Arming a lesser enemy to fight a greater one

[DarkWaters]

Hello,

What do you think we can say about the morality of arming a lesser enemy to combat a great one. Is it ever moral? By "lesser enemy" I generally mean a dictatorship or armed extremist group that is not an immediate threat to one's own country but given their nihilistic values are nevertheless still an enemy.

Some examples in recent United States history (all under the Reagan Administration) include:

• Arming the Mujahideen to stave off the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
  
• Supporting Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War.
  
• Supporting General Zia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan against the Soviets.
  
• Supporting the Nicaraguan Contras against the Sandistas.
  

From an ex post analysis, the first three actions were all incredibly dangerous and incredibly stupid. Although I am presently unfamiliar with the fallout of the last action, at the first least it does not appear to have been advantageous.

The idea of coaxing two sworn enemies to slaughter one another does not seem to be immoral in itself so long as they do not crush the well being of third parties who are truly innocent. However, the morality of arming another radical nihilist group seems analogous to using chemical or biological weapons. Given the unpredictable longterm aftermath of using such agents, given the potential long-term threat their usage could pose to one's own citizens and surely given a wide selection of alternatives to the usage of such weapons, using them may not necessarily be a policy of self-interest and therefore not necessarily moral. Analogously, given the same caveats with arming a radical nihilist group, doing so is most likely not a policy of self-interest and therefore not moral.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter?

Edited July 23, 2007 by DarkWaters

[DavidOdden]

Analogously, given the same caveats with arming a radical nihilist group, doing so is most likely not a policy of self-interest and therefore not moral.

Generally, I agree. A hypothetical greater threat might exist where our inability to survive is seriously in question, in which case suicide would not be the moral choice. The cases you describe certainly did not involve the choice between arming an enemy and being destroyed; the US hasn't faced such a threat.

[aequalsa]

Generally, I agree. A hypothetical greater threat might exist where our inability to survive is seriously in question, in which case suicide would not be the moral choice. The cases you describe certainly did not involve the choice between arming an enemy and being destroyed; the US hasn't faced such a threat.

To some extent that was the case with our being allied to the USSR in WWII.

[DarkWaters]

I mainly brought up this topic after reading Charles Krauthammer's column that describes the latest strategy by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. An integral part of their strategy is to arm Sunni militias to help combat Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq. I just hope that we are supporting the right people and not a ring of blood-thirsty ex-Baathists.

[SkyTrooper]

On principle the tactic is sound. You have enemy A and enemy B, you back enemy B against A, then when A is defeated you turn and defeat B. This is known as "Jiè dāo shā rén" or "Kill With a Borrowed Knife" (36 Strategies).

However, I don't think that this is Patraeus's intention at all. He honestly considers the Muslim moderates as allies because they seek to create political Islam through democratic action, instead of through brute force. Al Qaeda would establish an Iraqi Islamic State under Sharia Law. He will back these Sunnis against Al Qaeda, and then when Al Qaeda is defeated he won't even notice or care that the Iraqis have voted themselves into an Islamic State under Sharia Law.

Krauthammer's views on the subject are, unfortunately, tragically over-optimistic.

Oh and we defeated the Baathists in near-absolute terms so you don't need to worry too much about them anymore. (let me know if you ever want to come eat lunch with the head from Saddam's statue )

[D'kian]

When discussing this topic it's useful to remember an old saying: "When you eat with the Devil use a long spoon."

[y_feldblum]

The US has armed its enemies in the past because it refuses to recognize who its enemies are. Its enemies include all totalitarian organizations, whether the Soviet Union or Afghanistan, etc. The US should have cut off all foreign aid to the Soviet Union, and then should have militarily destroyed it, while ignoring Afghanistan. There is absolutely no need to act through hostile proxies.

If the US ever needs help adequately defending itself - and the direct threat would need to encompass over half the globe before this is possible - then it has friends, not enemies, to whom to turn.

Arming a totalitarian organization is a moral crime not only against oneself, since that organization is necessarily one's own enemy, but also against the subjects of that organization, if doing so is not required in defense of oneself, and if those subjects want to and have a shot at overthrowing the totalitarians.

[FeatherFall]

The last 60 years have been a process of defeating the last unholy alliance. Using a borrowed knife in WWII would have been fine if the strategy actually played out like it was supposed to; that is, if Patton was allowed to roll over the Russians (or at least crush their ambitions for expanding their territory). Instead, the US armed Bin Laden to beat Russia. To beat Bin Laden(an Islamic theocrat) the US arms Islamic theocrats and looks for ways to cooperate with Iran.

The sooner US leaders become capable of identifying their enemies, the better.

[JMeganSnow]

This is going to seem like a weird aside, but have any of you read Lightning by Dean Koontz? It's a really fascinating book (albeit a popular thriller) about a "what if" scenario where the Nazis discover time travel in 1944 as part of their superweapon projects. It works "realistically" for time travel: you can only go forward. So they end up in 1988 with Nazis taking books out of libraries and stuff, it's a really fun novel.

Anyway, the point of this is that at the end the protagonist time traveller (a Nazi defector) goes to talk with Winston Churchill as part of his plan to get the time-travel project destroyed. Churchill, being a clever man, asks the seemingly innocent question: "Well, what of the Soviets after the war?"

Krieger (the protagonist) tells him honestly that the Soviets will become an immense military power, rivaled only by the U.S. So, armed with this knowledge, Churchill rallies the Allies to continue the fighting in Europe long after the Nazis are defeated . . . he uses the Russian land grab in Europe as an excuse to turn on the Soviets, and no longer propped up by shipments of goods from America the Evil Empire folds up with barely a whimper.

Koontz describes the resulting future as a world in which there is peace and plenty for everyone, even in the depths of Russia. It's really cool.

Sorry about the digression there, the thread just reminded me of that. I think arming your enemies is only an option if you intend to smash your erstwhile "allies" just as thoroughly as you intend to smash your enemies.