

Perhaps this export of terror was tolerable when it was only a handful of dead folks every so often, but I submit it was no longer tolerable after 9/11, and with Iranian or Paki nukes, and Baathist germs and chemicals, on the horizon.

here we see that paranoid delusion in full flower. these things never existed, apparently, before 9/11 -- indeed, external threat of some measure of destruction never existed before -- therefore, after 9/11, a state of total destruction of any possible external threat, however contrived, is necessary.

the rationale is that for the total annihilation of the world which you cannot gain total control -- on the presumption that, through annihilation, one can gain total control of what remains.

truly, once the rationale is adopted, killing your neighbor for a lack of control over him is only a matter of degrees away -- it is the rationale of totalitarianism. the spread of technology is inevitable; all will eventually have access to nuclear weapons and far worse (with the advance of technology), and this is a matter of time alone. how do you mean to pursue your policy of kill-and-control then, mr dean?

this is so futile a conception of life that it beggars my powers of consdescension. only in a society so antisocial as ours could it appeal to anyone. it is based in the utterly insecure complete mistrust of all who do not agree with you in entirety, and it is a path to self-immolation.

Give the terrorists what they want, at least in part. Throw Israel to the wolves, withdraw all military forces from the region, and allow the Baathists, the Palis, and the Islamists free reign. How rewarding terrorism is supposed to reduce terrorism is unclear to me, to say the least.

the implication, of course, is that terrorism has no goals and is not rational -- as opposed to our warfare, which is (incorrectly) presumed rational and to have an endpoint.

to the contrary, islamist insurgency should be seen to derive popular sympathy because it is a means to a goal: self-determination from western/american interference. what popular support for islamism detests is not the west, but the constant aggression of the west in their internal affairs. the manifesto of al-qaeda is not irrational: it has material goals that could be met.

the same cannot be said of our rationale as you stated it above, mr dean.

note that some fundamentalists themselves have delusional goals -- no one can deny it. but the power of al-qaeda is, as with any insurgency, in its popular support. that support is goal-oriented and limited.

it is only if one accepts these tenets:

1) that any possible threat, however contrived, must be either controlled or destroyed as soon as possible because no possible threat is acceptable nor can be tolerated;

2) that the hundreds of millions of muslim people, in their support of terrorism, are irrational, violent and without goal or limitation

that what we're doing can be seen as the "least-bad" option.

the first is the ranting of a panaoid; the second is the musing of a xenophobe and a misanthrope.

|1.5.05 @ 11:19AM|

"my god, mr white. you're a nietzschean too."

Have you ever actually read Nietzsche's work, or are you just going by what others have written about him?

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 11:22AM|

Have you ever actually read Nietzsche's work, or are you just going by what others have written about him?

lol -- i have read some of him, mr eric, and found him to be internally consistent but plainly insane. i've since read both supportive and contrary criticism, and agree largely with the contrary.

|1.5.05 @ 11:27AM|

Do something to change the dynamic in the Mideast, to convert it from its current dsyfunctional, terror-exporting ways into something less dangerous to us.

That sounds like social engineering to me.

The difference between social engineering and self-defense is that a self-defender says "This guy might attack me, I'd better arm myself and be alert and stop him if he gets close." Or "This guy is currently trying to attack me, I will counter-attack so that he can't hurt me." A social engineer says "One of these guys might attack me, I have to change the dynamics of the situation." This objective is much more vague, and so harder to achieve because you're not really sure when you've achieved it or (perhaps even more importantly) when you're failing.

In any other area, the hawks on this forum would scoff at a project that has no clear metric of success or failure. But when it comes to attacking the Middle East, suddenly they're cool with an unaccountable program.

Mike H.|1.5.05 @ 11:28AM|

But RC Dean, don't you see, if only we'd stop being so paranoid and if only we'd spend more time figuring out ways to prevent conflict, then our enemies would appreciate our sincerity and respond in kind.

You see, all one must do is assume that everyone else in the world thinks as we do: War is always bad and can almost always be avoided, if only we care enough. And should our pollyannish world view ever be shattered by, say, Islamic extremist attacks for the past several decades, we should just turn a blind eye and pretend it didn't happen. (Besides, it's all due to our support of warmongering Israel and the Jooos!)

And if you disagree with this, then you're obviously a warmongering neocon fool who thirsts only for blood and empire. Or you're just stupid. Oh, and Kristol likes Israel, so that should of course automatically disqualify anything he has to say.

I really expected a lot from [I]Reason[/I] and its commenters than the mindless name-calling I've seen thus far. Not from all, mind you, but from some.

I thought we were supposed to at least retain a modicum of reasoned thought and debate? WTF, people?

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 11:35AM|

You see, all one must do is assume that everyone else in the world thinks as we do: War is always bad and can almost always be avoided, if only we care enough. And should our pollyannish world view ever be shattered by, say, Islamic extremist attacks for the past several decades, we should just turn a blind eye and pretend it didn't happen.

this is of course a useless reduction of reality with an agenda, and is of almost no reasoned merit.

i don't think anyone believes that war is universally avoidable. i certainly don't. sometimes, the negative-sum game is necessary. but that is so far from where we are w/r/t the mideast that it is barely worth bringing up.

this is especially ridiculous when you consider that "changing the dynamic" in the fashion we are is probably increasing the potential of hatred against us throughout the region. indeed, like the actions of an abusive sociopath, it is fundamentally based in the notion that others will all "think like us" if we only intimidate and batter them a bit.

|1.5.05 @ 11:40AM|

I thought we were supposed to at least retain a modicum of reasoned thought and debate? WTF, people?

Only if you believe in urban planning, can only discuss any topic as to how it relates to long-dead men with seriously-flawed philosophies, see anyone that finds war acceptable in certain circumstances as a pigdog, thinks that the US is the biggest evil in the world today, or can just randomly make statements as "fact" when they aren't even close to being true.

If any of these apply to you, immediately take the intellectual and moral high ground here. Anything else and you and moron.

|1.5.05 @ 11:42AM|

sorry. you are a moron.

hehe

|1.5.05 @ 11:43AM|

Kevin,

Thanks, Good point. You just reminded me of a reason why I should've cared about that game, and now I'm glad that USC won. But Sunday it's Go Broncos! [privately owned] :)

Mike H.|1.5.05 @ 11:44AM|

Heh.

I realize, gm, that the paragraph you quoted was reductionist. That's the point I'm making here: the world is not, as we all know, black and white. As such, what is and what is not self-defense is surely not so clear-cut as we'd all like it to be.

|1.5.05 @ 11:45AM|

Gaius,

While I agree in principle with your post, terrorism is necessarily irrational. The rational man does not achieve any value by wonton destruction of innocent people. What is the genesis of a terrorist's value system?

|1.5.05 @ 11:48AM|

Much as I love my alma mater, before anybody assumes that they are a champion of the private sector, once upon a time USC committed one of the greatest eminent domain abuses of all time:

A long time ago, the USC campus wasn't enclosed, and was much smaller. There was one store whose owner refused to sell to USC (USC wanted to expand). A deal was struck with the city council: USC became a public school temporarily. The city council used eminent domain to shut down the store. Then, in a fit of newfound respect for the private sector, USC was privatized. The case went all the way to the state supreme court where, conveniently, there were a few USC Law alumni on the bench.

Don't mess with the Trojan family. We'll mess you up real good!

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 11:57AM|

sorry. you are a moron.

hehe

lol -- insult me better! :)

|1.5.05 @ 11:58AM|

wellfellow,

One side's "wonton destruction" is the other side's "breaking some eggs to make an egg-foo-young." I'm sure there are folks who are making the case that our invasion of Iraq represents wanton destruction, indicates that we are hopelessly irrational, and that we must be fought until we are all exterminated. They're wrong.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 12:00PM|

indicates that we are hopelessly irrational, and that we must be fought until we are all exterminated. They're wrong.

we're all hopelessly irrational, mr c -- we're human. it's being hopelessly heroic that i object to.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 12:13PM|

What is the genesis of a terrorist's value system?

mr wellfellow, i agree insofar as the genesis of terrorism is that of warfare -- murder is murder, let us agree. it is appropriate very, very rarely.

do i think muslims are justified in supporting murder? it is questionable, imo. in the modern context of oil, they have been suffering the machinations of western armies of invasion and occupation for a hundred years. at some point, they must realize that there will be no self-determination (in the immediate sense, not the abstract) short of murder or the end of oil.

the question is a moral one. is freedom -- or at least self-determination -- worth killing for? most americans would answer yes -- which is why i find it so ridiculous that we refuse to understand why al-qaeda might be popular in the mideast. but i am indeterminate.

on the other hand, do i think americans justified in supporting murder? there is no history of arab armies occupying new york. there is no instance of arab despots manipulating our congress. no american president was ever assassinated by an arab intelligence service. i can think of no instance in which arab governments have conspired -- short of one trade embargo -- to work against the happiness of western citizens.

so my answer in this case is more clearly No, we are not justified. moreover, i can see quite clearly that the end of the greater degree of our insecure machinations would save us from having to seek justification.

|1.5.05 @ 12:13PM|

War is always bad and can almost always be avoided, if only we care enough. And should our pollyannish world view ever be shattered by, say, Islamic extremist attacks for the past several decades, we should just turn a blind eye and pretend it didn't happen.

Of course not. We should conquer a country that had nothing to do with those attacks. Makes perfect sense to me.

|1.5.05 @ 12:20PM|

"lol -- i have read some of him, mr eric"

Then I'm sure you realize that Nietzsche despised mindless nationalist jingoism, and in fact considered its rise within Germany to represent the decaying of German culture.

And I'm sure you also realize that Nietzsche hated democracy with a passion, and would no doubt be contemptuous of the notion of fighting wars in the name of extending democracy to alien cultures that have little history of practicing it.

drf|1.5.05 @ 12:21PM|

all this talk about "rationality" is sure loaded. picking a loaded term to set the enemy at a lower position can lead to underestimating the situation.

also, calling terrorists "irrational" ignores what their goals are, and that their goals are incompatible with their targets'.

Calling SH "irrational" was part of the WMD justification. "He's irrational. MAD won't apply to him. We'd better attack", when in reality, he was a shrewd politican who needed to protect his weak ass from probably many of the same insurgents who are going after the US now. He had to pretend he was powerful for his very survival. Just cuz he guessed wrong about what the US would do doesn't make his strategy any less "rational".

Finally, Michael Collins et al are often given credit for being fathers of modern terror. Are they in the same category as the insurgents? Were they irrational? Were the communist insurgents in Germany or Poland who employed the same methods "irrational"? Were the members of the Holger Danske Group that blew up the big ammo dump, along with a few blocks of copenhagen "irrational"?

|1.5.05 @ 12:25PM|

"the question is a moral one. is freedom -- or at least self-determination -- worth killing for? most americans would answer yes -- which is why i find it so ridiculous that we refuse to understand why al-qaeda might be popular in the mideast."

So most Americans would justify killing innocent Arab civillians as retribution for what some governments and terrorists do?

Ironically, this kind of blame-yourself-first navel-gazing is exactly the kind of thing you might expect to find in large quantities in a truly decadent civilization.

Mike H.|1.5.05 @ 12:29PM|

I don't think terrorists are, on the whole, irrational at all. They have their goals, and they use the means most readily available to them to achieve their goals. It just so happens that they've realized that the best way to wage war against stronger military powers (Israel, the West) is via terror.

Terrorism is simply the natural evolution of warfare, and has been around for quite a while. I think to call terrorists irrational simply because they're terrorists is assuming too much, and actually quite dangerous.

|1.5.05 @ 12:29PM|

So most Americans would justify killing innocent Arab civillians as retribution for what some governments and terrorists do?

I don't know if most Americans would justify it, but most Americans at least accepted it when they supported the invasion of Iraq.

|1.5.05 @ 12:38PM|

This thread should resume after we've been able to separate stink from shit.
In other words, able to separate terrorist-caused hysteria from a rational justification for the US to go to war.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 12:48PM|

Then I'm sure you realize that Nietzsche despised mindless nationalist jingoism, and in fact considered its rise within Germany to represent the decaying of German culture.

indeed -- but i don't think mr white was advocating nationalism as much as he was the noble struggle. i don't read all that much jingoistic pride. i read an lack of sympathy for all besides ourselves, and an assumption of noble virtue in our acts.

that he might conflate hegelian (!) hubristic nationalism and nietzschean idealism to arrive at the notion of the united states as a Great Nation seems likely -- but his premise is nietzschean nonetheless.

And I'm sure you also realize that Nietzsche hated democracy with a passion, and would no doubt be contemptuous of the notion of fighting wars in the name of extending democracy to alien cultures that have little history of practicing it.

it begs the question: is that what we're doing -- or is that how we're justifying what we're doing? i submit it is perhaps both -- but the nietzschean current in both our neoconservative leadership and (less purely) our public mindset is undeniable.

fwiw, i would agree that it has nothing positive to say about the future of democracy here.

|1.5.05 @ 12:51PM|

"I don't know if most Americans would justify it, but most Americans at least accepted it when they supported the invasion of Iraq."

While most Americans considered it inevitable that there would be civillian casualties during the war, I think there are two important differences:

1. The American military's objective wasn't to kill Arab civillians, but to minimize the number of civillian casualties while achieving its military objectives.

2. In the eyes of many Americans, the civillian casualties were morally excused by the fact that a regime that had murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people was being deposed.

I think the question of whether the ends justifies the means is still highly debatable (never mind the question of whether this war was in our national interests). But I think these differences make it hard to draw a comparison with the actions of Al-Qaeda and their ilk.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 1:06PM|

So most Americans would justify killing innocent Arab civillians as retribution for what some governments and terrorists do?

mr eric, aq's popular sympathy in the muslim world lies in both its material principles and emotional appeal for self-determination. it seems to me that we did no differently in 1776, probably with less justification.

to the extent that they are perceived to have since killed muslims, they have damaged that sympathy greatly -- this is part of gilles kepel's notion, often cited on h&r, and i agree with that. but the nature of the sympathy they retain is still as a vehicle to self-determination.

if the shoe were on the other foot -- which it is not, granted, but as an analogy by which we might understand -- and arab military bases were located in your capital cities, arab armies deposed the murderous governor of new york but killed thousands of innocents and imploded infrastructure without decent plans to rebuild in doing so, presidents were arrested or assassinated and replacements put in as heads of arab puppet governments repeatedly -- all this for decades on end -- i would be extremely surprised if americans would not hate arabs abjectly and without distinction, and advocate all manner of subterfuge and slaughter. would you?

this stands apart from the moral question as to whether murder would be right under even these circumstances, but i do not doubt that many millions would support it out of hand.

|1.5.05 @ 1:08PM|

"i read an lack of sympathy for all besides ourselves, and an assumption of noble virtue in our acts"

Nietzsche was big on the noble virtue meme, but it's something of a stretch to say that his value system lacked sympathy for others. He was just deeply cynical of the idea of sympathy acting as the primary motivation behind a person's behavior. Ayn Rand, of course, took this idea to an illogical extreme, even as she refused to give credit to its source (she was quite the Peter Keating here - irony abounds).

"that he might conflate hegelian (!) hubristic nationalism and nietzschean idealism to arrive at the notion of the united states as a Great Nation seems likely -- but his premise is nietzschean nonetheless."

By that standard, just about any action can be described as Nietzschean, provided that it's driven by a sense of idealism and nobility. Never mind that the objectives could be ones whose value Nietzsche would be quite skeptical of.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 1:08PM|

So most Americans would justify killing innocent Arab civillians as retribution for what some governments and terrorists do?

mr eric, aq's popular sympathy in the muslim world lies in both its material principles and emotional appeal for self-determination. it seems to me that we did no differently in 1776, probably with less justification.

to the extent that they are perceived to have since killed muslims, they have damaged that sympathy greatly -- this is part of gilles kepel's notion, often cited on h&r, and i agree with that. but the nature of the sympathy they retain is still as a vehicle to self-determination.

if the shoe were on the other foot -- which it is not, granted, but as an analogy by which we might understand -- and arab military bases were located in your capital cities, arab armies deposed the murderous governor of new york but killed thousands of innocents and imploded infrastructure without decent plans to rebuild in doing so, presidents were arrested or assassinated and replacements put in as heads of arab puppet governments repeatedly -- all this for decades on end -- i would be extremely surprised if americans would not hate arabs abjectly and without distinction, and advocate all manner of subterfuge and slaughter. would you?

this stands apart from the moral question as to whether murder would be right under even these circumstances, but i do not doubt that many millions would support it out of hand.

|1.5.05 @ 1:37PM|

drf,

"all this talk about "rationality" is sure loaded. picking a loaded term to set the enemy at a lower position can lead to underestimating the situation."

Or, I chose a term that has a specific definition. If that sets the enemy at a lower position, that speaks of one's value of reason, not of the allegedly dubious usage of the word. How that word was used by whoever for whatever justification does not change the definition. Murder begets murder; no real value can be gained through destruction of innocent people. Many a dictator have found "reasons", or rather, arbitrary justifications, for the atrocities they've committed. I can murder person "A" because they cut me off on the road. There is my reason, yet that is an essentially irrational response. Semantics? Perhaps, but there is no greater desecration than to ascribe to murderous thugs a quality so noble and valuable as reason. Will the ceaseless slaughter of poor drivers create safer driving conditions? Yes. Is that in any way rational? Not to anyone who understands that to be rational is more than finding the quickest way from point A to point B.

c,

That may be true. That would also be an independant issue and would need to be addressed, but that does nothing to change the nature of the enemy, it merely states the the number of irrational people is great.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 1:38PM|

By that standard, just about any action can be described as Nietzschean, provided that it's driven by a sense of idealism and nobility. Never mind that the objectives could be ones whose value Nietzsche would be quite skeptical of.

indeed, mr eric, i think that german idealism as ultimately expressed by nietzsche is not (only) a set of specific objectives.

it is a manner of ethics in which "happiness" (the utilitarian principle, which had been fundamental to locke) was replaced by "noble" (beginning with kant) as what is virtuous.

it is precisely noble action as virtue that one must revile, imo, if one is to avert the kind of catastrophism that brings down civilizations. "nobility" is a concept that excuses all manner of horrifying cruelty in the fulfillment of virtue.

|1.5.05 @ 1:38PM|

"it seems to me that we did no differently in 1776, probably with less justification."

Except that we generally didn't go around murdering British civillians and loyalists, and by and large chose to limit our attacks on the British and German soldiers standing in the way of self-determination.

"arab military bases were located in your capital cities, arab armies deposed the murderous governor of new york but killed thousands of innocents and imploded infrastructure without decent plans to rebuild in doing so, presidents were arrested or assassinated and replacements put in as heads of arab puppet governments repeatedly -- all this for decades on end -- i would be extremely surprised if americans would not hate arabs abjectly and without distinction, and advocate all manner of subterfuge and slaughter. would you?"

Since, as you point out, this has never happened, we'll never know for sure. But there have, undoubtedly, been plenty of independence movements throughout history - both Western and non-Western - in which the occupied people didn't respond to tyranny by indiscriminately murdering civillians claiming allegiance to the occupying power. Even though the occupying power may have been much more brutal than we are in the ME.

Likeiwse, Western powers have propped up authoritarian governments in many other parts of the world - often just as corrupt and oppressive as many in the ME - yet this hasn't generally inspired the citizens of these lands to randomly murder Western civillians.

And all of this still ignores the fact that, in the case of Iraq, the revolutionaries are trying to prevent the formation of an elected government. That throughout the Arab world, they're trying to replace authoritarian regimes with totalitarian ones that are even less accountable to their people (or in the case of Saudi Arabia, one totalitarian regime with an even more totalitarian one). And that the pro-American "puppet governments" in the Arab world are hardly (if at all) more oppressive than the ones that existed before Western powers got actively involved in the region.

drf|1.5.05 @ 1:41PM|

which one is it? insane?

just like michael collins et al?

yes your semantic games show weak positioning. the neocon insistence on playing word games like the lame ass PC fucks undermines all arguments they have.


ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.

Having or exercising the ability to reason.
Influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion.
Of sound mind; sane.
Based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

|1.5.05 @ 2:04PM|

drf,

"yes your semantic games show weak positioning. the neocon insistence on playing word games like the lame ass PC fucks undermines all arguments they have. "

Not sure what the hell that means.

The definition you've cited of "rational" can in no way be applied to a terrorist.

1) Destroying innocent civilians demonstrates a clear lack of ability to reason.

2)Subordinating the value of innocent lives to the achievement of any other value contradicts and undermines what value you may attempt to achieve. As I asked earlier, what is the genesis of their value system if not for the advancement of human life?

3)Of sound mind? One blows up a school bus to make a point about oppression?

4)This is too obvious a point to touch.

Drf, I'm not defending any neocon position. I'm stating that terrorism is an essentially irrational tactic. I'm sorry you've gotten upset, but I think that applying a word like "rational" to a terrorist is incorrect and further, counterproductive in that it encourages the use of violence as a valid means of conflict resolution.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 2:08PM|

Except that we generally didn't go around murdering British civillians and loyalists, and by and large chose to limit our attacks on the British and German soldiers standing in the way of self-determination.

mr eric, we have to make a clear distinction in terms.

there are wackjobs in every nation, and some of them are in iraq now, doing what wackjobs do.

they are not to be confused with many of the iraqi fighters aligned against us, nor those iraqis who hate the americans and sympathize with the fighters, nor the millions of third worlders -- all of whom would love to see america get it in the eye in retribution for decades of hamhandedly meddling in their ostensibly sovereign affairs.

most of these are appalled by carnage just as you and i -- but i cannot help but think that they, to a far greater extent than we, are justified in supporting murder in their name.

i feel their targets in the west are targets of opportunity taken out of desperation. terrorism is the weapon of the weak and the desperate, as we all know. i find it abysmal that they have resorted to it; but i intellectually see that they -- unlike us -- have little choice besides submission. and *we* have taught them as much.

Ironically, this kind of blame-yourself-first navel-gazing is exactly the kind of thing you might expect to find in large quantities in a truly decadent civilization.

it is decadent, mr eric, to subjectively blame oneself for all evil in the world -- and some do this. i don't. i choose to assume blame when the blame is ours to take. i think any examination of the history of arabia in the 20th century leads decisively to the conclusion that 9/11 is blowback -- unintended consequences of our own actions, for which we are to blame.

this is just as sure as punching your neighbor in the face every day for a month; when he punches you on the 31st day, is he responsible -- or are you?

|1.5.05 @ 2:21PM|

"it is precisely noble action as virtue that one must revile, imo, if one is to avert the kind of catastrophism that brings down civilizations. "nobility" is a concept that excuses all manner of horrifying cruelty in the fulfillment of virtue."

That is a possibility, if the concept of nobility is interpreted the wrong way. Nietzsche, for his part, sought to deal with this by having a value system based on nobility only determine the actions of an "elite" whom he considered capable of doing it justice. Whereas the masses would remain governed by a "slave morality" of good and evil. Remind you of someone :-)?

This all goes back to Nietzsche's theory that humanity (or at least parts of it) had evolved to a point where it could move beyond a value system of good and evil - as manifested in Christianity - to one based on nobility - as manifested in the values of the Greeks and Romans - without bringing ruin upon itself. I think it's a debatable theory, but nonetheless an interesting one. Though if it is valid, I don't think Nietzsche gives a proper amount of credit to the role that Christianity and other post-pagan religions played in bringing about the necessary conditions.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 2:24PM|

Destroying innocent civilians demonstrates a clear lack of ability to reason.

fwiw, mr wellfellow, killing of any kind is irrational except under a very small window of circumstance. i don't see that al-qaeda or the ira or the tamil tigers are any less "rational" than the united states government and people. each kills, and thereby makes the world a more unhappy place for itself.

the distinction of civilian and military is that the latter knowingly assumes risk by his actions while the former does not -- and, in the clearest distinction, avoids actions that put him at risk.

in a democracy, can one absolve the people of that assumption of risk? the civilian people of the united states as a group have never yet managed to keep their elected government from violently interfering in the affairs of the mideast -- indeed, they often explicitly support it, sometimes on the back of naked lying that is transparent enough.

i don't mean to make the judgement, but the question should be asked: have we, by the action of our system, indicted ourselves in the same manner the german and italian people did in their wild support of fascism?

|1.5.05 @ 2:29PM|

"there are wackjobs in every nation, and some of them are in iraq now, doing what wackjobs do."

Perhaps. But the "wackjobs" are setting the agenda in a way that they have in few independence movements throughout history. Not to mention that their movement has less to do with true independence than establishing totalitarian rule.

"i feel their targets in the west are targets of opportunity taken out of desperation. terrorism is the weapon of the weak and the desperate, as we all know. i find it abysmal that they have resorted to it; but i intellectually see that they -- unlike us -- have little choice besides submission."

Really? Do you think that we wouldn't abide by an elected Iraqi government's demand that American soldiers leave their country? It's the ongoing insurgency that will keep the elected government from making that demand for the time being. Again, this isn't about self-determination - it's, at most, about removing one set of tyrants with another, worse, set.

"this is just as sure as punching your neighbor in the face every day for a month; when he punches you on the 31st day, is he responsible -- or are you?"

I am, of course. But that doesn't excuse him responding by going after my friends or family members. I think we're right back where we started.

|1.5.05 @ 2:34PM|

Gaius,

"are any less "rational" than the united states government and people. each kills, and thereby makes the world a more unhappy place for itself. "

As I stated earlier, that demonstrates nothing more than that there are many irrational people.

"have we, by the action of our system, indicted ourselves in the same manner the german and italian people did in their wild support of fascism?"

That is truly a good question, at first look, I'd answer "no". This is the weakness of democracy, or majoritarian rule. How is this weakness not present in any other system, though? I have little more power to stop a war here than anywhere else. Also, perhaps the victems of terror attacks, here and elsewhere, don't share the wild support. When a suicide bomber destroys a local pizza bazaar, and is soundly honored for it, is he killing those people wildly supporting oppression? I think not. Is he even trying to kill the wildest supporters? No.

|1.5.05 @ 2:37PM|

Eric,

"I am, of course. But that doesn't excuse him responding by going after my friends or family members. I think we're right back where we started."

Precisely, this is the irrational nature of terrorism.

|1.5.05 @ 2:37PM|

Except that we generally didn't go around murdering British civillians and loyalists, and by and large chose to limit our attacks on the British and German soldiers standing in the way of self-determination.

We didn't? There are people in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland even to this very day who would probably dispute that.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 2:44PM|

Nietzsche, for his part, sought to deal with this by having a value system based on nobility only determine the actions of an "elite" whom he considered capable of doing it justice.

the problem, mr eric, is that i am aware of no apparent determining apparatus for nietzsche's elevation of Great Men -- indeed, he nihilistically opposed all such inherent systems except what Great Men decree for themselves. this is tantamount to awaiting the last survivor of a lawless free-for-all and anointing him king -- which is why, in practice, nietzschean principles lead to destruction, social and personal.

nietzsche's irresponsible emancipation is nearly complete -- and clearly demonstrates why rule of law and control of passion benefits the individual as well as the society.

it isn't as though the ethics of christianity emerged from the void. christian ethics are the product of the nihilistic lawlessness of the decline and collapse of the roman empire -- imo, the last great fit of individualism in the western world. nietzsche would have done better to study why christianity was as it was than decry it as useless and express sadistic joy for the end.

it's a lesson that dubya and his men seem to have forgotten, unfortunately. nietzsche certainly saw himself something of a prophet, and i regret to know that his vision of the 200 years to follow him has been something akin to what he envisioned. i hope and advocate that we aren't its next agent.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 3:17PM|

the "wackjobs" are setting the agenda in a way that they have in few independence movements throughout history. Not to mention that their movement has less to do with true independence than establishing totalitarian rule.

or so we're often told. i would submit, mr eric, that the insurgency -- be it in iraq or more broadly in the third world -- is only as powerful as popular support. without support, it will lose the protection it needs to thrive.

that of course is not to say a totalitarian outcome could not occur. but i don't see how a shia theocracy, elected or not, was ever to be ruled out in this bit of instant democracy.

Do you think that we wouldn't abide by an elected Iraqi government's demand that American soldiers leave their country?

i don't think the new iraqi government will publicly ask us anything we don't want them to ask.

But that doesn't excuse him responding by going after my friends or family members.

you think as an modern individualist, mr eric, but they are under no such restriction. your family and your tribe, as you are but an extension of them, is a rightful target in a less individualistic perspective (one which westerners held until fairly recently... and which is still far from irrational.)

|1.5.05 @ 3:22PM|

"We didn't? There are people in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland even to this very day who would probably dispute that."

That's where the words "generally" and "by and large" come in. Though some civillians were killed, usually by irregulars acting independent of the Continental Army, the focus of the Revolution's leaders was always on enemy soldiers.

|1.5.05 @ 3:24PM|

"the problem, mr eric, is that i am aware of no apparent determining apparatus for nietzsche's elevation of Great Men -- indeed, he nihilistically opposed all such inherent systems except what Great Men decree for themselves"

Exactly. And I elaborated on Nietzsche's defense against this argument in the paragraph that followed the one that you quoted.

"nietzsche certainly saw himself something of a prophet, and i regret to know that his vision of the 200 years to follow him has been something akin to what he envisioned."

I think so as well. But I think he'd disagree considerably on the question of the root causes behind the rise of Islamist totalitarianism. Though for the record, I think the Nietzschean view on this matter is only partly correct.

|1.5.05 @ 3:26PM|

"you think as an modern individualist, mr eric, but they are under no such restriction. your family and your tribe, as you are but an extension of them, is a rightful target in a less individualistic perspective"

LOL. Now you've moved into the realm of moral relativism. You've shifted the debate from whether it's right to harm a person's family and friends in retaliation for what that person did, to whether it's right from the perspective of others. Bravo.

|1.5.05 @ 3:57PM|

Gaius,

"is a rightful target in a less individualistic perspective"

Well then, imagine the possibilities! Why stop there? Every atrocity must seem right From a less racially tolerant perspective... From a less economically free perspective... From a less rational perspective... From a less sane perspective...

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 4:08PM|

LOL. Now you've moved into the realm of moral relativism

sorry mr eric -- i don't mean to say that *i* think it moral. i don't -- but then, i don't think we have any reason to be in iraq at all that could be described as moral. i don't think we have a good moral reason for 12 carrier battle groups on permanent patrol and countless bases occupying foreign lands with hundreds of thousands of troops.

gaius marius|1.5.05 @ 4:39PM|

But that doesn't excuse him responding by going after my friends or family members. I think we're right back where we started.

it's a good question, though -- who should they hit back at to get it to stop? the american government -- the members of which that were responsible for mossadeq have moved on? the american army -- who are in large part young men who don't want to be there?

regardless of our hyperindividualist times -- which is a spot of changed moral stripes from even recent times in the west -- the question is: is there an institutional culpability for the actions of the past?

i think there is. institutions arranged and maintained by us are designed to be slow to change in some respect -- which is part of the point of their establishment, to enshrine something worth keeping. if the institution facilitated an error, can it not continue to facilitate future errors? and is there not then a preventative as well as a punitive effect in striking at them?

when related to the question i asked earlier -- "have we, by the action of our (democratic) system, indicted ourselves in the same manner the german and italian people did in their wild support of fascism?" -- one could argue that it is entirely within the capacity of western ethics to strike so.

certainly, i see that no individualist can countenance being culpable for the actions of any collective, even one he is a part of, if he did not both agree individually to the action and was not "co-opted" into membership of (such as being a natural citizen). but this perspective is very new and quite extreme.

westerners have long authorized their agents to take action against groups of individuals irrespective of their individual opinions on the same principle that one can be prosecuted as an accessory to a crime -- if you didn't prevent it, you are culpable.

anyway, i don't pretend to have the final answer in this as an ethical debate -- but it strikes me as disingenuous to cry "it's not my fault!" when you are implicitly a member of the empowered body politic that authorized, wittingly or unwittingly, such transgressions -- because you didn't *personally* authorize them.

if you wish to avoid that responsibility, move to a dictatorship. democracies are social -- or rather are supposed to be -- and the social culpability should serve to make the citizen think hard about that which they vote on.

drf|1.5.05 @ 5:05PM|

thanks wallflower for your concern if i was upset. oftentimes, as you know, these things deteriorate. and i appreciate you marking that this should not be one of those times. :)

(and deteriorating conversations are less fun)

i do happen to disagree with you, and would like to direct you to a difference in how i see terrorists. i see them as cold, calculating, evil, and terrible. they know exactly what they are doing. their crimes are calculated to get people not after them, but after a third party.

just because their tactics are physically, morally, spiritually, and any-other-ly reprehensible and disgusting, they are doing specific acts designed for mayhem. they adjust their tactics and methods and do a "trial and error" to their evil, distructive ends. (so actually there might be a scientific component here, barf). and it doesn't stop us from happily killing one or two to prevent them from finishing their dastardly acts.

i do not think michael collins etc were irrational, and there were tons of innocents dying in ireland. i don't think holger danske members, apart from the torch who was crazy, were irrational, yet they killed for their goal. nor do i think, for the most part, the boston tea party members, who were considered terrorists by the lobsta backs, as i understand, were irrational.

it is dangerous to dismiss such a cold, calculating, EVIL (not irrational) enemy by simply saying "oh they're insane". it entails, or at least it sounds to me that the assumption of irrationality would suggest that we are assuming that they are not playing the game to the best of their ability and are haphazard murdering thugs. some probably are. but as an aggregate movement, the leaders sure are playing with a specific victory in mind. that's a rational choice for this game.

dismissing the "islamofacists" as some wish to call them in iraq as being random thugs underestimates them and doesn't allow for counterintelligence or cultural understanding of what their motives are. the "they hate our freedoms" is too shallow and doesn't come anything close to useful strategery (sic).

and the fourth definition i had there for completeness :)

"rationality" is a hip word in economics, you know, "rational choice" theory - etc. and throwing that word out there at least in a micro "rational" sense could even suggest non-maximizing behavior. these evil people sure are maximizing.

but again, i appreciate you highlighting that this is a discussion where the spittle should be away from the screen.

we're showing gaius that he's wrong that there's no civil debate, grin.

cheers,
drf

|1.5.05 @ 5:06PM|

Gaius,

For what purpose do the concepts of law and individual rights serve? It sounds to me that given our government's track record and your theory, everyone is fair game for violence. Granted, they may not have the concepts of individual rights or of rule of law, but should we abandon ours?

drf|1.5.05 @ 5:16PM|

my apologies WELLFELLOW for the name confusion. keeping handles in different rooms straight has never been my forte. i apologize for that.

respectfully,
drf

|1.5.05 @ 7:03PM|

R.C. Dean's comments suffer (as usual) from a false choice fallacy.

M. Simon|1.6.05 @ 12:44AM|

Tyler,

Iran has stated its intention to nuke Israel once it gets the capability.

The Soviets never publicly stated such an aim.

The question then is: are the Iranians Stalin or Hitler. Stalin was an athiest and assumed all the power he had was manifested in his Divisions. Hitler in his own way was a religious fanatic who assumed the "Force" was with him.

If the mullahs of Iran imagine that Allah will cover their power deffiencies things may get very ugly.

Or suppose they nuke Israel knowing that the Israelis will nuke back. Creating much bad blood between the Persian people and the Jews.

I'd just as soon prefer a conventional war to take down Iran.

M. Simon|1.6.05 @ 1:28AM|

Brian asks why the neocons have such a stiffie for war.

Easy.

They think it is 1937 and do not wish to wait for 1939.

Of course the world these days is full of very moaral people who see the evil of war and wish for "peace for our time".

The question you have to ask yourself is are the truly moral living in reality or in 1939?

gaius marius|1.6.05 @ 11:21AM|

For what purpose do the concepts of law and individual rights serve?

i should think, mr wellfellow, that they are (or were conceived by locke as) limitations on the power of society.

perhaps it is also important here to say what they are not: substitutes for society. though i think we may agree that most here -- and most americans, i would posit -- implicitly believe them so.

it is that current confusion that brings a lot of silliness into the postmodern west.

should we abandon ours?

of course not, mr wellfellow -- but we should, i think, recognize the limits thereof short of counterproductive absurdity.

insofar as our moral position of culpability goes, i see these positions:

1) we are representatively empowered and therefore culpable;

2) we are not empowered and therefore not culpable;

3) there is no we, therefore i am not (or am) culpable.

few would argue 2) -- but many would argue 3). i think there is an uncomfortable truth of collective responsibility here, even in a democracy, if it is still a society.

we would all huddle under the social services and military protection of our society; to that extent, we enjoy social benefits. i find it difficult, then, to claim we are not also socially responsible -- even if most of us now quietly fight to undermine that responsibility every day.

gaius marius|1.6.05 @ 11:36AM|

I'd just as soon prefer a conventional war to take down Iran.

this beggars me, it's so delusional and rife with stupid false choices.

|1.6.05 @ 12:11PM|

Drf,

No worries, I didn't mean that terrorists were insane so much as irrational in the sense that they have not developed a sufficient philosophy of reason wherein acheiving their goals wouldn't include violence. If they had a rational philosophy, they would recognize that their methods accomplish nothing more than a temporary alleviation from one "enemy", however what ails their society is the fruit of their own philosophy. Striking the US or Israel won't fix any of their real problems.

Gaius,

I suppose we just don't agree, then. I'm not so sure what "society" is supposed to be other than a group of freely interacting (or not interacting) individuals. Anything beyond that seems an artifice, and hardly a basis for organic relationships. Perhaps you long for individuals to have a more altruistic or social value system. That may be something impossible to correct by rule of law.

As far as culpability, the points you raise are interesting, however, I don't understand collective culpability. Who is not culpable, then? That one benefits from the crimes of another cannot necessarily make the beneficiary culpable. If that were the case, as humans live off of benefits ill gotten in the past, all humans are guilty of something. The whole of civilization is built upon the looting of old wars, I'm not defending this, but can one Italian, say, be held accountable for the the conquest committed by the Roman Empire because he appreciates now the fruits of that conquest? That a New York resident benefits from an economy fueled by allegedly wrongful oil policy, or that Israeli schoolchildren benefit from allegedly oppressive Israeli policy can hardly make them guilty. You'd really have to look at their roles in the advocacy of the said policies to determine the level of guilt. Frankly, I don't believe terrorists even pretend to choose their targets on that basis.

Anyway, I just picked up Dawn to Decadence. So far so good! Thanks for the tip.

drf|1.6.05 @ 12:44PM|

thanks, wellfellow.

that's nicely stated. and all i can is agree! the "violence begets violence; hatred begets hatred" or something like that.

thanks again for the lively, spirited fun on this topic!

cheers,
drf

gaius marius|1.6.05 @ 4:40PM|

I just picked up Dawn to Decadence. So far so good! Thanks for the tip.

*simmers in warm feeling*

Frankly, I don't believe terrorists even pretend to choose their targets on that basis.

i suppose you're right there -- i think they choose them on the basis of events which occurred in their living memory to members of their society. much as we felt aggrieved at events in new york, they felt aggrieved by events in tehran and palestine and riyadh and baghdad. much less research has to go into culpability under these real circumstances than, say, slave reparations.

I suppose we just don't agree, then. I'm not so sure what "society" is supposed to be other than a group of freely interacting (or not interacting) individuals. Anything beyond that seems an artifice, and hardly a basis for organic relationships. Perhaps you long for individuals to have a more altruistic or social value system. That may be something impossible to correct by rule of law.

i think, mr wellfellow, that it is the function of civilization -- of law, of institutions, of culture -- to make us more altruistic, more social, more good. it *is* artifice! but it is elevating -- the antithesis of primitive. this is why i blather away remorsefully about its decline. it is in civilization that we are our most free, our most safe and our best. without it, we are only animals.

that the romantic, primitive religion of heroic solitude has done so much to supplant and destroy that notion of civilization pains me greatly.

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012, Reason.com