Ayn Rand and the military

[whYNOT]

Yes Zip, quite true, but that's why I wrote " by contrast".

But aren't you making an assumption here that just because the ordnance of war has so vastly evolved, and the tech. skills of the soldier now so advanced, that human beings have somehow also got better?

Can we assume that every commanding officer , who the soldier has been trained to obey and trust, is rationally objective, and has always weighed up the risk vs. the reward in a battle?

The saying goes 'Those who do not know history,are condemned to repeat it' and for that reason alone cadets at West Point are still taught the ancient stategies of warfare, such as Sun Tzu's " The Art of War", or von Clausewitz's campaigns.

In the main I believe, information and intelligence has become far more critical in war ,as in business,

and all ranks in the military are briefed and informed far better than ever before. Independent assessment of a scenario, plus individual initiative, are encouraged. Which is the way to go.

[Jake_Ellison]

That is exactly the opposite of what a successful counter-insurgency operation requires, and replicates the worst tactics of Vietnam. Counter-insurgency must protect the people, who are the real targets of a propaganda and terror campaign aimed at compelling them to join in a general rebellion. When the U.S. finally switched to this classic strategy (which the troop level "surge" supported) Iraq was secured.

As sure as you sound of that (though you're not exactly flooding the thread with evidence), it is nowhere near clear that it was in fact the five extra brigades the US sent to Iraq (in five months) which cause the drop in violence. While that is the official version of events both in Washington and Baghdad, an independent military commission headed by General James Jones found that the decrease in violence may be due to areas being overrun by either Shias or Sunnis.

In other words, the ethnic (or religious, to be exact) cleansing ended, when it was accomplished. If the US military would've only stayed out of it (short of permitting large armies to wage conventional war against each other), the cleansing would've been accomplished and thus ended far sooner, with fewer losses on the US side.

[Grames]

As sure as you sound of that (though you're not exactly flooding the thread with evidence), it is nowhere near clear that it was in fact the five extra brigades the US sent to Iraq (in five months) which cause the drop in violence. While that is the official version of events both in Washington and Baghdad, an independent military commission headed by General James Jones found that the decrease in violence may be due to areas being overrun by either Shias or Sunnis.

In other words, the ethnic (or religious, to be exact) cleansing ended, when it was accomplished. If the US military would've only stayed out of it (short of permitting large armies to wage conventional war against each other), the cleansing would've been accomplished and thus ended far sooner, with fewer losses on the US side.

It was almost certainly not the extra troops that made the difference but the changed strategy and the U.S. arming and acting in coordination with local militia groups. Extra troops supported the strategy, but didn't cause it to be successful and their absence wouldn't have stopped its eventual success. Extra troops did accelerate the success, just what Bush needed to avoid a legacy as the president who lost a won war.

The ethnic cleansing of parts of Iraq is just one element in the mix, as also described in that commission report headed by Gen. Jones. Al-Qaeda Iraq was real. Syrian and Iranian agents were (and still are) funding, organizing and leading their own proxy wars in Iraq for their own reasons.

The definitive accounts of the conduct of the war and the surge are:

Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks

The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008 also by Thomas E. Ricks

[Q.E.D.]

Would Howard Rourk have joined the military to invade another country, putting his architecture career on hold? I think not.

Military is necessary and moral in the case of direct self-defense alone, not in the case of preemptive self defense. For example, George Bush doesn't have the right to spend my tax money, because he thinks there's a good chance that invading another country will make the world a safer place. America is not great because of the authority or security of its state, its great because of the freedom of the men who live in America.

I think a lot of "objectivists" will support the war effort in order to feel as if their republican-objectivist ideas are in agreement. If you can't PROVE a war is necessary, you have no right to insist that others support that war.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Q.E.D.

[Marc K.]

Would Howard Rourk have joined the military to invade another country, putting his architecture career on hold? I think not.

Military is necessary and moral in the case of direct self-defense alone, not in the case of preemptive self defense. For example, George Bush doesn't have the right to spend my tax money, because he thinks there's a good chance that invading another country will make the world a safer place. America is not great because of the authority or security of its state, its great because of the freedom of the men who live in America.

I think a lot of "objectivists" will support the war effort in order to feel as if their republican-objectivist ideas are in agreement. If you can't PROVE a war is necessary, you have no right to insist that others support that war.

You've made a bunch of assertions there, care to back any of them up?

I think Howard Roark might have joined the military if it was necessary. After all he put his architecture on hold to mine a quarry.

If a preemptive attack is properly in our self defense, why is it not moral?

Does Bush have the right to tax us?

Are we allowed to invade another country if it will make us safer?

I won't argue that freedom is what makes America great, but do you think that that freedom does not require security and defense?

Please name what these "republican-objectivist ideas" are.

If I can PROVE a war is necessary, do I then have the right to insist that others support that war?

[RussK]

As sure as you sound of that (though you're not exactly flooding the thread with evidence), it is nowhere near clear that it was in fact the five extra brigades the US sent to Iraq (in five months) which cause the drop in violence. While that is the official version of events both in Washington and Baghdad, an independent military commission headed by General James Jones found that the decrease in violence may be due to areas being overrun by either Shias or Sunnis.

In other words, the ethnic (or religious, to be exact) cleansing ended, when it was accomplished. If the US military would've only stayed out of it (short of permitting large armies to wage conventional war against each other), the cleansing would've been accomplished and thus ended far sooner, with fewer losses on the US side.

Correct. Let no one forget that the real reason for the surge in Iraq was to stop the violence that Shia and Sunni were causing against each other. After mass slaughter and evacuations, each neighborhood in Baghdad was completely sealed off and surrounded by t-walls. Any place without them was deserted and in shambles. After all the killing, evacuating and sealing, the areas became either decidedly Shia or Sunni, and were guarded by U.S. forces and militia. Those militias for the Shia were initially Jaysh al-Mahdi or the IA; and CLC/SOI groups for the Sunni. After the Shia started to see that they could get payed by the Americans--Iraqi doesn't produce anything except government oil, and the welfare sucks--, like the Sunnis, then they started to request the establishment of CLC membership. Now we don't pay those groups; we turned the responsibility over to the Shia dominated Iraqi government, who has decided they don't need a bunch of Sunni's running around with RPKs and PKCs. Hey, but they got elections, and that's always a benchmark for success...

Since I'm on a tangent, lets not forget about the Kurds, who stupidly missed their best opportunity for independence, when Iraq proper was at its worst. Now the IA is too strong, and being against an officially annexed Kirkuk (Kirkuk referendum) is a solidifying Iraqi nationalist theme, the only thing Shia and Sunni agree on.

[whYNOT]

Hello Ronaldo,

I agree with your stance on the necessity of the military, and with your emphasis on Self service. With what I've seen and read about the U.S. Armed Forces, it seems a very tempting career option.

As a total contrast BTW, here in my country, we had forced conscription - for all young white men- in to the S.A. Defence Force during the Angolan war [ in the 1970's].

Newly independent Angola was in a civil war with one side backed by Cuba, and the apartheid regime of the time was petrified about the communist threat.

This was a particularly nasty 'bush' war, against a well trained guerilla army, which ended badly. A sort of mini Vietnam, I guess. The majority of us hated the experience, and saw no sense in it.

But voluntary enlistment , and all it's educational opportunities, in the greatest Air Force of all time, is a completely different kettle of fish, uh, ball game.

Good luck to you.

[Alex Bott]

No, strategic bombing can be part of a overall campaign that includes ground forces. But without ground forces physically occupying the opposing country there is no way to ensure a change in the opposing country's politics. Changing the other country's politics is what rational war is all about.

Changing the other country's politics is not what war is about. That is how we are conducting it now, i.e. Afghanistan, and Iraq. (Even if "changing politics" means merely going from a dictatorship to a "democracy".) Trying to change the politics of a nation is altruism extended into foreign policy.

War is about destroying the enemy, period.

[Grames]

Changing the other country's politics is not what war is about. That is how we are conducting it now, i.e. Afghanistan, and Iraq. (Even if "changing politics" means merely going from a dictatorship to a "democracy".) Trying to change the politics of a nation is altruism extended into foreign policy.

War is about destroying the enemy, period.

No. Changing politics merely means regime change, getting rid of the cause of the war. The Taliban were sheltering bin Laden, so the Taliban are no longer in charge of Afghanistan. No bombing campaign could accomplish that.

[Leonid]

The proper function of military forces is self-defense.How self-defense could be an act of altruism ? Self-sacrifice is. Only when military is used for any other purpose than self-defense, a military action becomes an act of altruism-like endless American war in Iraq.

[Grames]

The proper function of military forces is self-defense.How self-defense could be an act of altruism ? Self-sacrifice is. Only when military is used for any other purpose than self-defense, a military action becomes an act of altruism-like endless American war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq is already over. U.S. forces are transferring out of the country. All that will be left behind is a token force for training and to be a tripwire against Iranian adventurism.

[Peter Taylor]

Hello to all. This will be my first post here.

Greg began this thread by writing:

I was reading Ayn Rand’s book in Iraq. And I think that she neglected the fact the military is an altruistic intuition, but a necessary one at that.

End quote

The concept, *empathy* may be what you are thinking about. Empathy is good. It allows human’s to interact and connect with other humans. It is most frequently felt for family members but it also extends to other people. When you root for someone to succeed you are feeling empathy. Being a good Samaritan is empathy in action. Empathy keeps humans from harming animals needlessly. It is a form of what Objectivists term *benevolence* and is considered a secondary virtue.

I wish Rand had kept the dictionary versions of definitions. Since she redefined many things, it’s caused misunderstandings. I quickly read some of this thread and I think someone already mentioned the following but I want to give my take on it.

From Merriam Webster, Altruism.

1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Altruism: What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. . .

End quotes

I think Ayn saw Altruism used as the usual rationale for establishing Statist and Ultra-Nationalistic Governments AND justification for the worst atrocities of those Totalitarian Governments. The Soviet Union and Communist China all used Altruism as their excuse to create a supposed classless state but with a informal ‘monarchy’ in charge, just as American Liberal/Progressives see themselves as the ultimate ruling elite. Communism destroyed Ayn’s family. And The Soviet Union’s nukes could have destroyed Truth, Justice and the American Way.

Nazi Germany used Altruism to foster Nationalism and Der Fuhrer. Do it for the fuhrer. Do it for the Fatherland. Do it for the Race. Just do it, or die.

Altruism has no place within Objectivism.

Empathy could be a tremendous asset in the military no matter the MOS but I would prefer a medic with a lot of empathy.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor