From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 14:00:17 MDT
The open question then is this:
Say N is an action of itself Bad (going to war, dropping bombs, etc.)
Say M is an action of itself Not as Bad as N (stepping up economic
sanctions).
Say that N & M both have the same likelihood of bringing about R
(Iraq's long-term change to a peaceful society).
My contention is that we should do M, not N and in particular since we
have OPTIONS, that is, it is reasonable to conclude that we could
accomplish our goals given either chosen path, then we should do the
good one.
We were in agreement on this point - if your principles are that you
should do whatever will, in the short and long run, cause the least
harm, then you are obliged to act. We will continue to agree that that
means "Forced". However, if those are not your principles, then you
should change your principles.
You seem to think that my position leaves me in an unreasonably
reactive position. But this is based on the idea that the only way to
react to a threat is direct force. But that's clearly false.
If the Germans are amassing tanks and have cut off diplomatic relations
with you, you pretty much know that they're going to attack and not
preparing for that attack would be suicidal and hence morally
objectionable.
While the germans are amassing tanks, though, the options are open to
amass tanks yourself, providing a route to a peaceful step, or to
attack pre-emptively.
You're right that the standard always prevents you from attacking
pre-emptively unless you have no ability to match forces with your
oponent (as in the "terrorist" attacks on the part of our current
oponnents - they have no choice but to attack "irrationally" since
nothing they can do will likely accomplish their goals).
> You've placed the burden of proof too high, in my opinion.
Well, we would put the matter this way - If we thought with higher
certainty that Iraq was a genuine immediate danger, we should act as
quickly as possible to alleviate that danger. There are LOTS of ways
of doing this.
In cases where there are fewer ways of doing that, then the rationality
of a military solution comes more clearly into focus.
IF you don't take the attitude that military force is a last resort,
then you're really just being opportunistic and frankly too optimistic
that "things will work themselves out in the end" since we know that
we're starting with something fundamentally objectionable.
> Luddites have
> sought to do with the so-called "Precationary Principle;" they've
> stacked
> the deck against action.
I thought we weren't going to do any name-calling.
> Ultimately you'll be judged by
> history.
I don't think that history is the judge. The harm that is done is
immediate - number of dead people. If history is the judge, then
Alexander can be made to be a hero or murderer, it depends on whether
you're a greek or a turk. But if we count it OBJECTIVELY, we know that
Alexander was a murderer, an imperialist conqueror and we judge him by
the number of bodies he left behind.
Consider the possibility that in the long-term some NAZI-like military
government will prevail - in that case History will judge that Hitler
was a visionary.
> then that
> judgment of bull-headed self-righteousness will have been correct.
Ignoring the "bull-headed" and "self-righteous" adjectives for the
moment...
> But
> remember the judgment of Churchill in the 1930s -- most people saw him
> as a
> grumbling crank.
The case is not parallel. The Germans were already militarily active,
the question was whether they'd stop at the channel and whether England
by amassing force could make an impenetrable wall that Germany would be
too scared of to cross. They couldn't, in either case preparing for
war is better than actually going to war.
-------------------------
What do you estimate was the relative probability that Iraq was going
to Invade, say, Turkey, Iran or Kuwait as of January 2003?
Oppose that to the likelihood that Germany would invade Poland circa
1944. That some people assign probabilities differently isn't at
question.
I don't know if there's an "objective probability" but I estimate the
probability that Iraq would invade Iran, Kuwait or Turkey at less than
0%. Certainly the probability that they would invade the US is less
than 0%.
Given the status of the UN inspections regime and economic sanctions, I
estimate their ability (pre 2003) to generate a viable military force
within the next 20 years as negligible (they'd have to get some very
serious cooperation from some very large powerhouses to make up the
delta between their forces and even the forces of say Turkey, let alone
the combined forces of NATO or the UN!)
How do you estimate that probability?
> In this, you're being consistent: With the standard of moral certainty
> you've set, one could not act until the tanks actually cross the
> border, I
> would think. After all, they may just be having a parade!
Not at all. If the Germans are having a tank parade, we should have a
BIGGER tank parade. That tends to prevent them from crossing the
border.
In the Iraqi case, there was as far as I can tell, no danger whatever
that they would cross the border.
> Let me end by saying that I came to support the war in Iraq late and
> only
> with great reluctance. Nevertheless, I expect to be judged harshly by
> both
> friend and foe if things go disasterously wrong. Heck, I'll probably
> be
> judged harshly no matter what!
I don't think the point of the discourse is to Judge but rather to
re-acquire a sense of what was lost.
Prior to the Iraqi conflict, the standard for War was "clear and
present danger" which was interpreted as an amassing of identified and
confirmed force on the part of a clearly identified enemy.
That standard was loosened to include "rumors" - recalling the infamous
16-words "British Intelligence says..." and "unconfirmed innuendo" -
the famous UN presentation by Colin Powell and merely potential
long-term future threats.
As a rule, there are long-term potential future threats. As I said
elsewhere, the only way to deal with the possibility of a 5-man crew
putting together a series of nuclear weapons in a technologically
advancing society is either by putting an end to the technological
advancement or genuinely making peace with all humans. If you always
react against long-term possible threats, then the reasonable thing to
do is kill everyone that isn't demonstrably loyal to you.
Otherwise, there will be Hot-Heads who are both capable and willing to
go to war "By whatever means necessary".
To have a long-term strategy of pre-emptive strikes is to invite
competition and force, per the game theory of Prof. Nash, only by
making concessions and engendering long-term cooperation will we be
able to create a future safe for our future selves and children.
Best,
Robbie Lindauer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 14:15:48 MDT