Oakes Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 For the record, "Yes," I think you're being absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Kufr Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Another point: it simply does not matter that the enemy is weaker than we are. Their weakness should not be an excuse for us to hold back our muscle. They are in fact lethal. They have struck our homeland a mighty blow. They have killed and wounded thousands of our soldiers. They are strong enough to make us die and suffer and quake with fear. And they will continue their evil scheme until we stop being weak and force them to die or surrender. I agree with you here, where did we get the idea that they are weaker than us? Are we marxist materialists? Does everything depend on resources and technology? Just because we have better technology and more resources does not mean we are stronger. They are strong because of their warfare doctrine which does not depend on material wealth, it depends on ideas and information. We think that just because we blow up a few things we will have victory, that's like saying if we destroy the means of production we will destroy capitalism. If on 9/10 i had asked you, what would cause more damage? A 181 strong Japanese dive-bomber and fighter attack fleet or 19 men armed with box cutters what would you say? As we all know, 19 hijakers killed more people and caused more damage with less resources than the attackers at Pearl Harbor. Their strength was that they had information on us and used that to attack us, and thats all they needed. But I grant you that the islamists are fundamentally weak because of their false ideology, but when it comes to warfare they are not weak at all. And in the short run that makes them a threat. Like ive said many times before, People-Ideas-Hardware, important in that order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 But I grant you that the islamists are fundamentally weak because of their false ideology, but when it comes to warfare they are not weak at all. A fundamental (speaking metaphysically) is the cause of many other things, as the foundation of a building supports the whole building. What bewilders me about your statement is how you can say a movement -- such as the Islamofascist movement -- can be fundamentally (philosophically) weak but derivatively (militarily) strong. Could you explain that disjunction? Perhaps the terms "strong" and "weak" need explanation in this context. Do you agree that ideas (particularly philosophical ones) cause history -- that is, cause human actions, individually and socially? If so, how, in your view, can a weak philosophy cause strength in warfare? P. S. -- You said "ideology" rather than "philosophy," but an ideology is only an application of a philosophy to a particular milieu. Therefore the underlying philosophy is the fundamental of the ideology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Kufr Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 What bewilders me about your statement is how you can say a movement -- such as the Islamofascist movement -- can be fundamentally (philosophically) weak but derivatively (militarily) strong. Could you explain that disjunction? Perhaps the terms "strong" and "weak" need explanation in this context. In the same way that the Nazis were fundamentally impotent but militarily strong. They had a socialist system that was doomed to fail in the long run. The Nazi ideology had to be take on faith like a religion withought the use of reason, It was basically mystical. But just because they used mysticism some of the time, does mean they were mystics ALL of the time. When they were developing new weapons were they using mysticism? No, they were using science and reason. When they developed the blitzkrieg doctrine did they use the Nazi ideology to come up with it or did they use military science? Remember the Nazis were materially weak, but why was their military so effective? The British and the French and just about every other military in the world was using attrition warfare to fight, this is basically using massive amount of mindless firepower to destroy your enemies. They had the resources to be so watseful, the germans didn't. So they needed to develop a way of fighting that would let them win against superior forces. So they developed the blitz. Speed replaced firepower as the most important tool, and dislocation, mental as well as physical, was more important than attrition.-William S. LindThe Germans always had problems because of their lack of resources so they need a way to overcome the superior armies of great Britain and France. When the French and British faced the Germans in 1940, for example, their position looked surprisingly strong: Allied Advantages -Number of forces -Overall quality of tanks -Selection of the battlefield -Immunity from surprise Many people find this table difficult to accept, so let us consider its elements one at a time. Number of forces: The forces were roughly equal, at a time when conventional wisdom said one needed a three-to-one advantage to ensure a successful attack. The French actually had a commanding superiority in artillery, which had been the big killer on battlefields since the 1600s. Quality of tanks: As for tanks, the Germans had been prohibited from developing them by the Treaty of Versailles and really had not done much until 1933, when Hitler came to power. By May 1940, the Germans had only 627 tanks that could be considered modern (PzKw IIIs and IVs.) (Batchelor, 8-10; Jones 511-513; Macksey 35; Orgill 59; Roseler; Deighton) Selection of the battlefield: The battlefield was where it had to be, because the French Maginot Line forced the German attack into the 200 mile gap between the end of the Line and the sea. Both sides understood this. No possibility of surprise: Finally, there could be no major surprises since everybody knew there was war on (Germany had attacked Poland on September 1st of the previous year) and the allies were fully expecting an attack. With all this going for them, how could the allies lose? So the French felt safe and confirmed in their strategy of waiting for the Germans to make the first mistake. Unfortunately, only ten days after the attack started, the Germans reached the English Channel, a trick they could not achieve in four years of bloody brawling 25 years earlier. Far better armies than the French of 1940 have succumbed to the same fate One might at this stage glance back over the advantages the allies had at the start of the blitzkrieg. Taken together, they locked the allied leaders into outmoded patterns of thinking about war. On May 19th, for example, Churchill proclaimed that there was no way the combined army of three or four million men could be defeated by what he termed a "raid of mechanized vehicles." The next day, the panzers reached the coast and the French who had survived, which was most of them, in a vast pocket to the north of the German thrust, had no choice but surrender. -RIDING THE TIGER, by Dr. Chester W. Richards The Germans won because of IDEAS and instead of wasting resources trying to physically destroy the enemy they actually sat down and thought up a way of attacking a more important target, the enemys mind. What our military is doing in america is wasting resources trying to outkill the enemy with bigger bombs and more expensive technology instead of sitting down to out think the enemy. In Afghanistan,Kosovo,Somalia and in Vietnam we have been having the same problem. How was it possible for almost the entire Serbian army to be almost untouched even with all of our technology and firepower bombing them night and day? Why werent our conventional forces(attrtion forces) effective against the taliban in Afghanistan? Why didnt all that firepower that we dropped against the VC and NVA win the war in vietnam? I can go on and on, but this is the answer to why, John Boyd said, Machines don't fight wars. People do, and they use their minds. The enemy knows that, do we? Do you agree that ideas (particularly philosophical ones) cause history -- that is, fundamentally cause human actions, individually and socially? If so, how, in your view, can a weak philosophy cause strength in warfare? It doesn't give them strength in that aspect, its only their motivator. Can Islam help muslims live a better life on earth? Does it teach them anything about using their minds? No If the islamists "won" and conquered all of the western world what would that mean? How long would it last? The answer is that it wouldn't last and they cant conquer us, but they can kill us. They don't use reason to discover the proper social system. They don't use reason to discover what mans nature is. They don't use reason to discover a cure for cancer. They don't use reason to determine what the proper morality is. They dont use reason to create wealth for themselves. They don't use reason for any of these aspects of life, but they do use it for warfighting. Just like i said before, just because they use mysticism some of the time doesnt mean they use it all of the time. When Jack Wakeland, military leaders and people in politics call the terrorists weak they say it because the terrorists don't have the material strength we have. And that seems to be their only criteria for judging them. But warfare is more than just who has the biggest weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadfly Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Yes, the evidence for your claims may indeed be there, but I don't see how your post (in response to BurgessLau's query for evidence) supports them. His response to Dr. Yaron Brook is all the evidence I need to support my opinion. Also, please feel free to read Mr. Wakeland's most recent post No. 72, regarding his view of the current Iraq War/War on Terror. This is not a presentation of evidence. Jack Wakeland wrote: " The reason for my strategic optimism comes from the fundamental nature of America and the nature of our enemy. Missing opportunities for major victories in the past two years does not alter the dramatic strategic advantage the America and Western Civilization hold over the Muslim World." He seems to be trivializing goals. Objectivists do not trivialize goals. Read any number of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works for a further explanation. How does this quote indicate trivializing of goals? Jack Wakeland wrote: "America is spreading out and winning across the globe (see http://tiadaily.blogspot.com/2004/11/empir...-happiness.html ). “Globalism” is Americanism" This is a blatant tribute to collectivism. Objectivists do not advocate collectivism in any way. The evidence may be there, but you did not present it. The link also does not work. Jack Wakeland wrote: "Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has a big job ahead of him. He has to be Iraq's Washington and Lincoln. His chances are good so long as he has the nearly invincible power the United States of America behind him." Here he advocates America as altruist. Objectivists do not advocate altruism. How does this quote indicate altruism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadfly Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 UPDATE - I found the original link in Yes's quote: http://tiadaily.blogspot.com/2004/11/empir...-happiness.htm. It seems to me that this article by Jack Wakeland simply points out the positive influence that American culture has had around the globe. I still don't see the collectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Jack's posts contain many good points. I share his overall optimism that we will eventually win. That, however, is not the issue at hand. The issue is, why fight "partial war" and suffer significant American casualties, when "total war" would eliminate the threat to America and result in far fewer American casualties? Jack said: Only about 4,000 civilians were killed during the invasion of Iraq. Probably fewer than 1,000 have been killed by American forces since then. This is something to be PROUD of.This was worth the loss of some 1,200 American soldiers? I agree completely with MisterSwig's last post. I’ve yet to read any argument that justifies surrendering the life of a single American soldier for the sake of saving Iraqi civilians. When did the function of government become the protection of foreign civilians in war, as opposed to protecting the rights of Americans? How many Iraqi civilians are you willing to surrender your life to save, Jack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argive99 Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 I've just reread this thread and I couldn't resist posting my comments on some of the various posters. Kudos for MisterSwig and AisA. I have enjoyed their posts the most. BurgessLau is a very intelligent man and asks many questions. Almost to the point of irritation. Al Kufr is in a world of his own. His obsession with military tactics is annoying and his posts have essentially become unreadable. Jack Wakeland sounds like a smart and intellectually active man and he has many valid insights to offer on the subject of foreign policy. But his analysis also contains too many flaws. I agree with Yaron Brook who answered when I asked him directly that he thought that some altruistic premises had infected Wakeland's thinking process. As a result, I disagree with the bulk of Jack's commentary. And I would not want be a soldier in an army with him as a policy maker. However, I would enlist tommorrow if Yaron Brook were calling the shots. Lastly it seems that there are two fundamental types of people in these various war threads; one group that has no problem with the use of massive retaliatory violence and another that will only accept much more restrained agression. I am part of the former group and would not have lost a seconds worth of sleep if we had already killed 10 million in Iraq (let alone 4000 Mr. Wakeland which you are so proud of) and were planning to kill 10 million more in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria seperately. I care about the Unites States. I could give a damn if the rest of the world goes to hell in a hand cart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 I've just reread this thread and I couldn't resist posting my comments on some of the various posters.... Just for the record, I want to say that I essentially agree with argive99's summation and I commend him for such a succinct presentation. I have a lot of respect for Jack Wakeland -- his level of thought and analysis -- but in this case I think he is just wrong. There is one point I would like to add. Frankly, I think this whole "war" is absurd. Our job in life is not to bring freedom to the rest of the world, especially a world steeped in such a bad philosophy that it is doubtful it could sustain that freedom for long. If Iraq was a real threat to our security, then we should have just destroyed that threat by the quickest and cheapest means that minimizes risk to our forces. As far as I am concerned, a single American life is more important than the entire nation of Iraq, so putting massive troops on the ground is just absurd. We should have destroyed the threat by any other means -- conventional or nuclear weapons -- and delivered the necessary destruction without concern for Iraqi life, keeping the greatest reasonable distance between us and our enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Argive and Stephen, My thoughts exactly. Both in your evaluation of this thread and of the war in general and what we should be doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 it seems that there are two fundamental types of people in these various war threads; one group that has no problem with the use of massive retaliatory violence and another that will only accept much more restrained agressionAnd which category would you say I am in? Are my premises tainted by altruism as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 For the record, "Yes," I think you're being absurd. How dare you? Places Oakes on my Ignore List Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Wakeland Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Mr. Laughlin identifies something explicitly that is a point of confusion in the posts of some others in this thread. Journalism is not philosophy. What I work at (part time) is journalistic commentary and analysis - from an Objectivist perspective. Are the conclusions of my articles philosophical? No. My objective is to integrate an analysis of the events of the day with my philosophical viewpoint, Objectivism, the view point I learned from Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. Through the last year, I have come to the point where I don't trust any published source that makes historical claims -- that is, statements about events in the past, even the recent past -- without documentation of some sort. When a writer tells me about events that supposedly happened thousands of miles away, my first reaction is: Oh, how do you know this? There is a sliding scale of appropriate answers. But if a claim is to be publicly objective (that is, the ideas proposed are based on facts available to the listener as well as to the speaker), then the writer must offer a lead to his sources, so that those sources can be cross-examined and evaluated. I cannot answer for anyone else writing on current events, but I typically read 5 or 6 newspapers a day, three or four days a week, to stay informed, to look for interesting stories, and to get a 'feel' for the flow of events in America and in the world. As a result of this, I have a pretty good idea what kind of daily events I understand and what I'm not as clear on. I write on issues over which I have a good general contextual grasp. And I can - with some expertise - judge the analysis of others on these subjects. The pieces I've sent in to TIA Daily typically source only one or two oneline articles, but I typically have a context of a dozen (sometimes more) other articles I've read on the topic and related topics. If I don't think I've read more on the subject than one of TIA Daily's typical web-surfing readers, I keep my mouth shut. I have no interest in telling people what they already know. I am proud to claim that I have a good track record on that. When it comes to articles for the monthly print edition of TIA, I footnote about one article from a reputable journalistic source per 1000 words. If the article contains a strong detailed storyline, there will be about five to ten foot notes for every 1000 words. All or most of these footnotes are usually omitted from the print edition to conserve space. For example, the 18,000-word monologue on the invasion of Iraq from which the 13,000 word article, "The Centurions of American Ingenuity," has 109 footnotes. The densist footnoting of all my articles was for the two-part series "California's Green Brownout." That 8,000+ missive contained 410 footnotes. On one occaission Rob Tracinski was challenged by one of the other major intellectuals of Objectivism on a shortnote I wrote. He didn't believe it was possible that in America a man could be prosecuted for manslaughter because the handgun he sold to a friend eventually ended up - after it passed through at least three more hands - being used to murder a police officer. Within minutes of receiving the challenge, I e-mailed three stories from the Detroit Free Press and one from the Associated Press on the bogus Michigan manslaughter charge. They were in unprinted footnotes of the story. If you don't like the current journalist bent of TIA, I am happy to take part of the 'blame' because for years I've been pushing Rob Tracinski to add more meat to the current events commentary in the magazine...and, much to my satisfaction, he has satisfied my appetite for a greater and greater volume of specific, relevent, in-context facts. Again, I do not believe Objectivists subscribe to TIA to read what they already know, so when it comes to its commentary on current events, I hope most of the readers learn something new about the facts of the issue as well as from the analysis and evaluation. If you don't like the journalist style of this kind of current events commentary, that's too bad. It is NOT in the usual style of Objectivist commentary. It is journalistic commentary from an Objectivist perspective. I view Rob Tracinski's political analysis of the "War on Terrorism" over the past three years as a major intellectual body of work in rational JOURNALISM. Like economics or psychology, journalism is one of the sciences of man. It is a specialized area within the discipline of history. It is 'current history.' It isn’t the job of the philosopher to swat flies. But it IS the job of the journalist. Some people don’t want to spend their time reading and understanding the day-to-day, month-to-month, year-by-year events of the world. I do. The STORY interests me. Each day another page is written in the great human drama of human history. My memory of reading news articles at the time -- a shakey source at best -- contradicts the claim made about "the" Fallujah hospital....See Richard Oppel Jr., "The Conflict in Iraq: Attack by Joint Force; Early Target of Offensive is a Hospital" New York Times, November 8, 2004. (The article, which I read in full last month, seems to be available now only in archive -- for pay -- form, except for the abstract.) The Oppel article claims that rather than having destroyed it, U. S. forces seized and held it, thus diverting combat forces that could have been used elsewhere in the street fighting. For day-by-day military events in Iraq – and what they mean – I've read the commentaries of Victor Davis Hanson (at National Review Online), the commentaries at the Belmont Club, and from a close reading of major newspapers (The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, London’s Daily Telegraph, and others). On the specific question of what was structures were attacked or not attacked and destroyed or not destroyed in recent fighting in Iraq I am happy to clear up confusions. I didn't need to check my sources to recall your account of the fate of the main hospital in Falluja. You are are CORRECT. It was not destroyed. It was occupied by American forces in the three or four days leading up to the main attack on the insurgents in the city. But according to one or two stories I read in the Daily Telegraph and according to the analysis of the Belmont Club, the occupation of the hospital was not a diversion of military resources. The hospital was a key link in the chain of defensive positions along the south bank of the Euphrates River that cut off the southern and western routes of escape for the insurgents (before troops took up positions along that river in the first days of November, one can assume that many escape routes were still open in those directions). The main assault on the city came from the north. On the issue of the mosques, I recall reading a detailed story (in one of the major newspapers I listed above) about raids on mosques that included airplanes dropping precision guided bombs on the structures, tanks firing main gun rounds into shrines, and helicopters shooting up minarets with 25mm chain guns. I read numerous accounts of infantry assaults by American and Iraqi forces…including – of course – the raid that included the supposedly ‘questionable’ shooting of an Iraqi insurgent who was feigning death. But how many mosques were attacked by American and loyalist forces? During the battle of Falluja, I read article after article that when Marines spotted enemy activity in and around mosques – using sensitive long-range infrared telescopes from satellites, aircraft, and ground forces – they were targeted for attack. But beyond that there is no reliable information out there that I’m aware of on the fraction of mosques were attacked. According to al Jazeera half of Falluja’s 120 mosques were damaged or destroyed during the battle. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6E7...7C9A8FC6DAC.htm Al Jezeera is, of course, NOT a credible source. Pro-insurgency Arab publications and socialist blogs have repeatedly cited this particular al Jezeera report as ‘proof’ of American ‘war crimes’ against Islam. These enemy propagandists also bitterly complain about brutality of the American assault on Falluja. The 1000-ft-long anti-mine exploding chains launched down residential streets, the frequent use of white phosphorous artillery shells, and the dropping 500-lb bombs on snipers in a city with tens of thousands of unevaluated civilians – “WAR CRIMES!” – they complain. It sucks to be on the losing side of battle…and these propagandists feel the pain of the losers. A more reliable source is the L.A. Times. A recent story paints a portrait of a city that was ravaged by battle without saying anything about the mosqueshttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...headlines-world . An L.A. Times story from earlier in the month indicates that civilians returning to their destroyed city have found shelter in some schools and mosques http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print....s04/1208-09.htm . So, obviously some of them were not badly damaged during the battle. Did the mosques of Falluja get special treatment? Yes, but no more than any other nominally civilian structure. In Iraq, major military American military operations have been conducted under the rules of war defined in the Geneva Conventions when it comes to nominally civilian structures. Under the American policy, troops have to identify enemy activity within structures such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, before military action may be taken against them. If Yaron Brook views these rules as inherently evil – the sacrifice of American soldiers lives for the sake of the foreign civilians – I do not. These rules are evil only if they are misapplied. When misapplied they present an unreasonable impediment to military operations. Their misapplication is evil only in so far as they aid the enemy and result in the death and injury of American soldiers. (The first rule of war is that your side must win.) In contrast to the egregiously bad policy decisions of this spring and summer, I have not read of any significant misapplication of the rules of the Geneva convention in to the two major military operations of the fall: Samarra and Falluja. In operating inside enemy-infested cities the American military has demonstrated a masterful technique of rapidly locating the enemy in front of it, moving rapidly to split and isolate them, targeting these isolated groups with heavy and extremely well-aimed bombardments, and then patrolling the kill zone with infantry to pick off (or capture) the survivors. In my semi-untutored opinion, this level of maneuver warfare in urban fighting has not occurred before. The extensive use of maneuver warfare in urban combat saves both American military AND Iraqi civilian lives. Observance of the Geneva Conventions on war is mostly a byproduct of - not a restriction on - this method of fighting. The only place where the Geneva Convention may be misapplied today in Iraq is in the guerrilla warfare aspects of the insurgent / anti-insurgent battle in Iraq. Ambushes and roadside bombings need to be answered by sweeps through neighborhoods – including all mosques, schools and hospitals. I have not read of schools and hospitals being immune to such sweeps, but I strongly suspect mosques are routinely regarded as off limits. If that is true, it is a major issue. But I would submit to the readers of this forum that none of us have clear information on whether or not the U.S. military is systematically allowing the enemy to use mosques as sanctuaries today. Assuming that the mosques used as sanctuaries in the spring and summer are still sanctuaries today is not rational. If you are complaining about restraints on military operators TODAY, read the newspapers and see what is happening TODAY. Never assume military policies and practices stay the same. Things change rapidly during war. For those who hate my long-winded answers, I’ll give some direct replies: Are our soldiers' lives are more valuable than the lives of Iraqi civilians? No. (Rationalist thinkers are free to deduce that my “No” actually means “Yes.”) Are altruistic tactics in Iraq resulting in needless American casualties? Do these tactics embolden the enemy? My long-winded answers address exactly these questions. The altruist premise has hobbled our war STRATEGY (e.g., why Iraq was targeted ahead of Saudi Arabia and Iran, why we turned power over to the Allawi government and are putting our whole war effort up for a vote by the IRAQI people next month). However, the hobbling of TACTICS was not an issue during the battle of Falluja (It was a major issue in earlier major battles and may also be an issue in the skirmishes that make up most of today's fighting – although I and no one else in this forum – have not yet identified any specific evidence of it.) Did the function of government become the protection of foreign civilians in war, as opposed to protecting the rights of Americans? No. But be careful about making rationalistic deductions from this premise. Even if the concept of individual rights does not apply across borders during war, that does NOT cancel out the fact that the value of innocent human life is universal. The fact that our government is only responsible for our safety does NOT give it a license to kill indiscriminately. If you have trouble grasping the abstract moral dimensions of this question, you might go out and buy a gun and then ponder the morality of who exactly it is that you will permit yourself to shoot. You’ll discover that the law has very little to do with your conclusions. The law of self-defense merely reflects YOUR own moral law. Is our military wasting resources trying to outkill the enemy with bigger bombs and more expensive technology instead of sitting down to out think the enemy? Yes and No. It is primarily the old heavy-army Pentagon that has opposed and dragged its feet on developing anti-insurgency capabilities. Intelligence agencies and the special forces groups that answer them have no trouble outthinking our “4th Generation” enemy. Our far more numerous and heavily equipped regular occupation forces lack the capacity to engage in “4th Generation” warfighting for one big reason: they have almost no soldiers who speak Arabic. On the question of how the “4th Generation” war in Iraq is going to turn out, watch the results of the January 30 election. The people of Iraq are going to decide the issue. George Bush’s sometimes-insane, anti-imperialist policy of “Iraqification” is America’s war policy. The United States is depending on the weakest link in the entire effort – the Iraqi people - to move the “War on Terrorism” forward. If they don’t – which is likely – watch for President Bush to make a major pragmatist “swerve” to modify or disgard the policy. Mr. Bush is determined to make Iraq the battleground with Islam, is determined not to leave, and – so far – the majority American people are with him. Did we have the same problem in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Somalia that we had in Vietnam? No, not exactly. Where are all the problems in Afghanistan? Where is the supposedly resurgent Taliban (or mujaradeen, or whatever). If we are somehow ‘losing’ the war in Afghanistan, then all the newspaper correspondents of the world must be living in an alternative dimension in which no bad news can enter. Every month or two I read about fears that the Taliban is regrouping...and then I read about American, Afghan army, and Pakistani military raids...and then nothing more for a couple of months. How was it possible for almost the entire Serbian army to be almost untouched even with all of our technology and firepower bombing them night and day? The government of Serbia fell. Does that count as victory only in the outmoded linear thinking of Western Civilization? Or did Slobodan Milosevic escape from prison and take over Serbia while I was away for Christmas holiday? The Somalia and Lebanon deployments weren’t big enough to be classified as badly conducted warfare. The sacrifical casualties were the result of altruist foreign policy conducted on a small scale. Men were killed for what were conceived as symbolic ‘humanitarian’ gestures. Vietnam was a lot more – a lot worse, a lot more sacrifical – than an empty altruist gesture. Why ask what would happen if Islam conquered all of Western Civilization? It is IMPOSSIBLE! The worst Islam can conceivably do is to survive the INTERNAL collapse of Western Civilization and inherit a few of the closest and poorest provinces. Do I claim the terrorists are weak because they don't have the material strength we have? No. I REPEATEDLY claim they are crippled by a fundamental spiritually weakness. For the benefit of those who might rationally consider my point of view – but had trouble getting the link to work – here is my short argument on the international power of the American system (a longer treatment is in the works): _______________________________________________________ TIA Daily | October 7, 2004 The Empire of the Pursuit of Happiness Jack Wakeland Mankind’s liberty was established here, for the first time, in the United States of America. It was established at the height of the Age of Reason, following centuries of intellectual struggle to understand the nature and necessity of liberty and after ten years of political turmoil, six years of war, and eight more years of political re-organization. Since our nation’s founding, our government has strayed from its original mission of acting solely to secure individual rights. The mind can catalog the collapse of so many of the intellectual underpinnings of liberty and can count so many broken principles of proper government, it is easy to ignore the principle that still operates the best: the right to the pursuit of happiness. The moral commitment to individual achievement, the need to be an independent self-sustaining entity, the idea that one’s work ethic is a fundamental character trait, the virtue of making money and the need to turn a profit – along with the conviction that one can control the course of one’s life, take pleasure in the pursuit of one’s goals, rationally expect that one’s focused productive efforts will meet success, and that life will be _fun_ – these are all hallmarks of egoism, the moral foundation of this right. In the traditional, pre-industrial societies of the world, a businessman must ask the permission of all neighbors – especially his competitors – before undertaking a new venture. As a leader, maintaining the existing order of society is his fundamental duty. The status quo is a hard shell that economic and technological innovation must penetrate. There is little growth or change. For the common man, traditional society is even more oppressive. Social relations are frozen. It is the function of those on the bottom of the social ladder to remain in their places and serve those over them. It is the fate of the sons of fishermen, cobblers, tenant farmers, and bakers to live their father's and grandfather's lives. It is the fate of the daughters to be sold into neighboring families to breed children, the cement that binds families into clans. In advanced societies that have retrograded back towards the traditional collectivist order, businessmen step off of jets and ride elevators and meet in richly paneled boardrooms studded with the latest communications technology...and figure out how to push the company profits out of the management hierarchy, down to the workers, and out to the customers…anywhere but to the owners of the business. In these retrograde societies it is not nice to let it show that one has accomplished more than one’s neighbors. Modesty is one’s place. But in America – especially after the stockholder’s rebellion of the ‘80s – business leaders do not regulate company profits to ‘socialize welfare.’ They seek the highest stakes for themselves and the greatest profits for their companies. For them, nothing is ever good enough. They push for constant improvement. Theirs is a society of change, upheaval, and $100-million executive bonuses. In the middle levels of achievement, Americans work long hours and stockpile every article of luxury possible to themselves. They enjoy their luxuries and aren’t shy about having them. They’re mobile, changing jobs and cities as circumstances suit them. They move to warm sunny places. They find companions and make families for their own pleasure. Some are adaptable in their goals and some are not, but all know that they control the course of their own lives. In American, every man can be his own king, a successful, independent, happy king. That’s the American Dream. Because it’s all around, we often don’t stop to notice. Outside America, however, it is noticed. There are several countries in Europe and a number of other small, beautiful places in the world that are as prosperous as the United States. There are many countries that have great prospects for rapid advancement and success, but nearly all of them are still poor, semi-traditional societies. There is no where else on earth that quite has the ‘feel’ of America. The idea that it is okay to make money and to go out and get what you want - the acceptance of egoism - runs deeper here than anywhere on earth. The consequence - a feeling shared by a majority of people that life is open to them, that anything is possible, and that they’re in the middle of getting where they want to go - is unique to America. This feeling - an emotion some people call ‘freedom,’ but is actually happiness – has captured the imagination of the rest of the world. Because they can see that there is a way to reach it, people throughout the world want to have it, too. In the brief span of sixty years this way of looking at the world has built an empire. It is the youngest, greatest, fastest growing empire in the history of man: the empire of the pursuit of happiness. It is an empire unlike any that has ever existed. The empire does not acknowledge its influence by changing the political borders of the world, but by making the old borders irrelevant. The Army has been used to protect it, but the empire does not advance by force. Business and investment have pushed it forward, but the empire’s “globalizing” business invasion is always just behind the advancing edge. It is spreading a common language, but English follows the advancing frontier. The frontier of the American Empire is in the mind of every man and every woman in every country, who wants a better life, here, on this earth. The best among them look to our nation as proof that it is possible. America is taking over the countries of the world from the inside, one mind at a time. America is a supernova. As it becomes hollow at its core, here in the United States, the empire expands like a shock wave moving across the surface of the earth. It moves with the speed of the imagination – an imagination captivated by the vision of a people exercising their right to the pursuit of happiness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AisA Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Are our soldiers' lives are more valuable than the lives of Iraqi civilians? No. (Rationalist thinkers are free to deduce that my “No” actually means “Yes.”) Jack, thanks for the response. Could you please clarify the sentence above? You place no more value on the lives of our soldiers than on the lives of Iraqi civilians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Kufr Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Jack, thanks for the response. Could you please clarify the sentence above? You place no more value on the lives of our soldiers than on the lives of Iraqi civilians? Is the life of a Canadian worth more than the life of an American? I say No and it also depends on the individual canadian. If we are giving freedom and individual rights to Iraqis then their lives are also as valuable as a canadians life or Americans life. If they are not as valuable then why are we giving them freedom at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Kufr Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 On the issue of the mosques, I recall reading a detailed story (in one of the major newspapers I listed above) about raids on mosques that included airplanes dropping precision guided bombs on the structures, tanks firing main gun rounds into shrines, and helicopters shooting up minarets with 25mm chain guns. I read numerous accounts of infantry assaults by American and Iraqi forces…including – of course – the raid that included the supposedly ‘questionable’ shooting of an Iraqi insurgent who was feigning death. But how many mosques were attacked by American and loyalist forces? During the battle of Falluja, I read article after article that when Marines spotted enemy activity in and around mosques – using sensitive long-range infrared telescopes from satellites, aircraft, and ground forces – they were targeted for attack. But beyond that there is no reliable information out there that I’m aware of on the fraction of mosques were attacked. Our American soldiers self sacrificial lambs in Iraq? Not if they have anything to do with it...here is an article in responses to one of William Linds Columbs. This is written by Maj. John J. Miles,1st Battalion, 8th Marines, one of the regiments that took part in the seizure of Fallujah last month. Why would buildings (including mosques) have to be targeted? For the simple reason that enemy knows of our reluctance to target them, so like any good Fourth Generation warrior, he tries to exploit what he considers our weakness. Lind can make all the academic arguments he likes about how we need to improve our small unit tactics, and how “good small units – true light infantry, which America sadly lacks – can win without the vast collateral damage and civilian casualties that work against us.” I’ll agree with Lind that our tactics aren't’t perfect, and how we can always get better at implementing small unit tactics. However, here is a reality check for Lind: When a small unit is advancing down a street, clearing it house by nerve-wracking house, and they come under fire from insurgents who are using a building for cover, that unit is going to do whatever it takes to silence the enemy fire at the least possible risk to themselves. That remedy is most likely going to be the reduction of the enemy in that building by using superior firepower. If possible, the on-scene commander will use the lightest weapon that will cause the least collateral damage and still silence the enemy. Regardless, the simple math is this: if that small unit leader has to honestly choose between risking the lives of his men by not causing collateral damage, or causing some collateral damage in order to protect his men, that decision is a no-brainer. I don’t care what kind of tactical revolution you come up with, it won’t change the fact that those servicemen’s lives are more important than damage to a structure. End of story. http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews....tch%202004%2edb I think our soldiers and marines know what to value the most. Did we have the same problem in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Somalia that we had in Vietnam? No, not exactly. Where are all the problems in Afghanistan? Where is the supposedly resurgent Taliban (or mujaradeen, or whatever). If we are somehow ‘losing’ the war in Afghanistan, then all the newspaper correspondents of the world must be living in an alternative dimension in which no bad news can enter. Every month or two I read about fears that the Taliban is regrouping...and then I read about American, Afghan army, and Pakistani military raids...and then nothing more for a couple of months. Im not saying that the problem in Afghanistan is that they are regrouping, the problem is the way our conventional forces fight. When second generation forces went up against the taliban and Al quaida forces they were not as effective as our special forces (maneuver forces).The problem is at the tactical level. Here is an example from operation Anaconda. How was it possible for almost the entire Serbian army to be almost untouched even with all of our technology and firepower bombing them night and day? The government of Serbia fell. Does that count as victory only in the outmoded linear thinking of Western Civilization? Or did Slobodan Milosevic escape from prison and take over Serbia while I was away for Christmas holiday?Again, same thing . The serbs gave up because of world pressure(Grand Strategy) and other probable factors, one fo them being the russians. But we did horribly at the tactical level becuase we think that technology can see all and lift the fog of war. Do I claim the terrorists are weak because they don't have the material strength we have? No. I REPEATEDLY claim they are crippled by a fundamental spiritually weakness. That is also my point, and i apologize for misstating your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Wakeland Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Sorry about my answer to the question: ...[A]re our soldiers' lives are more valuable than the lives of Iraqi civilians? I got my "Yes"s and "No"s switched...or was it my "No"s and "Yes"s? The question is a little odd. The use of physical force - especially the use of lethal force - collapses the range of moral concepts. In the ultimate temporary malevolent universe - the battlefield - issues of right and wrong collapse to the most elementary level: the short-range necessity of survival. Life is the supreme value. One cannot compare one supreme value with another and claim one is 'more valuable' than the another. Both our soldiers' lives and 'their' innocent civilians' lives are valuable....even if our soldiers' lives are RATIONALLY our nation's highest priority. A better why to look at the issue is to look at the rational limits of war. An enemy who fights without rules, strips away all of Western Civilization's conventions on war. These conventions were established to mitigate - if only slightly - the panorama of death that progressively overwhelms the soldier’s mind. But the enemy who fights without rules can never strip away the one final limit leaving everyone free to kill everything for any reason. If there are rational limits to the use of force, even in war, what are they? The first law of war is winning (which is a corollary to the first law of nature - survival - the moral basis of self-defense.) This sets the objective limit on the use of force. Killing which leads towards victory is good. Killing that goes beyond that is evil. And killing that leads away from victory is doubly evil. The unnecessary killing of human beings is evil. Sacrificing others is just as evil as self-sacrifice. The conventions of war have survival value for the soldier and the armies of Western Civilization often have abided by them for the rational purpose of inducing the enemy to abide by them, too. But when those limits are breached, only the law of survival remains. Morality is not a social convention - not peace or war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 ... Killing which leads towards victory is good. Killing that goes beyond that is evil. And killing that leads away from victory is doubly evil. The unnecessary killing of human beings is evil. Sacrificing others is just as much an evil act as self-sacrifice. Considering the above was written in the context of you placing no more value on our soldiers lives than those of the civilians in the country we batttle, I would like to have this "unnecessary killing" concretized. Granted that you have agreed that victory is the goal, do we attempt to achieve our goal while minimizing the total people killed, American soldiers and Iraqi civilians alike? So, for instance, if our victory could be won with 1000 American soldiers, 1000 Iraqi soldiers, and 1 Iraqi civilian being killed, this would be better than 1 American soldier, 1000 Iraqi soldiers, and 1001 Iraqi civilians dying? This would seem to be the case if you place no more value on American soldiers than the Iraqi civilians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Even if the concept of individual rights does not apply across borders during war, that does NOT cancel out the fact that the value of innocent human life is universal. The fact that our government is only responsible for our safety does NOT give it a license to kill indiscriminately. Innocent human lives do have value. And it is a goddamn shame that we are forced to kill so many in order to preserve our own life in this war. The blood of innocent Iraqis, however, is not on our hands, Wakeland. It's on those who scream "Death to America!", kill and terrorize us, and then hide behind their ineffective and largely complicit society. In this war, I do not want to go house to house, person to person, observing the Geneva Convention, which will result in thousands more innocent Americans dead and wounded. I want to go nation to nation, society to society (Tehran first), vaporizing enemy cities, as needed, until they surrender to us or perish from the face of the earth. I do not want to send troops into a known ambush, an existing insurgency. I want to pull back and waste the threat from the sky. I do not want to "discriminate" in favor of Iraqis. I want to "discriminate" in favor of Americans. I am not for their life. I am for our life. Are our soldiers' lives are more valuable than the lives of Iraqi civilians? No. Wakeland, you can't have your cake, and eat it, too. You have now proven that what you previously wrote I agree with Yaron Brook on all moral-political essentials. was untrue. Your view opposes Dr. Brook's position (at an essential, moral level) regarding the value of our soldiers' lives versus Iraqi civilians. I notice that you defend your view by saying that we shouldn't "indiscriminately" kill civilians. But who the hell is arguing for "indiscriminately" killing civilians? I, and others, advocate killing Iraqi civilians because it is necessary to save the lives of Americans and end the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 In this war, I do not want to go house to house, person to person, observing the Geneva Convention, which will result in thousands more innocent Americans dead and wounded. I want to go nation to nation, society to society (Tehran first), vaporizing enemy cities, as needed, until they surrender or perish from the face of the earth. I completely agree with this -- and have been saying the same for years before September 11. However, I have almost given up discussing the issue with many other Objectivists precisely because of the sort of resistance that is seen here. Incidentally, I strongly suspect that just one truly massive destruction would be all that is necessary to have the rest of the enemy tow the line. The enemy would have to see that we can destroy them, and that we have the moral courage to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Sorry about my answer to the question: For the record, I do not believe this is a direct quote from something I wrote. However, it is a question I would ask Mr. Wakeland (minus the grammatical error). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Even if the concept of individual rights does not apply across borders during war, that does NOT cancel out the fact that the value of innocent human life is universal. The fact that our government is only responsible for our safety does NOT give it a license to kill indiscriminately. If you have trouble grasping the abstract moral dimensions of this question, you might go out and buy a gun and then ponder the morality of who exactly it is that you will permit yourself to shoot. You’ll discover that the law has very little to do with your conclusions. The law of self-defense merely reflects YOUR own moral law. It is precisely that innocent human life which will support bloody regimes willingly or unwillingly causing a rights respecting country's destruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 To Jack Wakeland: You made substantive changes to your post #92 in this thread by editing it after it was posted. My response to your post was made before your edit and it contains quoted material which is not in your edited posting. When editing after posting, it is customary to note that you have done so if substantive changes were made. There is a little button, something like "Edited by" that you can check in the edit, and then the record shows that the posting was edited. Otherwise, substantive changes can lead to unexplained confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 I completely agree with this -- and have been saying the same for years before September 11. However, I have almost given up discussing the issue with many other Objectivists precisely because of the sort of resistance that is seen here. Incidentally, I strongly suspect that just one truly massive destruction would be all that is necessary to have the rest of the enemy tow the line. The enemy would have to see that we can destroy them, and that we have the moral courage to do so. EXACTLY! So why is it that Jack Wakeland, in his zeal to criticize Yaron Brook, doesn't realize this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 For the record, I do not believe this is a direct quote from something I wrote. However, it is a question I would ask Mr. Wakeland (minus the grammatical error). I think the reason for the confusion is that Jack edited after posting and the original quote to which he was responding was from AisA, not you. The words attributed to you seem to have been written in the edit, wiping out the original quoted material. (Note that in the past I have argued against having the ability to edit a posting after it is posted, and these sort confusions are part of the reason why. I am glad that the moderator reduced the window for editing to just a few minutes, but I wish the editing facility was removed completely. The record should stand with what is posted, and any clarifications can be made in a follow up post.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.