Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A challenge to Yaron Brook

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Al Kufr, I don't pretend to read your mind, but it seems as if you are basing your strategies on Bush's altruistic goals because that's the only way to apply maneuver warfare the way Lind does. Now, I've read A Swift, Elusive Sword by Chester Richards and I just started The Mind Of War by Grant Hammond, and there are a lot of useful ideas to be found in Boyd, but I'm determined to make you realize that it's all based on shaky philosophical foundations.

For example: In Richards' book, I found the section Military vis-a-vis Other Options (pg. 32-35) to be repulsive. It felt like a tribute to all those who regard the US as an imperialistic impediment to "surviving on their own terms." He rubs in our faces the fact that " . . . many Third World countries resent the U.S. ready resort to military power," and goes on to quote someone bashing the U.S. for "rushing to court unpopularity across the world," as well as bashing the Bush administration for its "hegemonic arrogance." Pretending that we give a rat's ass about the warnings of a former Soviet, Richards then quotes Gorbachev saying " . . . the present situation of the United States, with a part of its population able to enjoy a life of extraordinary comfort and privilege, is not tenable as long as an enormous portion of the world lives in abject poverty, degradation and backwardness."

To summarize: I think Boyd and his followers have it right on the military strategy, but it becomes tainted when they apply it to their philosophically-corrupt foreign policy of appeasement. Objectivism is a great cure -- and it doesn't, I must stress, necessitate that we replace all military forces with nuclear weapons and B-52s. Wiping out neighborhoods is one strategy for demoralizing and striking fear in civilian populations, but I see no reason why that would render counterguerilla operations obsolete. We could all benefit from Richards' "Evolutionary Force" and Boyd's maneuver warfare, but we could benefit even more if we knew when to apply it and who to regard as our friends. That's the job of philosophy.

Im not sure if I understand what you are getting at, but if it is what I think it is you are waaaaaaaay off. I dont like Paleo-Cons anymore than you do and Im not trying to apply Linds Ideas for the sake of applying his ideas, im doing it for a reason.

but we could benefit even more if we knew when to apply it and who to regard as our friends. That's the job of philosophy.

Im not sure whats wrong with not wanting to kill civilians that support you, but

If you would like to explain your entire position in more detail i would be glad to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While we are at it, I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that, among prominent Objectivists, it was Leonard Peikoff who first publicly took the strong stand that several of us have echoed here, and did so just like myself before 9/11.

Given that, Peikoff's endorsement of Kerry during the election campaign was incomprehensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that, Peikoff's endorsement of Kerry during the election campaign was  incomprehensible.

Piekoff and John Lewis argued that the net effect of Bush's half-hearted war effort would be to thoroughly discredit the notion of offensive, pre-emptive military action, which, in turn, would reduce the chances of us ever taking proper military action against our enemies. Sadly, that is indeed occurring. The current situation in Iraq is now depicted as proof that America cannot defeat terrorism militarily -- and it is held as proof that we have no military options against Iran and North Korea.

I supported Bush over Kerry because I considered some military response, no matter how limited and flawed, to be better than no military response, i.e. better than surrender. I still think that is true, although I must admit that every day that goes by without action against Iran and North Korea makes me wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piekoff and John Lewis argued that the net effect of Bush's half-hearted war effort would be to thoroughly discredit the notion of offensive, pre-emptive military action, which, in turn, would reduce the chances of us ever taking proper military action against our enemies.   Sadly, that is indeed occurring.  The current situation in Iraq is now depicted as proof that America cannot defeat terrorism militarily -- and it is held as proof that we have no military options against Iran and North Korea.

President Bush's failure to advocate or pursue any form of war against Iran (or Syria or the Palestinians for that matter) - 'pre-emptive' or otherwise - is not something that began with the occupation of Iraq.

This failure predates his failure to establish goals and pursue them in a timely manner in the occupation of Iraq. This failure predates the (very successful) invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since 9/11, President Bush has taken no actions to deal with Iran's Islamic State or with the terrorists fighting to destroy Israel. Qua pragmatist, the lack of any substantive action on Mr. Bush's part demonstrates that he sees no substantial relationship between Iranian terrorism, Palestinian terrorism, and al Qaeda's 'terrorism of global reach.'

This is a pragmatist myopia that borders on insanity.

It is the failure to take action against Iran, Syria and the Palestinians - not the actions that have been taken in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, and Lybia - that bolster the pacifist position.

As you observe, Mr. Bush has given us a pro-active defense. Any kind of pro-active defense is better than none.

If you wonder if it might not be so bad to return to the inactive posture we used to hold towards Islamism because it would prove a point, just remember what happened after we did nothing meaningful to defend ourselves for the 26 years that led up to 9/11. For the political culture, the death of 3,000 Americans is not a 'learning experience' we should allow ourselves to repeat.

After leveling all of the criticism at him that he so richly disserves, Mr. Bush should still be praised for the extent to which our nation no longer has a purely PACIFIST policy towards Islamism.

As for North Korea, the policies of appeasement under George Bush Sr. and, especially, under Bill Clinton leave us with only two rational options:

1. initiating a nuclear war on our terms

2. patiently waiting for the regime to unravel even though it is possible that it won't collapse peacefully and will initiate a nuclear war on its terms

(I have been totally silent on North Korea because I have no answer on the question which policy is better.)

Under the American government's continuous, 26-year policy of appeasing Islamist Iran, we will face an Islamic version of the North Korean standoff in only one or two or three years. The closer we get to that day, the fiercer will be my criticism of President Bush.

For several months now there has been nothing new in Mr. Bush's foreign policy - nothing praiseworthy - except that he beat John Kerry in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for North Korea, the policies of appeasement under George Bush Sr. and, especially, under Bill Clinton leave us with only two rational options:

1. initiating a nuclear war on our terms

2. patiently waiting for the regime to unravel even though it is possible that it won't collapse peacefully and will initiate a nuclear war on its terms

(I have been totally silent on North Korea because I have no answer on the question which policy is better.)

The fact is the time for an easy answer to that question has come and gone. However, we still have an advantage in the nuclear standoff because the Norks are still in the development and deployment stage of nuclear weaponry, at least according to the news. Every day that we do nothing, their arsenal progresses in reliability, power, and number. This means waiting will raise the stakes.

I don't think there's an obvious answer here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is the time for an easy answer to that question has come and gone.  However, we still have an advantage in the nuclear standoff because the Norks are still in the development and deployment stage of nuclear weaponry, at least according to the news.  Every day that we do nothing, their arsenal progresses in reliability, power, and number.  This means waiting will raise the stakes.

I don't think there's an obvious answer here.

I think it would be strategically wrong for us to attack N.Korea directly, the best policiy would to affect them indirectly by isolating them since they are their own worst enemys. That will weaken their military since it depends on foreign aid and also put us in a better position if they do attack us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be strategically wrong for us to attack N.Korea directly, the best policiy would to affect them indirectly by isolating them since they are their own worst enemys. That will weaken their military since it depends on foreign aid and also put us in a better position if they do attack us.

Aren't we already "isolating" them? The same thing we've been doing with Cuba for decades?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone live under a dictatorship? I read all of your posts about civilian casualties in an war against an enemy dictatorship.

Well, I didn't live under a dictatorship, but my grandparents did. Some of our cities in Italy was litterally levelled by US and British bombers, but now no-one speak about "invasion" of Italy, nor about "occupation" or "devastation": we speak about "liberation" of Italy from an evil regime and we celebrate that date.

Why this? Because, after the defeat, we know fascism was evil, that fascist regime attacked first and US and Britain had the right to answer to that aggression with any necessary mean. With the invasion of Italy, Americans and Britons told us that our ideology was wrong and that it brought us to harsh consequences. I hope that a carpet bombing is not always necessary (in case of Japan, it was indeed necessary to win the war): what is really necessary is to adopt all means useful to defeat an aggressive ideology, defeating the regime, destroying it's symbols, imposing to people to change their aggressive idealogy. I don't think that there is a difference between militaries and civilians: in an ideological war, we can see a soldier dissident who wants to disert and a civilian who supports a dictator actively. It's a question of individual choice, isn't it? If you have free will, you always chose ideology, you're never a "victim" of a society.

How to fight a war against an ideology and it's active supporters? The ideal could be: send an ultimatum to anyone. Of course it's impossible, so means to fight and win a war can change and must be adapted to local reality, but the principle must be clear: defeat their ideology and it's supporters. In a country as Iran, where people (beyond the silence of media) rebels every month against it's regime, you have only to destroy the regime, the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij. If you want to strike iranian population you'll make a mistake, because you'll hit innocents (who are actually fighting with our side) and you'll transform an ally in a new enemy. In an Arab country, where the 70% of population wants an Islamic dictatorship it would be different. In case of Iraq the situation is more complex, because in that county there are also a lot of good guys, but I thik that Pentagon is not fighting Iraq war in a proper way. Personally I think that we have to fight against forces which want to destroy Occident, defeat their islamist ideology with indivual riught's laws and a laical education, support only guys who share our ideals of liberty. And, of course, save our soldiers, first of all. Now we are looking for dialogue with Sadr's integralists (Eisenhower, in Europe, didn't look for dialogue with survived Waffen SS) and we tolerate the formation of Islamists parties and even the return of Baath members.

This is what I think: we're still not winning the war, because we don't realize that we have an enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you observe, Mr. Bush has given us a pro-active defense.  Any kind of pro-active defense is better than none.

If you wonder if it might not be so bad to return to the inactive posture we used to hold towards Islamism because it would prove a point, just remember what happened after we did nothing meaningful to defend ourselves for the 26 years that led up to 9/11.  For the political culture, the death of 3,000 Americans is not a 'learning experience' we should allow ourselves to repeat.

After leveling all of the criticism at him that he so richly disserves, Mr. Bush should still be praised for the extent to which our nation no longer has a purely PACIFIST policy towards Islamism.

Jack, I agree. I certainly don't want to see another 9/11. I think Peikoff and Lewis would argue that Bush's policy will not prevent another 9/11, and when it occurs, it would be better for it to occur under a Kerry administration, thereby discrediting appeasement as a policy.

I disagree with them for three reasons.

First, I agree with you that Bush's actions have decreased al Qaeda's ability and willingness to attack America directly. Something accounts for the fact that there have been no additional attacks since 9/11 -- and if it is not attributable to our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq plus additional security measures at home, then what accounts for it?

Second, there is no reason to believe that a Kerry administration would learn the proper lesson from a second 9/11-type attack. They might very well react with even greater appeasement and a total surrender of U.S. sovereignty to, say, the United Nations.

Third, how on earth can appeasement be any more discredited than it already is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agreed with your post except for the following section:

In a free country, people are guranteed "the benefits of freedom, capitalism, justice, etc." regardless of what beliefs they subscribe to.  Even people who have beliefs antithetical to those that make individual rights possible are guranteed protection of their individual rights. 

These rights are only revoked when an individual initiates force against another individual. 

While I'm all for actively monitoring U.S. citizens who practice Islam, I believe it would be an injustice to force them to leave the country because of their beliefs. 

It's new to me that the non-agression principle is limited to individuals. According to my understanding just the act of *voting* for laws which impede individual rights represents an initiation of force, although an indirect one. If this is true and we value democracy, then *some* force initiations seems to be acceptable. What I want to know is what the clear hierarchy of values is here (and not some mysterious mumbling of "context keeping").

Furthermore, if Objectivism is for a constitutional republic -- in contrast to a democracy -- and ideas, like Islamism, have a distinct moral value, then why shouldn't it be permitted for a Enlightenment Government to deport religionists to where they belong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think deportation based on peoples' ideas is not consistant with capitalism or Objectivism. But I don't see any reason why we couldn't refuse to allow them to immigrate based on ideas.

Yes, I agree, and perhaps require a loyalty oath for immigrants -- but making sure it is to objective principles of a free republic and not to a particular party or faction or other such interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...According to my understanding just the act of *voting* for laws which impede individual rights represents an initiation of force, although an indirect one. If this is true and we value democracy, then *some* force initiations seems to be acceptable. What I want to know is what the clear hierarchy of values is here (and not some mysterious mumbling of "context keeping").

Furthermore, if Objectivism is for a constitutional republic -- in contrast to a democracy -- and ideas, like Islamism, have a distinct moral value, then why shouldn't it be permitted for a Enlightenment Government to deport religionists to where they belong?

Yes, voting is the use of force. Voting for bad candidates is an indirect initiation of force and voting for bad ballot initiatives is a direct initiation of force. When the majority votes to violate the rights of the individual they have initiated a limited civil war in slow motion.

Naturalized citizens are permanent citizens who cannot ever be deported for a criminal offense of any kind - except for the falsification of their citizenship application.

Foreign nationals holding work permits and student visas should either be permitted to stay in the U.S. or be summarily deported based on American foreign policy. Holders of permanent resident visas should be treated with much more respect. They should not be deported without some formal and substantive form of due process - maybe not a court hearing, but something close enough to it.

Today our foreign policy is anti-Islamist, by practice and implication if not by explicitly articulated consciously-held policy. Under that policy, any foreign national suspected any kind of Islamist agitation is (and should be) immediately detained. He is (and should be) deported if it is determined that he is a terrorist sympathizer (after a hearing verifies his sympathies, if he is a permanent resident). He is (and should obviously be) prosecuted if it is determined that he may actually be involved in a terrorist conspiracy.

This is why the Bush Administration required all citizens of Muslim-majority countries to re-register themselves with the INS in 2003 and why it detained over 4000 Muslims suspected of terrorist sympathy in 2001 and 2002. I understand that over the past two years, charges have been brought against only a few dozen of these detainees, while the majority of the remainder have been deported.

Like all dragnets, the Bush Administration's anti-terrorist dragnet was haphazard, scooping up over 100 innocent men for every man who had a connection with a terrorist conspiracy. Likewise the dragnet undoubtedly missed over 90% of those who were materially supporting terrorism. But it created a deterrent that has disrupted enemy operations on our soil.

By the way, all naturalized U.S. citizens take an oath of loyalty. I'm a naturalized citizen, but I don't remember the oath I took. I was only 4 years old at the time. I believe the oath is very similar to that taken by officers of the federal government and members of the armed forces. For civilians, it is - and ABSOLUTELY should remain - an unenforceable oath. The oath is a tradition based on the belief that personal honor (i.e. shame) and God will enforce violations.

When Mr. Bush takes the oath of office on January 20, listen to the words. Every elected and appointed officer of the federal government takes that oath. But we all know that every president and every single officer of the federal government has systematically failed to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

You might also ask yourself how many divorces there are in America.

Oaths are not and cannot ever be enforced by any power outside of the individual's own conscience. Oaths are the product of a by-gone age when auto-suggestion, using religious texts, was widely used by individuals to maintain their religious faith.

There is no rational, secular way to legally require that the content of a new citizen's mind include a deep and abiding fidelity to the American system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 9/11, President Bush has taken no actions to deal with Iran's Islamic State or with the terrorists fighting to destroy Israel.  Qua pragmatist, the lack of any substantive action on Mr. Bush's part demonstrates that he sees no substantial relationship between Iranian terrorism, Palestinian terrorism, and al Qaeda's 'terrorism of global reach.'

I won’t defend President Bush’s war policy or the altruist dogma that so often flows from his lips, but I think it inaccurate to say he has done nothing. After all, Iran is now surrounded on nearly all sides by the military forces of the United States.

Bush’s pragmatism, lack of moral clarity, and devotion to altruist principles are right now preventing him from taking action in Iran. However, I think their inclusion in the “axis of evil” demonstrates his understanding of the threat Iran poses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won’t defend President Bush’s war policy or the altruist dogma that so often flows from his lips, but I think it inaccurate to say he has done nothing. After all, Iran is now surrounded on nearly all sides by the military forces of the United States...

Under President Bush's leadership Iran is surrounded on all sides. True enough.

In 2003, I thought that surrounding Iran was Mr. Bush's real, unacknowledged, reason for ordering the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I thought that citing ambiguous evidence for the existence of WMDs was merely pragmatist cover against charges of "empire!" from the pacifists, altruists, and anti-colonialists.

But Mr. Bush has yet to exploit the invasion of Iraq for the purpose of attacking Iran, Syria, or the Palestinian cause.

I, however, will freely admit to exaggeration.

In ordering Iran be surrounded Mr. Bush has, in fact, done something about Iran and it is something substantial. I have often in the past (even if my praise has mostly not been in print) praised Mr. Bush for doing just that.

Likewise Mr. Bush has supported Ariel Sharon's refusal to deal with the ailing Arafat regime and has explicitly agreed with Israel's military incursions into the Gaza Strip and its assassinations of terrorist leaders in its war with Hamas. This is something, too.

My exaggeration is the product of frustration. I am maybe a little bit too frustrated that none of the skill, the perseverance, and the extraordinary capacity of the American military has been employed against the Iranian mullahs, the Syrian Bathists, or the Palestinian jihadists - all of whom are within easy striking distance of the forward bases established as a part of America's "forward strategy of freedom."

The capacities of our military to do damage to the enemy OUTSIDE of Iraq and Afghanistan is being deliberately withheld.

I am very much in favor of attempts to civilize Iraq - and even Afghanistan - on the Western model, even if that requires all of our 'discretionary' military capacity. I am happy to weather the unearned grief I've gotten from ideological friends for writing that opinion. I'm sure that, in time, I will be proved right.

But the United States has the capacity to attempt to civilize Iraq and Afghanistan AND conduct a campaign of punitive raids against the governments of Syria and Iran. But there hasn't been a single raid (the U.S. has access to these two hostile nations by land, sea, and air). Worse, the Bush Administration has issued contradictory statements on Syrian and Iran. One day they are evil purveyors of Islamic terrorism, the next they are civilized partners in the "war on terrorism."

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction is that the Bush Administration has made no attempt to strip away the legitimacy of that most depraved of the ethnic - or sub-ethnic - identity movements, the Palestinian cause. That could be accomplished by repudiating a Palestinian State. The moral collapse of the Palestinian resistance could be further accelerated with a single, joint, Israeli-American raid against Fhata's 'militia,' the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Instead, the majority of the millions of America's conservative 'hawks' are hoping that ISRAEL will come to our defense by launching an air campaign against Iran's nuclear industry - a measure the United States should have undertaken ten or fifteen years ago.

There, I've done it. I've told you something you already know. (I hate doing it.)

I'm doing it to demonstrate that even an Objectivist who has been anonymously accused (of being publicly accused) of suffering from sublimated altruist premises - can be frustrated by the reluctance of the Bush Administration to use military force.

Getting away from the ad hominum tone creeping into the posts on this thread - and the titillating possibility that writers at TIA and representatives at ARI are operating on different premises - the question of war policy first raised in this thread is worth considering at a little greater depth than has been discussed so far.

Is the colonial approach to fighting Islamism is a self-sacrificial policy for the United States?

Is punitive war against Islamism the proper way for an egoist to fight?

The answer to these two questions cannot be found in ethics - egoist, altruist or otherwise. War is not primarily about egoism or altruism. Some of the answers can be found in man's metaphysical nature. Which part of human nature is more potent, good or evil? Does one win a war only by destroying the evil? Or is liberating the good the most powerful force? Is the colonization of a semi-hostile culture an effective way to liberate the power of the good? Or is it only one of the possible forms of failing to destroy the evil?

An answer for whether or not colonial war or punitive war is the best policy against Islamism, one must reach the conclusions, not of philosophy, but of applied philosophy.

I favor colonial war because the history of the British Empire in the 19th Century and the history of America's influence over the world in the 20th, demonstrate that colonial influence is the furthest-ranging and most deeply penetrating power one nation can exercise over others. I favor it because the world is in the midst of history's most rapid, total, and successful colonial expansion: globalization. America is at the center of globalization, politically, culturally, historically, economically, and technologically.

Great Britain stretched its influence over the world by extending many of the benefits of private property, the rule of law, and the industrial revolution. America's globalization also has these forces on its side. In addition, America's influence spreads most quickly down the paths cleared by the British Empire through a shared language and shared aspects of political culture. But the greatest reason for my belief in the power of colonial war is that America - to an extent that has not occurred in the history of the world - has demonstrated what kind of life is possible to man in a world dominated by people who's purpose is the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is the engine of human motivation.

Can I prove my case that colonial war of America against Islamism is a more potent policy for self-defense than punitive war? No, not to the root.

I have not fully figured out this conundrum - a puzzle that is similar to the ones that Jefferson Adams wrestled with. In assessing man's metaphysical nature Jefferson was (almost) right and Adams was wrong. But in arguing over which political system America should employ, both were right. Both offered wisdom in equal doses. In arguing about the particulars of the French Revolution, Adams was right and Jefferson was wrong. But on the question of American slavery, Jefferson was among the most far-sighted of the founders.

Much more than a philosophical assessment is required to answer the question of what should be America's war policy. A study of the today's particular social, cultural, and political circumstances would bring to light the evidence needed to prove the case. Philosophy dictates the methodology of the inquiry and philosophy sets its objectives. Philosophy even answers some aspects of the question outright. But to answer such a specific question as how America should best defend itself against Islamism, one needs the wisdom of the special human sciences: political science, history, military science, military history...to name the first four areas that come to mind.

As to the philosophical aspects of the answers, I would say that philosophical answers to the questions of war cannot be found without going deeper into the philosophical hierarchy than ethics. In war, one must look to principles that are half above, half below an axiom of the Objectivist ethics: the choice to live.

One cannot hold oneself above or outside the battlefield and judge the issues on the assumption that one will survive the SUCCESSFUL course of action in war.

Unlike other issues of ethics and politics, good war policy injures and kills good people. Concluding that those who died, died serving their greatest personal, selfish interests in liberty is a perfectly valid moral judgement. But it is also a fact that those who died did not live to enjoy the benefits of their actions.

At an individual level, those who are killed in the process of achieving victory in war are usually from among those charged with taking the actions needed to accomplish it. And nearly all of those who benefit are from among the population who accepted no significant risk in the adventure.

On the battlefield, well organized, effective armies of skilled soldiers lose lives with much less frequency than those that aren't. But within an army of skilled soldiers, the most skilled individuals die at about the same frequency as the least skilled. The least skilled soldiers make the greatest number of errors, exposing themselves to death delivered by the enemy. The most skilled soldiers often take the most initiative - the initiative on which the successful outcome of battle depends - but initiative increases the individual's exposure to enemy action. On the battlefield, the enemy punishes initiative almost as severely as incompetence.

In war, the closer one is to the battlefield, the more the range of one's personal hierarchy of values collapses to the short range. The demands moment-to-moment physical survival dominate the rational mind. On the battlefield, the state of totally focused perceptual awareness is as close to that of the lower animals' range-of-the-moment consciousness that a man can sustain while remaining sane. It is a 'heightened' mental state soldiers universally report to others as something that can not ever be 'truly' communicated or understand by those who haven't experienced it. The brutality of killing other human beings is an overwhelming experience that soldiers are very reluctant to communicate to those they are sure will not understand. The collective solidarity among soldiers who have shared the death of some of their number is something they also have trouble explaining afterwards. The connection of mutual survival felt among the members of one's immediate team is almost one of a shared body. But as warm as the comradeship of soldiers can be, it is NOT a benevolence that extends any further than the man next to him. Outside their own little team of 5 or 10 or 20 men, the demands of battle cause the soldier to become TOTALLY indifferent to the lives of others, including his own countrymen. Of all the things soldiers don't want to tell civilians, indifference to the deaths of fellow soldiers is their greatest secret.

In war, the use of force is so frequent and pervasive, it constitutes a temporary, man-made, malevolent universe. Even if it is man made, the malevolence is everywhere and it is real. The pervasive evil is the enemy's use of force.

For this reason the internal culture of the armed forces has always been plagued by the philosophical ideas of mystics, collectivists, and altruists. To many soldiers, these ideas seem to be at home - seem to offer survival value - in the man made malevolent world within war. Even the most rational of soldiers usually finds himself practicing - at least temporarily - the ancient moral creed of Stoicism. Soldiers in the field find great wisdom in its call to endure hardship by focusing on personal perfection.

....until the battle is over.

Off the battlefield, the enemy forces the range of the political culture of a nation to collapse. The whole nation would be in turmoil over proposals casually cast about in Washington to convert a third of the social security payroll tax into the private property of retirees. But what happens to federal tax revenues and federal benefits ten or twenty years from now is of no interest to a nation at war.

Similarly, the enemy forces the range of liberty in a nation at war to collapse. Liberty decreases in a steep gradient as one approaches moral and physical frontier with the enemy. Whether it is in a Chicago mosque or the green line in downtown Baghdad or the boarding gate for an airplane flight, the frontier is closed. It is closed, not as a hostile act against liberty, but as an act of defending the nation within which liberty is to be preserved.

Taxes are raised to fund the fighting. Economic and technological efforts are diverted from production to destruction. The private plans of countless individuals are disrupted. The uncertainties of war make long range plans superfluous. New business ventures are shelved, careers are put on hold, marriages are postponed, and young people join the armed forces. In a limited war, the collapse of these kinds of long term economic plans are limited. In a total war, the enemy interrupts all private plans.

The constraints on the range of life imposed by war are often not counted as losses. But the dead and wounded are not the only casualties of enemy action. War is a crime the enemy commits against the mind of man.

This, the full reality of war, must be a part of a rational evaluation of war policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the colonial approach to fighting Islamism is a self-sacrificial policy for the United States?

Is punitive war against Islamism the proper way for an egoist to fight?

What about a combination of the two? Since we have some nations under our control, why not push for greater American influence in Iraq and among our allies in Turkey, UAE, and Kuwait? We could do a sort of colonialism-by-proxy.

At the same time we could do increasing bombing on military targets in Iran and Syria. Give the ultimatum of "join us or die"

At an individual level, those who are killed in the process of making war are usually from among those charged with taking the actions needed to accomplish it.  And nearly all of those who benefit are from among the population who accepted no significant risk in the adventure.

........ Outside their own little team of 10 or 20 men, the demands of battle cause the soldier to become totally indifferent to the deaths of others, including his own countrymen.  Of all the things soldiers don't want to tell civilians, this is their greatest secret.

It is a natural emotion for people to become closer to those immediately around them, and more hostile to outsiders in time of war. I think it happens off the battlefield as well.

I do have issues with these young men dying. Many of them are more rational about politics than many of their contemporaries. To lose someone like that in a war, when lazy anti-American scum live safely to pout in public, is almost intolerable. I start to lose reason on that subject. To see some of my "fellow Americans" that get the benefit of victory...

That is why it is particularly important that these issues be discussed and that the public get a full hearing on our options. That Bush is so lacking in speaking ability is unfortunate. Rumsfeld is good, when he speaks, but still more is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much more than a philosophical assessment is required to answer the question of what should be America's war policy. A study of the today's particular social, cultural, and political circumstances would bring to light the evidence needed to prove the case. Philosophy dictates the methodology of the inquiry and philosophy sets its objectives. Philosophy even answers some aspects of the question outright. But to answer such a specific question as how America should best defend itself against Islamism, one needs the wisdom of the special human sciences: political science, history, military science, military history...to name the first four areas that come to mind.

The actions we need to take for wining the war on terror are the same actions we would take if we were at peace. What we need to do is get rid of the contradictions in our foreign policy for the long term success of america.

We cant kill every individual terrorist in the middle east, but we can destroy organizations, like the militaries and governments.

The answer to these two questions cannot be found in ethics - egoist, altruist or otherwise. War is not primarily about egoism or altruism. Some of the answers can be found in man's metaphysical nature. Which part of human nature is more potent, good or evil? Does one win a war only by destroying the evil? Or is liberating the good the most powerful force? Is the colonization of a semi-hostile culture an effective way to liberate the power of the good? Or is it only one of the possible forms of failing to destroy the evil?

Is the forward strategy of freedom just?

Do all the people in Iraq deserve freedom?

I say no,not all the people in Iraq are good and that's why we are having problems in Iraq now, we are trying to free good people along with bad people who would kill you at a drop of a hat. And that is unjust.

That's why I have said that we should look at groups of people and see if they are fundamentally for us or against us. If i were president Bush i would not have liberated all of Iraq,but I would have liberated the Kurds and then I would have destroyed the government of Iraq and I would have left it in chaos. If the people of Iraq wanted freedom then they could have moved to the new free Kurdish nation molded in our image.

We should do that in all the middle east. Identify people close together in certain areas who want freedom, then we should liberate them from the mother nation to start a new nation and then attack the old government and leave that nation in chaos.

All the battles would be short, and shouldn't all wars be like that?

Peikoff got it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the colonial approach to fighting Islamism is a self-sacrificial policy for the United States?

Is punitive war against Islamism the proper way for an egoist to fight?

The answer to these two questions cannot be found in ethics - egoist, altruist or otherwise.  War is not primarily about egoism or altruism.  Some of the answers can be found in man's metaphysical nature.  Which part of human nature is more potent, good or evil?

These lines present hierarchically the problems Jack Wakeland is proposing. Political and military strategy stand in part on ethical issues, and ethical issues stand on issues of theory of man (the anteroom to ethics).

What I do not understand is the seeming assumption that, philosophically speaking, man has a nature that consists of good and evil in some combination. (Perhaps this is only a compressed way of speaking, and some other message would emerge if these ideas were unpacked.)

I can identify human nature (which philosophically means possessing volitional consciousness and reason, as well as the physical apparatus for acting on awareness of reality), and then evaluate it to say that it is good for man -- but only if he chooses to use it. But I do not see how one can say that man's nature has ethical parts, a dualism of good and bad. An individual man may have good and bad premises, and likewise a society may consist of good and bad individuals, but human nature is not ethically dualist.

Any political and military strategy based on such an idea is bound to be false. An assumption of a perpetual war of good versus bad in human nature leads to an acceptance of a never-ending colonial policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace. That is a recipe for the destruction of the colonializing power, a horror not mitigated by the dissemination of the colonial power's original virtues to the rest of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do not understand is the seeming assumption that, philosophically speaking, man has a nature that consists of good and evil in some combination. (Perhaps this is only a compressed way of speaking, and some other message would emerge if these ideas were unpacked.)

Sorry about making you trip over my words. The rhetorical question I intended to ask was "Which of man's capacities is more potent, the good or the evil?" - a question Ayn Rand clearly and unambiguously answered, "the good."

Answering this question does not answer the question of whether or not the U.S. should pursue a colonial war or a punitive war against Islamism, but is a key part of the answer.

A question I haven't asked myself is does the war effort have to be either colonial or punitive towards each and every one of the enemy nations? I hadn't thought of it before, but Mr. 'Al Kufr' has and, I realize now, the answer is - in the short term - "No."

With a couple of modifications, Mr. 'Al Kufr's' idea makes a great deal of sense:

That's why I have said that we should look at groups of people and see if they are fundamentally for us or against us. If I were President Bush I would not have liberated all of Iraq, but I would have liberated the Kurds and then I would have destroyed the government of Iraq and I would have left it in chaos. If the people of Iraq wanted freedom then they could have moved to the new free Kurdish nation molded in our image.

We should do that in all the Middle East. Identify people close together in certain areas who want freedom, then we should liberate them from the mother nation to start a new nation and then attack the old government and leave that nation in chaos.

I would refine Mr. 'Al Kufr's' approach by looking not at whether or not the majority of the people of a hostile country could be expected to welcome Western Civilization, but whether or not there is a sufficiently powerful minority consisting of a pro-Western middle class, liberal politicians, pro-Western intellectuals...and pro-reform Islamic leaders (GOOD LUCK FINDING ANY OF THESE!).

People at the higher levels in a society's moral, political, and economic organization are far more important, far more influential, than those on the lower levels - especially in the class societies that currently exist in every one of the enemy countries.

Justice is a powerful truth to mobilize on our side. We should employ the principle of justice to the extent that our military capacity allows.

I especially like Mr. 'Al Kufr's' disregarding all the old borders in deciding which people to attack and which people to absorb.

With the Shi'ite majority poised to take control of every elected body in Iraq's new government - and poised to dominate the constitutional congress - we may end up with something a little bit like the split pro-American/anti-American Iraq that Mr. 'Al Kufr' recommends. We will get it AFTER paying the price in life and limb for attempting to colonize them all at once.

An interesting result can be predicted from a policy of mixing colonial war with punitive war in accordance with the nature of each of the semi-hostile or wholly hostile tribes we face in the war. As the semi-pro-Western spheres of the Arabia and Persia prosper and become more powerful under our occupation and influence, the will of the people in the anti-Western spheres would tend to shift.

Punitive raids always undermine the legitimacy of the dictator. Well-targeted raids thin out the ruling class, creating a life-and-death deterrent against joining the elite. Also, a dictator rules not by the grace of being right, but by the power to deliver on what he decides to do - and to stop others from delivering on anything different. Raids undermine the illusion of omnipotence that keeps the dictator's friends and enemies in awe of his capacity to 'deliver.' Raids tear away the potentate's pretensions of potency.

A short term policy of extending the arm of colonial influence the more semi-friendly peoples - while attacking the enemy within the more uniformly hostile tribes - would tend to become a long term policy of colonizing all. It is in the meaning and power of justice that this will happen.

My ultimate reason for supporting a policy of long-term colonial war is that it brings victory AND peace. Punitive war can only deliver victory.

In this technologically shrinking world in which we live, our enemies - cowed and deterred and impotent as they may be - will always be our neighbors. So real peace - following Westernization through open cultural and economic exchange or following victory in colonial wars - should be the longest-term goal of all of America's shorter-term foreign policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your modification of my idea. A larger pool of supporters would be better.

I would refine Mr. 'Al Kufr's' approach by looking not at whether or not the majority of the people of a hostile country could be expected to welcome Western Civilization, but whether or not there is a sufficiently powerful minority consisting of a pro-Western middle class, liberal politicians, pro-Western intellectuals...and pro-reform Islamic leaders (GOOD LUCK FINDING ANY OF THESE!).

They wouldnt even have to be large populations or territories. Look at small countires like Liechtenstein, they are small but rich becuase they are relatively free. All we would have to do is create a bunch of "Littel Americas" to influence the rest of the middle east.

Once Muslims see the small free nations prosper and ther large islamic nations fail, the choice of who has the best ideas would be clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...