A challenge to Yaron Brook

[stephen_speicher]

EXACTLY!

So why is it that Jack Wakeland, in his zeal to criticize Yaron Brook, doesn't realize this?

Jack has given his reasons, and, in my opinion, he has made the best case of those who object. I think he is wrong, but reasonable people can disagree (maddening as that may sometimes seem). 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.

[Ed from OC]

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.

"Life" is not the supreme value; my life is my supreme value, just as your life is yours. On that basis we certainly can compare the values we place on the lives of others. The life of someone pointing a gun at my head is clearly an anti-value. If that person uses an innocent bystander as a shield while threatening me, then the life of that innocent is certainly of less value to me than it would be were he uninvolved.

[Free Capitalist]

Wow I suddenly find myself in a tiny minority here. I accept mass bombing and nuclear strikes as moral alternatives, but I am one of those people who rejects the claim that conversion of Middle East into a glass factory via nuclear weapons is always necessarily the best military option. I utterly reject Jack Wakeland's arguments that "killing beyond a certain amount is evil", but don't approach the subject of casualties with the same excitement as argive99 does, either; if a million Iraqis have to die to save an American soldier, I will stagger under the magnitude of this action even if the morality is fully on my side. If the civilians have to die, then they will die, but I'm not going to be happy and defiantly gleeful about it. I think it was Pindar, 2,500 years ago, who has said, "War is sweet only to those who have never experienced it."

So anyway, even if I'll be mortified by the waves of corpses melted down after a nuclear blast, I will still go through with it, if this action will bring about swift victory to my side, and also if my side morally deserves to exist, while the enemy does not. In the aspect of what is moral and what is not, I am firmly in Brook's camp, along with Dr. Peikoff and the rest.

But again, let's not confuse morality with military strategy here. Total war is usually the most effective course of action, but not always. Saving civilians and letting an American soldier die, while being a terrible calculus of war that it is, may indeed sometimes bring about the victory that a nuclear strike will not. It seems everyone here has fallen into the dichotomy of saying that either 1) nuclear annihilation is moral, and therefore we must melt down the entire Middle East or else be guilty of some altruism, or 2) nuclear annihilation is not moral, and therefore we ought to send American boys to die in a vacuous hope that this will somehow procure us a moral and a physical victory. The people who accept the second alternative are obviously in the wrong here, so people in the first camp think, "Ah-ha! The camp #2 is flawed to the core in its moral evaluation. Since the only other alternative to our view is wrong, this proves that any objections to our view fall under this category, i.e. are invalid." What if this is a false dichotomy, what if nuclear annihilation is moral but sending American troops into a crossfire is sometimes strategically better than leveling the enemy stronghold to dust? Why is it that no one has put forth such a claim? This is the reason I find myself in a minority of one here - I refuse to side with either camp in this dichotomy; the second camp is just plain wrong, and the first camp assumes total war will always win, and just war will always lose, despite lessons of history.

Please refer to my first and second posts in this thread, where I explain my view more clearly, and cite some of those lessons of history that I just mentioned.

[Al Kufr]

"Life" is not the supreme value; my life is my supreme value, just as your life is yours.  On that basis we certainly can compare the values we place on the lives of others.  The life of someone pointing a gun at my head is clearly an anti-value.  If that person uses an innocent bystander as a shield while threatening me, then the life of that innocent is certainly of less value to me than it would be were he uninvolved.

Then are the people in Iraq a value,?This is not a yes or no question, becuause the people if Kurdistan are more valuable than the sunnis, at least to me.

If they have no value to us then we shouldnt have invaded Iraq to give them freedom to start with. This is where the problem starts and this is why we are having this debate.

We should have made this distinction before the war, we should have sked ourselves, Are the people in iraq worthy of freedom? Will they be a value to us?

If they do then we should value them equally as we would any American and treat them how we would treat people in a city with criminals in them, we dont bomb the whole city, we send in a SWAT Team. IT WOULD NOT BE A GAIN TO KILL THESE CIVILIANS IF THEY ARE A VALUE.

And if they are not a value then we bomb the whole country like Peikoff said.

[gadfly]

It seems to me that the hawks in these discussions see the Americans - all Americans - as different from, and morally right compared to any particular Iraqi. The doves regard individuals from the two countries as being on par; that is, innocent as individuals until proven guilty.

According to this assessment, the hawks view the doves as weak on the enemy, ineffective and perhaps cowardly. The doves view the hawks as rash and callous towards innocent life.

So, what exactly accounts for this difference? i.e. why should non-combatant Iraqi lives be regarded as worthless? Is it the fact that we are at war, and war automatically converts anyone in the enemy country into an enemy? What if Islamic militants were running around Des Moines, Iowa, and we needed to bomb them. Would the nearby Americans become worthless? Is it only when people are organized under the umbrella of an enemy nation that they become dispensable? What is the principle here?

[Al Kufr]

So, what exactly accounts for this difference? i.e. why should non-combatant Iraqi lives be regarded as worthless? Is it the fact that we are at war, and war automatically converts anyone in the enemy country into an enemy? What if Islamic militants were running around Des Moines, Iowa, and we needed to bomb them. Would the nearby Americans become worthless? Is it only when people are organized under the umbrella of an enemy nation that they become dispensable? What is the principle here?

Exactly, just ask yourself, leaving your belief on drug laws aside, how would you brake the will of drug traffickers?

You may ask yuorself, why would he compare terrorists to drug traffickers?

Because terrorists have more in common with drug traffickers than they have with conventional armies.

"In the realm of warfare, the rules are closer to tribal war, or the Wars of Religion, or drug smuggling than they are to Yorktown or Austerlitz or Anzio."

[Ed from OC]

So, what exactly accounts for this difference? i.e. why should non-combatant Iraqi lives be regarded as worthless? Is it the fact that we are at war, and war automatically converts anyone in the enemy country into an enemy? What if Islamic militants were running around Des Moines, Iowa, and we needed to bomb them. Would the nearby Americans become worthless? Is it only when people are organized under the umbrella of an enemy nation that they become dispensable? What is the principle here?

I think you're on to the crux of the issue. I think the problem is spelling out the role of morality in war.

The goal of fighting is to remove the threat of force, but does that provide a moral blank check on the means? Clearly we are free to use force against aggressors, but not against people uninvolved far from the battlefield (i.e., innocent "non-bystanders").

What about undeclared attackers -- those who pose as allies, only to support our attackers?

If a culture is responsible for attacking us, is everyone who subscribes to those ideas guilty of initiating force? If someone chooses to remain a part of an evil culture, are they innocent?

Are we obligated to sort through a corrupt culture, or are we justified in sending them all to meet their maker? (Let's keep moral issues separate from strategic issues of total war, nuking Arabia, etc.)

I'm not convinced of a moral obligation on our part to do anything to help those who willingly remain a part of an evil culture that has bred generations of killers. If some innocents die, the moral culpability lies with those who started this war. And I'm not even sure that the concept of "innocent" applies to nearly so many in the region.

[Oakes]

But again, let's not confuse morality with military strategy here. Total war is usually the most effective course of action, but not always. Saving civilians and letting an American soldier die, while being a terrible calculus of war that it is, may indeed sometimes bring about the victory that a nuclear strike will not.

FC, I used to have your position, but then I realized it's completely wrong. Here's why:

I believed civilians were a valuable center of power, which we dare not alienate with mass bombing and total war. But this reasoning fails because, as I said to Al Kufr, a center of power that requires a sacrifice is not a center of power at all. If we need to avoid killing civilians in order to gain their support, they aren't truly pro-American, and we shouldn't want to ally with them in the first place. We should only ally with those who agree with our goals, our philosophy -- NOT those who will only work with us if we build them schools, grow beards, and avoid civilian casualties.

The same reasoning explains why the UN is fundamentally wrong: It attempts to create relationships between nations without regard for philosophic differences. Any gain from allying with evil to defeat a greater evil is short-term. The short-term gain resulting from our arming of Afghani Jihadists was the failure of the Soviets to push into Afghanistan. Judge for yourself the long-term consequences.

If they do then we should value them equally as we would any American and treat them how we would treat people in a city with criminals in them, we dont bomb the whole city, we send in a SWAT Team. IT WOULD NOT BE A GAIN TO KILL THESE CIVILIANS IF THEY ARE A VALUE.

The doves regard individuals from the two countries as being on par; that is, innocent as individuals until proven guilty.

. . .What if Islamic militants were running around Des Moines, Iowa, and we needed to bomb them. Would the nearby Americans become worthless? . . .

I'll ask both of you the same question I asked Mr. Wakeland: Do you believe that the government is obligated to treat non-citizens the same as citizens? In other words, should it spare no expense or risk to treat non-citizens as individuals, each with civil liberties and the right to a trial?

Both of you make the same error that liberals make: You view war as an act of judicial prosecution. Our soldiers are NOT policemen carrying out a court order -- they are NOT going out to "punish" the bad guys. War is an act of national self-defense, and it is a fatal error to compare it with a domestic situation involving the SWAT team in Iowa, in which our government is obligated to protect the rights of each individual.

[MisterSwig]

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.

Jack Wakeland attempts to find rational "limits" to the use of force in war. I agree, of course, that force may be used rationally in self-defense, but I don't believe that there are limits, or even specific rational guidelines, for its implementation. Its proper use, I believe, depends very much on the context of the specific situation at hand.

If a man, for example, is coming at you threateningly with a knife, what is the proper use of self-defensive force? If you only have your bare hands, then it's proper to beat the attacker unconscious if you can, take his knife, and call the police. (If you are on a desert island, you might have to imprison or execute him yourself to eliminate the threat.) If you have a knife, then it is proper to stab him until he is unconscious. And if you have a gun, it is proper to shoot him.

If the attacker dies as a result of your attempt to stop him, so be it. He risked his life by attacking you. If he attacked you in a crowded place, and you accidentally hit a bystander during your emergency attempt at self-defense, then so be it. The attacker is responsible for the injury done to the bystander, because he is the one who initiated the force which demanded that you urgently protect yourself.

So you can see how there are no rational "limits" to the use of force, not even in self-defense. We are talking about emergency situations, where it is your life or another's. The force used depends on the critical situation at hand and the means with which you are capable of defending yourself.

The standard for self-defense is that you do whatever you possibly can to stop the threat to your life, and you do it as quickly as you possibly can--before harm or death reaches you. You use whatever means readily open to you. And if there's time for thought, and you are smart enough, you might give some consideration to innocents in the line of fire.

However, you do not allow your concern for innocents, or the lack of a better strategy, to prevent you from surviving the attack. You fight ferociously and to the best of your ability. You fight in defense of your own life, with an unhindering regard for those in harm's way.

In the case of war, I believe the first law should be identifying the threat to your nation or society and drawing a line in the sand. The second law should be wasting the threat on the other side of that line until the enemy gives up or no longer exists. If you are a superpower, then you don't risk your life by engaging in a hand-to-hand knifefight with the enemy nation or society. You pull out your heavy weapons and start blasting from miles away.

Against Islamic totalitarianism, it is clearly in our self-defense to begin wasting Iran. It is clearly in our self-interest to waste rebellious Iraqi cities. It is not safe for us to invade these places with infantry. And it is immoral to do so, when we have better and safer means of defending ourselves against such a lethal threat.

Wakeland says that "[k]illing which leads towards victory is good." I agree. And this is why I advocate killing civilians in enemy territory.

[stephen_speicher]

It is my view that the seeds of altruism are pervasive, sown deep in the fabric of society, and are not always easily rooted out from one's psyche. I suspect that this difficulty accounts for some of the views about terrorism and "innocents" expressed by some Objectivists here, and elsewhere. For the record, here are transcriptions of portions of Leonard Peikoff's radio show Philosophy: Who Needs It, from the 9/6/98 show titled "Islamic Terrorists vs America." (Keep in mind that this was even three years before the slaughter of thousands in the Twin Towers.)

"This is an utter corruption of justice. He has no concept of the difference between killing by initiation against innocents, and by retaliation against the guilty. In fact, Christianity obliterates that distinction...The fact is, in a war there are no innocents. Anybody in the Sudan, we are morally entitled to annihilate. It's not their fault, you say? Yes, but it is not our fault either, and they have to bear the sins of their government.

"Ayn Rand once told me that one of the reasons that politics is essential is because any other country in the world has the right to take action against you, if your government is committing atrocious actions. You can't just sit there in the streets and say 'Gee, I didn't know anything about it. I'm just Joe Blow going to this chemical factory at night.' And, is this a war? Yes, it is a war.

"We have to recognize terrorism is always governmental. That means, terrorism is an act of war, and there is no answer to an act of war but to a massive military response, and that response is not on some isolated factory, or maniac, but on the seat of the government. On the capital city, on the structure of the country. A massive attack should take out their leadership, their industry, and inflict major population damage. It should leave those countries reeling from the blow, so that when the world looks they know this is the price -- annihilation is the only way.

"Should we use nuclear weapons? My answer is this. In essence, that is a military, not a civilian issue to decide. The military has to decide what is the most effective way to carry out this type of campaign. And also, nuclear weapons raises the question of innocent countries -- not innocent people within the evil country -- because there is no innocents in your enemy... But, let's assume that the military tells us yes, nuclear weapons would be the best way to destroy this country, and we can protect the innocent countries. Then, I say, not only is it 100% moral to do it, if it's the most effective, it is morally obligatory to do it.

"You don't talk about defending yourself against an enemy, and say, but we don't use our best weapons because it would be very bad press in the United Nations. That would be exactly tantamount to saying we can't use guns, we'll use bows and arrows. If you are going to war, you go to war with everything you've got. Including nuclear weapons. And you say, proudly we did it to Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and we're doing it proudly to Tehran, and Afghanistan.

"Now when dozens of countries are involved, and hundreds of groups, how do you pick which one or ones? Again, a military decision in essence, but I would say, I mean there is no use in doing it to all of them. Just one or two is enough, to show them what is in store. That would scare them all off forever. I would say, choose by the severity of the threat and the degree of the evil of the country. And, to me, assuming the Generals agree, Iran and Afghanistan are the two obvious ones. If I had to cut it down to one, I'd say, ok, make it Iran, because it was the real sponsor all the way through.

"What about people who say well, if we do something really bad to the terrorists, they're going to retaliate. You can be sure they are not going to retaliate if we do what I say. Because they are going to be scared out of their wits. The first thing they are going to do is round up all their domestic terrorists, because they know that if anybody does anything they are next on the list. If this were done with a proper statement by the president, of what he is doing and why, and to hell with the press, the professors, the U.N. and everything. I say, if I wrote the statement, I'd bet I could write one that the American public would apply. They would stand for it, of course, the man that would deliver it would have to be somebody other than Clinton -- it would be inconceivable. But if the right statement were made, followed by the right action, that man would be a hero.

[break]

"We are discussing what the proper response should be to Islamic terrorism. And I say, choose one or two countries that are the root of this Islamic fundamentalism, and I'll use the words of John from Rhode Island, who says 'We should have incinerated those bastards and made their camps uninhabitable. We should have nuked the mountain and proudly announced to the world that future acts would be met similarly'."

[Free Capitalist]

Oakes,

If we need to avoid killing civilians in order to gain their support, they aren't truly pro-American, and we shouldn't want to ally with them in the first place. We should only ally with those who agree with our goals, our philosophy -- NOT those who will only work with us if we build them schools, grow beards, and avoid civilian casualties.

Why can't we temporarily ally with a country that is not our ideological friend, use combined forces to crush a third enemy, and then fight with the weakened original force? Have you heard of the strategy, "Divide and Conquer"? If you were a general in this war, guided by your(inappropriate) moral standard of judging actions in war, you would be completely incapable of using this strategy, and many others.

A good general never limits his strategic options by rationalistic thinking. Yes we should have supported the Afghani mujahedeen against the Soviets, and should have addressed the threat of Osama after the '93 unsuccessful WTC bombing attempt, when their power became alarming. Just because we didn't attack the Afghanis because of Clinton's cowardice does not mean we shouldn't have supported them and helped them crush the Russian war machine against the mountains of Afghanistan.

[Oakes]

Why can't we temporarily ally with a country that is not our ideological friend, use combined forces to crush a third enemy, and then fight with the weakened original force?

Because the original force isn't weakened; furnished with your physical support and motivated by your moral support, it continues on stronger than ever. The proper approach is to let evil destroy evil and go in to finish off the victor.

If you were a general in this war, guided by your(inappropriate) moral standard of judging actions in war, you would be completely incapable of using this strategy, and many others.

You're right -- I would be incapable of allying with such vital centers of power as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight terrorism. I would be left all alone with the miniscule combined strength of the United States, Western Europe, and the capitalistic jewels of East Asia.

A good general never limits his strategic options by rationalistic thinking.

Instead, he should broaden his options with pragmatist thinking? I've never heard such an open attack on philosophic principles on this forum.

Yes we should have supported the Afghani mujahedeen against the Soviets,

And we were to leave the next generation to deal with the Islamo-fascists now equipped with Stinger missiles?

Evil cannot survive without the sanction and support of the Good.

[Free Capitalist]

The proper approach is to let evil destroy evil and go in to finish off the victor.

This is the kind of empty rhetoric that sounds nice but is actually divorced from all reality. Would you propose we left Afghanis alone, let them be ovverrun by the Soviet juggernaut in a few years, opening the road for them to India? Afghanistan, the barren piece of rock that it is, is nevertheless the center of the Eurasian continent, it is a road that leads from one side to the other. A Soviet takeover of Afghanistan would be utterly disastrous for the prospects of retaining American hegemony everywhere South and East of Europe. Would you prefer to see a third of the globe covered in Red rather than admit the folly of your deductions?

I would be incapable of allying with such vital centers of power as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight terrorism. I would be left all alone with the miniscule combined strength of the United States, Western Europe, and the capitalistic jewels of East Asia.

Again more empty rhetoric, devoid of connection to reality. Capitalistic jewels of East Asia are so weak, militarily, that any two-bit dictator could overrun them. Western Europe is utterly unwilling to cooperate with America in its desire for defense from Islamists. Without making ties with temporary allies like Pakistan, you would cost America thousands of more lives of dead American soldiers and billions in wasted money. This is not my "pragmatist" thinking, this is not being taken over by floating abstractions.

I've never heard such an open attack on philosophic principles on this forum.

Yes, an attack on your philosophic principles, in the benevolent desire that either you change them or I will never have you as my commander in chief.

And we were to leave the next generation to deal with the Islamo-fascists now equipped with Stinger missiles?

What Stinger missles? The ones that were launched by the Taliban at American Apache helicopters and military bases? Oh wait, such missiles were never launched... Hmm this tells me that maybe they didn't have them, since they did all they could to remain in power... maybe, just maybe.

[Oakes]

Would you prefer to see a third of the globe covered in Red rather than admit the folly of your deductions?

Rather than half of it in red, and a quarter of it in Islamic fundamentalism? Only by looking with Near-Seeing Glasses will you prefer one over the other -- in reality, both ended up being dangerous threats, which is why it is such a mistake to contain one while empowering another in the process.

Capitalistic jewels of East Asia are so weak, militarily, that any two-bit dictator could overrun them. Western Europe is utterly unwilling to cooperate with America in its desire for defense from Islamists.

If you're looking for strong militaries, you won't find it in East Asia, Western Europe, or anywhere else on this planet save the US. Any military that comes close in technology or size, has a deficiency in training and transportation. We're looking not for strong militaries, but loyal friends with strong economies and commitments to the cause of freedom. Granted, you may not find it in France or Germany for the time being, but the Brits have been valuable allies nonetheless.

Without making ties with temporary allies like Pakistan, you would cost America thousands of more lives of dead American soldiers and billions in wasted money. This is not my "pragmatist" thinking, this is not being taken over by floating abstractions.

Surely you don't regard the absurdity of allying with terrorist-supporting nations to fight terrorism as a floating abstraction.

What Stinger missles? The ones that were launched by the Taliban at American Apache helicopters and military bases? Oh wait, such missiles were never launched... Hmm this tells me that maybe they didn't have them, since they did all they could to remain in power... maybe, just maybe.

Google it for yourself if you don't believe me. We're lucky they weren't well maintained and didn't work well at night, but the idea of helping philosophical opposites to fight a perceived greater evil remains a bad idea.

[Ed from OC]

Let me caution against armchair strategizing.

Military science is a field unto itself, as deserving of respect as history or physics. A proper strategy would be integrated with a proper philosophy; one can't reduce strategy to mere deductions from philosophic principles, or dispense with those principles in favor of range-of-the-moment thinking.

[Free Capitalist]

Rather than half of it in red, and a quarter of it in Islamic fundamentalism?

Oakes, unlike your wildly imaginary comment, mine was fully realistic and based on real facts. If you would have been President of the US during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, you would let it be overrun in no time, inflicting little harm the Soviet war economy but opening the road to India and the rest of the Eurasian continent. With China to the East and Russia to the North, Eurasia would fall like a house of cards. My estimation was that, without much exaggeration, your leadership would result in the entire continent, a full one third of the landmass of the whole of planet Earth, being taken over by the Soviets All thanks to your misplaced idealism.

Having shown how my estimation of the Soviet expansion is at least plausible, I am, on the other hand, completely lost on what facts of reality could possibly give rise to your wild comment about "half in red and quarter as fundamentalist". If you were implying that this is what happened when we helped the Afghanis, you are self-evidently wrong, as history has shown. Instead of covering half of Eurasia with Red, and another quarter with Islamists, helping the mujahedeen has been a key step to breaking the back of the Soviet economy, and getting rid of all Red to speak of (since China is a paper communist tiger). If Clinton wasn't a moral coward, we would place a stern eye on that Taliban after the USSR's fall, and when Osama attempted to assassinate Bush Sr. and blow up WTC the first time, we'd invade them in 1994 and end it then and there. That way we would have prudently followed a divide and conquer strategy, using mujahedeen to destroy the Soviets, and then destroying the mujahedeen. Without this strategy, our little North America would be faced with a war against a giant blob of Red on the Earth's surface. But, thankfully, Reagan wasn't operating under floating abstractions.

Or, instead of speaking directly at the practical and historically proven soundness of my suggestion, I can speak in principles if you'd like. When dealing with two thugs who both point a gun at you, if you suddenly appear friendly and polite to one thug and convince him to turn the gun on his buddy, you are not guilty of an ethical breach. As a wise woman once said, morality ends where the barrel of a gun begins. You appear to view ethics acontextually and dogmatically, that cooperating with one of the thugs, to kill the other one, is somehow sanctioning the former's existence and is thus immoral. I suggest you check her premises.

[ex_banana-eater]

As long as we're talking about rewriting history, why not just go back and say you would have killed the soviets in the first place after WWII? Now, if we were stuck in a situation with the soviets because of the wrong decisions, I assume it is perfectly moral to fund the Afghanis to fight against them since you are climbing out of a hole of immoral policy decisions which have created a enemy superpower capable of destroying you.

I essentially agree with Oakes in the moral aspect of his argument--but where I disagree is implementing it against the Soviets. Just as America will have to gradually become a laissez-faire capitalist society on the homefront, it must also take caution during the transition of its policies in the foreign arena (as in the case when you are facing an enemy that can destroy the world in minutes).

In present day Middle East, America has the ability to completely destroy the Islamic theocracies without any help or support because it isn't facing a superpower. At the moment, America could handily defeat its enemies, so I think now is the time that America need not fund evil allies anymore.

[Oakes]

Having shown how my estimation of the Soviet expansion is at least plausible, I am, on the other hand, completely lost on what facts of reality could possibly give rise to your wild comment about "half in red and quarter as fundamentalist".

That was my mistake -- I meant to hypothesize there being less red and more Islamic fundamentalism as a result of our actions. I restate my question with that correction.

When dealing with two thugs who both point a gun at you, if you suddenly appear friendly and polite to one thug and convince him to turn the gun on his buddy, you are not guilty of an ethical breach.

That's a bad analogy, because all you did was persuade the thug to turn on his fellow thug. If it were as simple as convincing the islamists to fight another enemy of ours, I would be all for it. But for your analogy to hold, you would have to arm that thug and hope he doesn't turn on you.

[Al Kufr]

I believed civilians were a valuable center of power, which we dare not alienate with mass bombing and total war. But this reasoning fails because, as I said to Al Kufr, a center of power that requires a sacrifice is not a center of power at all. If we need to avoid killing civilians in order to gain their support, they aren't truly pro-American, and we shouldn't want to ally with them in the first place. We should only ally with those who agree with our goals, our philosophy -- NOT those who will only work with us if we build them schools, grow beards, and avoid civilian casualties.

My argument isnt that we shouldnt kill them because they might turn on us, its we shouldnt kill them BECAUSE they wont turn on us. If they will, then kill them too.

If we ever go to war with Iran would you say that bombing population centers and killing pro-american students would be to our benefit in the long run?

Both of you make the same error that liberals make: You view war as an act of judicial prosecution. Our soldiers are NOT policemen carrying out a court order -- they are NOT going out to "punish" the bad guys. War is an act of national self-defense, and it is a fatal error to compare it with a domestic situation involving the SWAT team in Iowa, in which our government is obligated to protect the rights of each individual.

Then what are we doing in Iraq? Arent we trying to bring order and security into that country by protecting peoples rights, do they have rights or dont they?

Remember, we are trying to create a situation LIKE Des Moines, Iowa.

Against Islamic totalitarianism, it is clearly in our self-defense to begin wasting Iran. It is clearly in our self-interest to waste rebellious Iraqi cities. It is not safe for us to invade these places with infantry. And it is immoral to do so, when we have better and safer means of defending ourselves against such a lethal threat.

Wakeland says that "[k]illing which leads towards victory is good." I agree. And this is why I advocate killing civilians in enemy territory.

Then why have an infantry at all? Is war really that easy now?

I better throw all these books about war away becuase according to you, war is as easy as pushing a button now.

And can someone please define what victory would look like in this war?

a surrender? what exactly is it?

[Oakes]

My argument isnt that we shouldnt kill them because they might turn on us, its we shouldnt kill them BECAUSE they wont turn on us. If they will, then kill them too.

Are you arguing that most civilians in the Mideast are pro-American and pro-capitalist? Or do you agree with Yaron Brook that many civilians are supporting the insurgency, and that we need to bring the consequences of the war to their mosques, homes, schools, and hospitals?

If we ever go to war with Iran would you say that bombing population centers and killing pro-american students would be to our benefit in the long run?

I'm for sparing as many pro-American students as possible, unless it requires that we risk the lives of our own troops.

Then what are we doing in Iraq? Arent we trying to bring order and security into that country by protecting peoples rights, do they have rights or dont they?

No! Our primary mission is to protect the safety of America. We have no obligation to bring order back to the country and protect their rights -- that was their government's job. It may be in our interests to replace their government with a free one, but that is never our primary mission -- we are not the Global Cop.

[Al Kufr]

Are you arguing that most civilians in the Mideast are pro-American and pro-capitalist? Or do you agree with Yaron Brook that many civilians are supporting the insurgency, and that we need to bring the consequences of the war to their mosques, homes, schools, and hospitals?

No,im argung that there are some and those should not be killed.

No! Our primary mission is to protect the safety of America. We have no obligation to bring order back to the country and protect their rights -- that was their government's job. It may be in our interests to replace their government with a free one, but that is never our primary mission -- we are not the Global Cop.

But thats what we are doing and thats what im dealing with.

Since we ARE trying to bring order to Iraq, how do we do it?

If we werent we would be in Iran by now.

[Oakes]

No,im argung that there are some and those should not be killed.

You mean, you're arguing that some of the civilians are pro-American and pro-capitalist? If this is true, we should try to spare them. But never at the cost of our own soldiers' lives.

But thats what we are doing and thats what im dealing with.

Since we ARE trying to bring order to Iraq, how do we do it?

Yes, that's what we're doing, but again, it isn't our primary mission -- protecting America is. So if a middle-eastern city is swarming with terrorists, we have every right to engage in mass bombings to eliminate the threat -- the situation, I repeat, is fundamentally different than a police engagement in Iowa.

[BurgessLau]

Since we ARE trying to bring order to Iraq, how do we do it?

If we werent we would be in Iran by now.

I am beginning to get a clearer idea of your position. Correct me.

You are asking this: Given President Bush's goals in Iraq, what is the most effective long-term way to achieve those goals?

If this is your question, then you are offering as a solution (1) certain ways of working with some individuals in the local population, and (2) certain military tactics which will achieve military objectives without killing those individuals.

Correct?

[Al Kufr]

I am beginning to get a clearer idea of your position. Correct me.

You are asking this: Given President Bush's goals in Iraq, what is the most effective long-term way to achieve those goals?

If this is your question, then you are offering as a solution (1) certain ways of working with some individuals in the local population, and (2) certain military tactics which will achieve military objectives without killing those individuals.

Correct?

Right, when Peikoff said that we should have declared all out war against Iran and Afghanistan I was all for it, and I still am. But thats not what we are doing, so since Bush has a different goal, what is the best way to do it?

[Oakes]

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.