Statement by Dr. Brook on Thom Hartmann Program

[DarkWaters]

I would like to hear the opinions of some of you on the following comments Dr. Yaron Brook recently made during a radio interview.

If you are truly defending your homeland (against a real aggressor) then you have a right to do whatever is necessary in order to defend your homeland including the killing of civilians. If we attack Mexico out of no where. If we just attack Mexico because we want a bigger empire then Mexico has every right to defend itself and that will include lobbing a bomb at the Ayn Rand Institute even if we the Ayn Rand Institute were active advocates against the invasion of Mexico. That is the cost you pay for having lousy leaders who invade countries for no reason."

I added the italics to emphasize the part that I am inquiring about. Are the hypothetical actions of the Mexican government under this circumstance moral here? Consider the following three points:

1.) This example presupposes that the Ayn Rand Institute, although residing in a country with immoral leadership, was vociferously opposed to the war. I think we are to assume that the Mexican government is aware of this before launching the attack.

2.) This example insinuates that the attack on the Ayn Rand Institute, a civilian organization that is actively against the war effort, was intentional.

3.) Mexico would not gain any clear military advantage (in terms of winning the war or increasing their ability to defend themselves) from annihilating the Ayn Rand Institute under this premise. The best advantage I can speculate is that it would be intellectually disarming the country, but we are presupposing that the government was ignoring the advice at ARI anyway.

How could attacking civilians, who are outspokenly against the actions of their government, be morally justified when it results in no advantage in defending one's homeland? This seems tantamount to shooting hostages when the evil force that has taken them hostage can be disarmed and crushed with just as much effort if one were to do the same but preserving the lives of the hostages.

I hope that I am not misrepresenting Dr. Brook here.

Dr. Brook made the aforementioned comments on the Thom Hartmann Program during an interview titled American Money to Hezbollah. If anyone wants to crosscheck my transcription the comments were made around 4:10 into the interview. I attempted to transcribe them as verbatim for the purposes of establishing context.

[Lemuel]

I may be incorrect, but it doesn't sound lik Dr. Brooke meant a specific attack on ARI, like it was a strategic target or something.

But even if it was, he would be correct. If Mexico is defending its sovereignty against an aggressive US invasion, they have the right to use whatever force is necessary.

Attacking civilians is a means to turn the enemy's tactic from offensive to defensive, a position that provides more potential for your victory. Brooke's comments in "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense are relevant:

The Civil War provides another stark example of what can be required to win a war. In 1864, as the war was dragging on in endless, bloody battle, the Northern general William Tecumseh Sherman helped end it with a devastating campaign against Georgia’s civilian population. After burning the city of Atlanta, Sherman’s army ravaged much of the rest of Georgia by burning estates; taking food and livestock; and destroying warehouses, crops, and railway lines. These actions had the effect not only of disrupting the supply of provisions to Lee’s army in Virginia, but also (and more importantly) of making the war real to the civilian population that was supporting the war from the rear. This, in turn, broke the spirit of the men on the front lines, who were now worried and demoralized by what was happening to their homes and families.

Edited September 24, 2006 by synthlord

[Bold Standard]

3.) Mexico would not gain any clear military advantage (in terms of winning the war or increasing their ability to defend themselves) from annihilating the Ayn Rand Institute under this premise.

Yes they would-- if you read the first sentence, " If you are truly defending your homeland (against a real aggressor) then you have a right to do whatever is necessary in order to defend your homeland including the killing of civilians," he says "whatever is necessary." So that implies that in the hypothetical, it would have been determined necessary, ie, would result in a clear military advantage, to bomb the Ayn Rand Institute. Of course, it is merely a hypothetical. I don't interpret his statement as meaning a necessarily discriminate targeting of the Ayn Rand Institute either-- it could be part of a carpet bombing campaign on California. But I'm pretty sure his hypothetical is merely, if it can be shown to be necessary to bomb ARI, then that would be the only moral choice for Mexico at that point, regardless of the innocence of its intended target.

[KendallJ]

How could attacking civilians, who are outspokenly against the actions of their government, be morally justified when it results in no advantage in defending one's homeland? This seems tantamount to shooting hostages when the evil force that has taken them hostage can be disarmed and crushed with just as much effort if one were to do the same but preserving the lives of the hostages.

Hey DarkWaters,

This was discussed in a previous thread on killing innocents, so beyond this thread I won't discuss it further.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=7208

My thesis in this thread, and from what I can tell of Brook's writings.

a. Any action is moral - ethically acceptable.

b. If a particular action is effective is not a question of ethics, but a question of military science.

My answer to you would be that bombing ARI would be moral, but might not be such a great tactic. This is the natural response to all those who would try to assert that not having the action be immoral would lead to all sorts of indescriminate "war crimes" when in fact, rational, scientific military's know that these tactics are many times not effective.

[DarkWaters]

Yes they would-- if you read the first sentence, " If you are truly defending your homeland (against a real aggressor) then you have a right to do whatever is necessary in order to defend your homeland including the killing of civilians," he says "whatever is necessary." So that implies that in the hypothetical, it would have been determined necessary, ie, would result in a clear military advantage, to bomb the Ayn Rand Institute. Of course, it is merely a hypothetical. I don't interpret his statement as meaning a necessarily discriminate targeting of the Ayn Rand Institute either-- it could be part of a carpet bombing campaign on California. But I'm pretty sure his hypothetical is merely, if it can be shown to be necessary to bomb ARI, then that would be the only moral choice for Mexico at that point, regardless of the innocence of its intended target.

Okay. In retrospect, my question really was "how could the bombing ARI be necessary for the defense of Mexico in this example?" However, this clearly is not questioning the principles of Just War Theory, this is just challenging his hypothetical example. Nevertheless, you resolved this question anyway, as Dr. Brook probably did not intend the bombing of ARI to be intentional but resulting from some greater military campaign.

To all who responded:

Thank you for your helpful responses.

[Bold Standard]

However, this clearly is not questioning the principles of Just War Theory, this is just challenging his hypothetical example.

I'm not sure what you meant here; but just for the record, Yaron Brook is opposed to Just War Theory, which holds that civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs in a war.

[DarkWaters]

I'm not sure what you meant here; but just for the record, Yaron Brook is opposed to Just War Theory, which holds that civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs in a war.

Gah my mistake! I referred to Dr. Brook's stance as "Just War Theory" when that is a view very different from his own. I should have said "my (revised) question (which you have already answered) is not questioning the principles of Dr. Brook's position, it instead is just challenging his hypothetical example."