RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Some Pros and Cons of a Syrian Attack

Friday
September 20, 2013

Some Pros and Cons of a Syrian Attack by Tibor R. Machan

Why should one powerful nation attack another that is following intolerable policies -- e.g., gas its own citizens? Some argue that this is because when others act violently toward innocent people, those who can prevent this from happening have an obligation to step in and help out. We are, as Mr. Obama put it not long ago, “all in the same boat!” (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (16 messages)

Sunday, September 22, 2013 - 1:17pm

The ethics are not the same in a nation with a conscripted force. In a nation with an all volunteer force, the ethics are less muddy.

Screw being our brother's keeper, not the issue at all. That is just the argument used by the guilt mongerers trying to cash in on past indoctrination administered in some sunday school at children.

The issue is, rational self-interest; when is it in our rational self-interest to conceded the world to thugs? It is only a unilateral declaration of intent when we observe that thugs are only are only raping on the other side of the street/ocean.

Without an effective response to thuggery-- without the concept of Superior Violence -- the resulting world that we live in is one increasingly dominated by criminal thuggery. It is exactly ignoring the role of Superior Violence that moves the world towards a condition of ever needing to access even more of it.

And so, when is that outcome in our rational self-interest?

We should act rarely; we should act only after a high political hurdle-- the declaration of war by Congress. We should act via an all volunteer force. And we should act decisively and effectively, with only one acceptable outcome: defeating the perps. We win, they lose. If we allow any other 'nuanced' calculus into the process we invite the spectacle of inneffective action and the resulting lack of credibility.

Credibility means, reduced need to actually prove the point; when an American president says something, he actually means it, or else he doesn't say it. Lack of credibility -- America's sputtering state ever since -- Vietnam-- means just the opposite- an accelerating need to forever prove the point.

It is not in our self-interest to live in a world where by our past uncredible actions we aggravate the need to confront thuggery.

WWII: credible defeat of totalitarianism.
Korea: credible defense of South Korea.
Gulf War I: credible ouster of Saddam from Kuwait.
gulf War II: 6 months of american credbility, rapidly squandered

Vietnam: total destruction of America credibility.
Beirut: failure of America credibility
Somalia: failure of American credibility(blowing up in Kenya years later...)
Rwanda: failure of Western credibility

What we can't face down in the shopping malls of Nairobi we won't be able to face down in the shopping malls of America; these are practice runs. This myth of impenetrable US borders protected by oceans is laughable.

"Kenya is a soft target."

Kenya is a convenient and accessible training ground.

Training for what?

Take them on there, or take them on here; where is it in our best interest to take them on?

Sunday, September 22, 2013 - 2:10pm

Fred,

I'd like to agree fully with you... my heart is there, but not the logic.

You wrote, "The issue is, rational self-interest; when is it in our rational self-interest to conceded the world to thugs? It is only a unilateral declaration of intent when we observe that thugs are only are only raping on the other side of the street/ocean." Our rational self-interest regards OUR well-being, not those in another nation - that is THEIR self-interest. You imply that when we don't become the protector of rights for people in far off lands, that we are conceding the entire world to thugs. But that doesn't follow. If we concede our country to thugs, we will be ruled by thugs. And that simple fact applies around the world. It is the responsibility of the peoples of each nation to secure their own liberty.

Other than that, I certainly agree with your post. When we are attacked, we should respond ferociously against those that attacked, those that trained them, those that knowingly harbored them, those that funded them, and those that allied with them.

Monday, September 23, 2013 - 5:59am

first of all - please excuse if my English won't be 100% correct, I'm not a native English speaker (i am from East Europe.)
Now - my 2 cents:
1. every military intervention abroad must have a reason and a gain (because it has a cost for sure). so in every analysis one should find the reason (first), gains and compare them to the cost - to see if it makes sense to intervene
2. always the reason for military intervention has to do with "the way of life" - either to defend it (pure defensive wars & pre- emptive strikes) or to "improve" it by gaining followers (colonization wars) or resources (oil, gas)

My opinion is that today all USA wars are actually some sorts of pre-emptive strikes against other "way of life" that are a threat to the USA way of life, usually boosted by some economical incentive (like Iraqi war) and Syria is no exception.

I consider that if you look at the "brother" analogy further up - and think that you have "moral" obligation to help the weaker brother - just because he is weaker - you are wrong. (eg: you should not intervene to support a weaker criminal organization by going to war against a stronger but righteous state, no?)

But you should help the weaker brother - if the strong brother has oposing "way of life"/philosophy than yours - for this simple reason: self interest.
If the big brother is bad (to your philosophy) and if you don't help the weak brother now - the big bad brother will take the small brother's resources & grow stronger, and he will do it again and again with other weaker brothers - until he'll be big enough to do it to you.

Since WW2 belligerent parties no longer had only national limits to hold ppl together, but were organized after "way of life" (WW2 started as totalitarian states vs democratic states, with communist Russia and Nazi states in alliance) and this is happening now in a more "nonofficial" way, but the idea is the same.

The difficulty is not "if i must do it or not?" because the answer is always yes, but "how to do it" in such a way that the cost (lives lost, economic cost, "image" cost because you can be seen as the bully interfering where you should not to, etc) is smaller than the gain ("image" gain - savior; economic gain; diminishing the power of a hostile "way of life" etc)

This is the actual equation that every state takes into consideration when deciding if they go to war or not, and how to do it.

USA actually "helps" several states world wide by sustaining their interest with CIA ops, government aid, etc - (just like all other states do it more or less, through their respective agencies) and war is just the "last resort".

Monday, September 23, 2013 - 4:25pm

Vlad,

You wrote:

If the big brother is bad (to your philosophy) and if you don't help the weak brother now - the big bad brother will take the small brother's resources & grow stronger, and he will do it again and again with other weaker brothers - until he'll be big enough to do it to you.

Your justification is about the practicality of stopping someone before they get strong enough to harm you. There are two problems with that approach. First, it isn't moral to use force against others when it is not a case of self-defense. And there is no way to be certain that the 'big brother' will attack for sure. Second, if 'big brother' keeps taking the resources of others it will be at a cost, and practically speaking, one does not grow strong through conquest the way one does through innovation and production under a free market. If our country were to intervene against all 'big brothers' at each case where they are attacking a 'small brother' there would be a cost to us. We would be smarter to simply increase the ability to defend ourselves as we see any 'big brother' grow in strength. Because that system is more effective, that would give us the best protection against any future attacker.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 1:12am

Steve,

You raise 2 issues. I'll address them in the opposite order, because the length of my arguments make it easier to follow like this & the most important (morality) is most important:

1) is not economical to intervene in all big brother/small brother fights: partially agreed. (agreed if you put it like "is not economical to go to war in all big brother/small brother fights"
As i said, war is the last resort, and is used only when it becomes economically OK (or there is no other option). Otherwise there are several ways of intervention that are used (CIA ops, supporting opposite parties", government aid, economical leverage, etc) and also you work on your defense. Sincerely I think we don't have enough info / data to make an adequate calculation - because besides the pure economical factors - other factors must be included to.
Also pls note that a good defense vs one type of attacker (eg: regular military ops) will leave you vulnerable to other type of attacks (eg Terrorist attacks; cybernetic attacks; economic attacks; attacks via supporting infraction networks, stability decrease, etc) - as you will never have enough resources to cover all sides perfectly so you must allocate between them.

2) morality of attacking someone when is not the case of self defense.
In the end it all depends on what you define as - "self-defense". If you abide by the strictest definition, when the threat is real / determined, possible/capable and immediate - then it might be too late when you act as you might not have a real chance and be overwhelmed - or even if you win the cost will be very, very high.
If you accept that the reality of the threat/determination is enough, and the threat must not necessarily be immediate ( or the enemy 100% capable) - then a pre-emptive strike is actual self defense and therefore morally justified. (this is the general approach, which i also support)

eg:
If you know John has a religion/moral code/whatever that says: you must kill all guys named Steve on sight and their family and kids and grandsons and dogs. And you have a gun.
And you know that he is going right now to the shop to buy a gun & he's going to buy guns for his 9 friends, who are the same religion but won't act without John as ther leader and his guns (all of these you know for sure, 100% - as you know John said it & did it before & you see him going to the gun shop with cash in his hand)

Will you wait until all 10 have guns, are religious fanatics and knocking at your family's door? (so you are in a pure 100% self defense situation, with real/determined, capable and immediate threat)?
You take out just John on his way to the gun shop, when you have an advantage? (pre-emptive strike on a real enemy that doesn't have yet the capability to fight you and is not an immediate threat, because he hasn't convinced his buddies yet)
You wait until he has a gun, but before giving weapons to his friends - so it's a fair fight between 2 armed people? (pre-emptive strike against a real enemy, who has the capability to fight you but is no immediate threat because he's still waiting to have the advantage before striking)

I would chose the situation that gives me the more advantage so i can end it with the minimal casualties (just John) and minimizing the exposure/bad effects for me and my family - therefore pre-emptive strike before he has a gun.

And i would consider it self defense and morally right.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 11:44am

Vlad,

It isn't clear from your reply as to how much we disagree. My argument from the practical standpoint was not just that we cannot afford to enter every 'big brother' - 'little brother' fight, but that we can build and maintain a much stronger, and much more effective defense capability by not intervening in these which depletes our treasure.

Regarding self-defense, if you wait till the threat has been launched when you had advance warning, you were not defending as well as you should have. To attack those who have different beliefs, because they have different beliefs is clearly wrong - no matter how repugnant those beliefs might be. Nor can someone just hypothesize that some group MIGHT, SOMEDAY attack and use that as the reason to launch an attack.

I believe, for example, that we should be more aggressive than we are now with Iran rather than let them acquire nuclear weapons. I believe we are already at war with them and it is a war they declared and that they have already made attacks - using terrorist surrogates. But it still isn't in our national interest to wage a full out war, not if we can stop them from getting their weapons without ramping up to a full war.

On your example of John who wants to kill anyone named Steve, well, that's a little ambiguous. There are many, many Steves and I'm only engaged in defending this Steve. Now, if I know that when John is thinking of Steve, he means me, then when he makes his plan I don't need to wait for him to arm his friends. I do need to know that he is acting on a credible, significant threat to me and that it is imminent (has started and won't go on for long).

That isn't preemptive in the same sense that killing a Muslim child who might grow up to be a militant and might attack me would be preemptive. Those people who say that my version of self-defense requires that the missile be in the air, or have already hit, are being foolish. When John is reaching for a gun while looking at you, he is actually drawing his gun first - it isn't preemptive to shoot before he does. When he is heading for the gun store after declaring he is coming for me, it isn't preemptive to strike before he gets there.

But if he is shouting hate-filled slogans, and doesn't have a specific, credible plan to attack, or he hasn't begun to carry out a plan, then it is too early.

We aren't mind-readers, and we should never treat morality so lightly that we attempt to gain security at the price of violating the principle of self-defense. It is our only true guide to using force while remaining moral.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 11:51am

Vlad,

You mentioned that you saw Syria as an example of where we should intervene. On which side? Al Qaeda and its allies? Or the current regime of Syria which is the ally of Iran?

I don't see the conflict in Syria as a "threat to our way of life," as you put it. Can you explain how our way of life is threatened by Syria, or the conflict over there?

Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 8:31am

Steve:

The flip side of 'we should not respond until attacked on our side of the street/ocean' is, 'Americans should not cross the street/ocean because it has been conceded to thugs.'

IOW, when Americans travel overseas, or do business outside of our shores, on the other side of the street, never mind the expensively maintained embassies where our ambassadors are summarily raped before being executed, we are on our own, taking our own risks and bearing the consequences. Perhaps that is the way it should be. If so, then let's take that further; of what possible use are those expensively maintained embassies, if the principle is 'those who travel/do business overseas are on their own?' The logical conclusion is, 'then do not tax Americans to maintain pointless embassies overseas with no discernible mission.'

I've been arguing -- poorly it seems-- that when a hurdle is reached -- when Congress aggrees to action -- that when we have the choice of draining the rat filled swamps in Nairobi or Mogidishu vs. waging that eventual battle in Baltimore via endless concession and nervous propitiation to thugs-- especially when -asked- for assistance by the civil goivernments overseas, but not even necessarily just when -- it is in our rational self-interest to wage that conflict at the source and not in our own streets.

To believe that we can or should must wait until the expressed 'Death to America' campaign is fully waged in our own streets before taking it on relies, I think, on a belief that those oceans and our borders are effective barriers in the year 2013. It also relies on the view I expressed above -- that Americans have no business conducting business or pleasure on the other side of the street, or no rational self interest in the safe opportunity to pursue same. It is, after all, conceded to thugs.

Or, perhaps it is my personal bias; in a conflict, a purely defensive posture places the defender at a disadvantage. You might not agree with that. But if so, then when does limiting oneself in a conflict to a purely defensive position in our self-interest? When we concede the far side of the street to thugs, we establish primarily the principle that we are willing to concede. If we can concede half the street, we can concede the street(and after all, wait until we are attacked in our homes, where we will finally defend just ourselves.) And if we can concede the outside, we can concede the living room, and wait to be attacked in our dining rooms. And then we can concede the downstairs, and wait to be attacked upstairs. And then we can concede the house, and get pushed out to a porch roof. And then we can be pushed off the roof at the terminus of our concede only half of the street to thugs theory while waiting to be attacked.

regards,
Fred

Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 9:48am

Fred,

An attack on our embassy is an attack on the US. We should have sent in as many Marines, and as many attack aircraft as it took to wipe out every one of the Islamic Fundamentalist camps in that area that were involved - even after the fact. That was valid self-defense or valid retaliation.
-----------------

But here is where we agree and disagree: You said, I've been arguing ... it is in our rational self-interest to wage that conflict at the source and not in our own streets." If we know they are getting ready to attack us, we can attack because preempting a known attack is a valid form of self-defense. But if we don't know that a given organization is getting ready to travel across the ocean, then we don't have a self-defense situation. We have to know that the group in question (not a nationality, not an ethnicity, not a religion, not a political viewpoint, but a concrete group) is making specific plans that involve a timetable that is growing close.
------------------

You wrote:

To believe that we can or should must wait until the expressed 'Death to America' campaign is fully waged in our own streets before taking it on relies, I think, on a belief that those oceans and our borders are effective barriers in the year 2013.

That has never been my argument.

I don't believe geography offers us effective barriers any more.
I don't believe we must wait till an attack has occurred, if we discover an attack is being planned.
I do believe we should be waging war on those who have already attacked us (Al Queda and their affiliates, those who fund them, and Iran who has funded terrorist attacks on us).
------------------

I suspect that you are mixing up "defensive posture" - a description of tactics, with moral self-defense - the ethical justification for unleashing killing force. I don't advocate declaring war in a situation where we have not been attacked (or are about to be attacked). I don't even think it is possible to make a rational determination of self-interest in the absence of a hierarchical set of values. And that code of values has to include individual rights and they require that we don't use force except in self-defense. (As for tactics, once the determination of the moral right has been made, my personal bias is for a massive attack, not a defensive posture.)
-------------------

My personal belief is that if we were to do two things - Cease all intervention in foreign affairs, including foreign aid, and to establish a minarchy here at home, that we would do more to motivate and lead the world to valuing and implementing liberty abroad than anything else. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to using Gun Boat Diplomacy under the right circumstances. If a businessman or tourist is being abused by corrupt officials in some country, I see nothing wrong with putting pressure on them - parking a destroyer in the harbor, or doing a fly-over with F-16s. That isn't the same as becoming world policeman to defend others, and it isn't the same as waging war to establish democracy in other nations. And we should never ask the country to bear the costs of a war to keep safe a businessman or tourist that chooses to go to North Korea.
--------------------

I think that some of your arguments are an all or nothing kind of false alternative. You say that if we don't go to war in this or that African nation, that we have conceded the world, and that will bring the violence not just to our streets but to our living room, and so forth. Instead, of that form of argument, tell me what are the principles, specifically, that the President and Congress should use in making a declaration of war. They have to be general enough that we can apply them to any situation, and specific enough that they will, of their own, give us a go or no go answer (or get us close in borderline situations).
--------------------

A war carries great costs in American treasure and American lives. If it is not needed to keep us safe, here at home, then it represents a call for sacrifice, of Americans to protect people of another country, or a sacrifice from many to protect a few, or a sacrifice for some ideology held by elites.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 10:37am

I would very much appreciate it if the comments, replies, etc. posted here would address my article. There is plenty room to discuss other matters elsewhere on this site!

Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 2:44pm

Professor Machan,

Here are some of the key questions you asked in your article:

Why should one powerful nation attack another that is following intolerable policies...

...when my neighbors -- two brothers, say -- are fighting, is it my duty to intervene...? Do I have the moral authority to do so?

It appears to me that every one of the posts on this thread are discussing the question of what makes military intervention justified. What am I missing?

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 10:01am

Well, it didn't look to me they addressed my arguments. But perhaps they did indirectly.

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 12:09pm

Prof. Machan:

I don't think we disagreed with your argument. Maybe that was why it didn't seem that it was being addressed directly.

I don't think such justifications are 'we are our brother's keeper' or anything like that; I think they -should be- based on our support of what we see as our interests, meaning, not everyone will agree with that(there aren't very many cases of 'our' interests, and yet, these are collective actions, the actions of a nation.)

So, and I think Steve and I agree on this:

1] The hurdle for such actions should be very high: Congressional declarations of war.

2] The actions should be carried out with an all voluntary force. We are close to that ideal. (ie, no conscription, but I believe individuals should have the option to agree to specific actions, not just actions during term of their commitment.)

3] Once that hurdle is reached, it is in our national interests that such actions be effective and credible and accomplished as quickly as possible, with no considerations of 'measure' or 'fairness' other than, prevail in the conflict as soon as possible, to end it quickly and decisively. The consequences should be horrible. The consequences should make us slow to ever bring them about again. Much more importantly, the consequences should be severe enough to have our enemies slow to consider bringing them about again.

"Limited" inneffective actions are counter productive and not credible. Vietnam was the total destruction of US credibility in the world, and we haven't learned much since. Playing to the optics should not ever be tolerated. Good for the short term optics/domestic political resumes of the current POTUS, bad for the long term interests of the nation(and a peaceful, prosperous world.)

Steve and I and many might disagree on individual cases-- and so, the drag of the high hurdle of Congressional declaration, with a bias to act infrequently.

My personal bias is, I don't see the longterm upside in conceding the other side of the street/oceans to thugs. Streets get crossed in two directions. We have interests across the streets/oceans as well. It isn't at all about being our brother's keepers, or feeling sory for victims. It is about never wanting to be those victims. It is about not conceding the world to thugs.

So, those would be the arguments I made in a political discussion regarding national action, and not being a one man army, would live with the national political will or lack of will on any given instance, as long as, in the broader case, when the hurdle of national will was reached, that will was credibily exerted.

Doing something rarely that is effective is much preferred to doing something often that is inneffective. That, I believe, is in all of our interests.

Bush 41's actions in Kuwait were credible. They were also horrible. Bush, via the US military doing what it does best, placed America's boot onto the throats of the perps fleeing Kuwait, on the "Road to Basra Turkey Shoot." The action was so brutally spelled out on CNN that the world cried out 'enough already.' But that credibility was rapidly wasted in Somalia.

America in Guld War I: "We're credible."

Thugs in Somalia: "Are you sure?"

America, fleeing Somalia: "Not so much."

Same thugs now in Nairobi, shooting up malls as their version of 'training day' : "Didn't think so."

If it was acceptable to run from Somalia, then we should have never been there in the first place. Or, maybe it wasn't acceptable to run from Somalia...we can't have it both ways, one or the other.

How this applies to Syria: When an American POTUS says, luike Bush 41, "This agression will not stand", he had better make it so. So, if America is not willing to put a boot on Assad's throat and separate him from his CBN, then America's best interest is to STFU about Syria. Inneffective action is worse than no action at all. We should never enter a conflict that we are willing to lose. If it is acceptable to walk away from, then it is acceptable to never enter it in the first place.

That isn't picking winner's in Syria. That is putting a boot on Assad's throat, separating him from his CBN, then turning around and coming home, period, and let the shitfighting continue.

If we can't do that...if we're unwilling to do that...then America needs to STFU about Syria, period.

What is happening now, instead, after community organizer amateur hour? Where did the CBN come from? Any Cyrillic writing on all that material? Moot, because the Russian meateater patted Obama on the head, dismissed him in front of the world, and unilaterally declared "Russia will oversee the cleanup..."

If we actually gave a rats ass about Syria's CBN...wouldn't we need to determine where they came from? All manufactured inside of Syria? Any Russian help? Iran? Iraq? Libya?

Now moot...because the cleanup is being managed by Russia, far from prying eyes...

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 9/30, 12:10pm)

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 1:58pm

I want to be clear about what I mean by "we have inerests across the street/overseas."

Does all of our economic activity belong to this nation, within the confines of our shores?

The sketchy formula for GDP acknowledges that isn't true:

GDP = G + P + Inv + net(Exports-Imports).

Those last terms are a defacto acknolwegement that this nation considers interests outside of its borders(indeed, across its borders) as part of our national interests.

The way the net of (Exports-Imports) grows the national economies is via individuals pursuing their interests overseas.

That is done when an entity in the US does business -- conducts commerce--with an entity overseas.

It isn't all HTML on the web, conducted safely and remotely far over the horizon. Not by a longshot.

When I conducted international business, sometimes it was remote, but often it was in their country, on their ground, by necessity.

The net of me pursuing my interests was getting another nations government or private entities to send money to the US in exchange for goods or services; that ended up as taxable income in the US, a + on our trade imbalance. (And that includes sales that were first run through a Caymans Corp, as an expedient to international business. That income eventually found its way onto my domestic corp's books as taxable income in the US...)

We can say that is a personal interest and not a national inerest. We can say lots of things, but if we say that, then we need to be consistant and redefine GDP...

regards,
Fred

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 2:13pm

For a brief moment of clarity, there was The Powell Doctrine in Gulf War I.

Pass Powell's hurdles? Then respond with overwhelming force and prevail in the conflict as quickly as possible.

Otherwise, never enter the conflict. Lessons learned from Vietnam...only, they clearly weren't learned.

"Limited conflict" is an abomination from some Renaaissance Weekend cluster fuck, dreamed up around the crabspread by some flakes.

regards,
Fred

Monday, September 30, 2013 - 8:58pm

I wanted to respect Professor Machan's request that we not stray beyond the theme he set with his article, and I wanted to write a longer message, one that addressed the way we should decide to go to war... so I created a new Forum thread called, About National Self-Interest and War"