Foreign Policy and Self-Defense: Bidinotto's Facts

Even if one or another does glimpse the truth and thereby benefit individually, for the culture to shift to individualism would be to expect non-A to become A.

I can only fathom what you mean by that is a people, the Iraqis, are not capable of changing their culture, and that the law of identity means all entities are always static in their identification. Is that what you mean?

Post 101

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:18pm

In final response on this thread to Michael Marotta and Mark Humphrey, readers here can be the judge of whether I've been shy on the citation of specific facts, and whether those facts are relevant and sufficient to support the arguments I've raised.

Now, I submit that I did not set out to rewrite the history of the world in these posts -- or even of U.S. foreign policy. (Gee, how lazy of me.) No, I set out more modestly to examine the validity of the popular libertarian notion of "noninterventionism." My methodological approach was to analyze the meaning and intelligibility of the concept, its philosophical basis, its logical implications for America's national defense -- and then to provide sufficient historical examples as were necessary to illustrate and support that analysis.

That method, then, was neither rationalistic (all deductions from abstractions) or concrete-bound (what Phil Coates called a "snow job," or burying the opposition in an avalanche of countless factual assertions). My method was to focus on the underlying principles of "noninterventionism" and how they apply to specific events -- but not on the historic details or justification of every U.S. "intervention."

I approached the issue of "conspiratorialism" the same way -- in terms of the principles involved. I did not aim to argue whether conspiracies do exist, or whether a specific event was the result of a specific conspiracy. I aimed to challenge the notion that conspiracy theories were a valid methodological approach to historical analysis, and to outline their common flaws.

However, it is growing clear that Mssrs. Humphrey and Marotta would have me drop that principled sort of analysis, and instead mire myself in the concrete-bound methodology they prefer: a debate over each one of an endless stream of specific factual claims that they would raise about countless historical events. They appear blind to my point that ALL those examples are, in fact, incorporated in the principles I raised: the principles of self-interest, self-defense, individual rights, and their implications for national defense.

By analogy, if this debate were about ethics, I suppose they might insist that I answer thousands of specific examples they could raise about the implications of the virtue of "honesty": "Okay, Bidinotto, but what about Clinton's lie about not having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Was that a justifiable 'white lie'? ... Was it a lie if what they did wasn't 'sex' in Clinton's mind? ... Okay, but then what about his famous statement, 'That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is'? ... Okay, I hear what you're saying about that; but what about his lying to his wife? ...Yes, but what about lying to his daughter? ... Uh huh, but what about..." Etc.

You see where this goes. If I say that honesty is a virtue, and offer several clarifying examples of its contextual application, that should give people the idea of what I mean its implications to be.

Likewise, if I explain why "noninterventionism" as a foreign policy doctrine is inconsistent with a morality of self-interest -- why, if practiced consistently as a primary policy directive, it would be suicidally dangerous -- why it has its roots in platonism and would lead to pacifism -- why it inverts the moral blame and responsibility for aggression, exonerating despots and terrorists while blaming their victims for fighting back -- why it corrupts the meaning of individual rights -- etc. -- and if I then offer examples to support these various claims -- then in my book, I've done my job.

But to switch the argument from the fallacies of "noninterventionism," as a principle, to a concrete-bound ping-pong match over "America's role in instigating World War II" -- then: "America's interventionist role in Guatemala" -- then: "America's role in Chile...Iraq...Afghanistan...Cuba...etc." -- well, boys and girls, that's an interminable game I don't intend to be suckered into.

The same goes for my extensive discussions elsewhere about the fallacies of anarchism. I've written that topic to death -- in a principled way. Here in post 92 -- ironically, to illustrate the futility of the concrete-bound approach to argumentation -- I alluded to the anarchists' favorite historical example of Medieval Iceland. So what does Mr. Marotta do in his post 95 but prove my point about that futility. Yes, he replies, but then what about "Genoa and the fair courts, the Hansa, the Republic of the Netherlands... for that matter, Athens and before that Ionia..."

Jesus. We do not appear even to be speaking the same mother tongue, do we?

With that, I reach the end of my contributions to this thread, and I thank the participants for finding my initial instigatory posts worthy of their extended comment.

Post 102

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 4:15am

I am sorry to see Robert go, but, really, I was surprised to see him enter, as he has enough to do with The New Individualist. So, I have to apologize to him and to anyone else who found me or my words obtuse.

I tried to agree with Robert that citing historical instances distant from us (Iceland, Athens, etc.) is of limited value.
I pointed out that my own examples tend to come from here and how (Securitas, Allied-Barton above or the American Arbitration Agency elsewhere).
I suggested that the modern world has more than enough examples from which to draw inferences.

I agree that there is a principle at stake.

Post 103

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 5:16am

Robert Malcom (#96) correctly quotes Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein as follows:

Reason and individualism are utterly alien to Iraqi culture. This is why, far from fighting for or establishing genuine freedom, they are enmeshed in ethnic warfare against one another, while hoping for �security� under a government in which �Islam is a basic source of legislation��or one in which their particular tribe has massacred the others into submission. To be capable of freedom, the Iraqi people need an Enlightenment�not simply an aversion to their raging civil war.

Robert then remarks: �In other words, individualism is not in their interest and as such never would be . . .�

Brook and Epstein did not imply (and Rand did not imply concerning Algerians in her piece on Algeria 1962) that reason and individualism are not in the interest of Iraqi�s nor that they would never develop a culture in which these are widely understood and prized. These two writers at ARI think it false �that our soldiers� present mission in Iraq��to make the country safe� by playing Good Samaritan for tribal factions enmeshed in a civil war�is legitimate. It is not.� Rather, they consider that our �Operation Iraqi Freedom�which focuses on �liberating� Iraqis to vote in their choice of statist government, . . . is utterly self-sacrificial and therefore immoral. And it will remain so even if, some years or decades down the line, the Iraqis establish a genuinely free country.�

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 12/12, 5:19am)

Post 104

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 7:05am

"Operation Iraqi Freedom�which focuses on �liberating� Iraqis to vote in their choice of statist government"

This has been the flawed premise in the ARI position all along. That may be a goal of the U.S. foreign policy, but it's not the chief goal. And even where it is touted, Bush and others often make clear that the purpose of that effort is to better ensure U.S. security. It is not for the sake of the Iraqis that this whole effort has been undertaken.

Whether the policy is optimal or not is somewhat beside the point. Even if it were true, which I believe it isn't, that U.S. actions were self-sacrificial, clearly the motive is not. When judging a party from an ethical standpoint, one can hardly blithely dismiss motive, nor distort it to make one's conclusion come out as one wishes.

Post 105

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 8:46am

Stephen Boydstun: "What about Rand's 1944 article in Reader's Digest? I read that about forty years ago, so I could easily be mistaken, but isn't that a peice in support of the American involvement in WWII? Does anyone here know what she wrote there?"

Stephen, thank you once more for the pointer to the article. I bought the Reader's Digest January 1944 from a seller on eBay for less than $20 and I am happy to own it. As noted, a link to an online presentation is here.

Post 106

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 2:55pm

Brook and Epstein did not imply (and Rand did not imply concerning Algerians in her piece on Algeria 1962) that reason and individualism are not in the interest of Iraqi�s nor that they would never develop a culture in which these are widely understood and prized. These two writers at ARI think it false �that our soldiers� present mission in Iraq��to make the country safe� by playing Good Samaritan for tribal factions enmeshed in a civil war�is legitimate. It is not.� Rather, they consider that our �Operation Iraqi Freedom�which focuses on �liberating� Iraqis to vote in their choice of statist government, . . . is utterly self-sacrificial and therefore immoral. And it will remain so even if, some years or decades down the line, the Iraqis establish a genuinely free country.�

I don't understand Brook and Epstein on this. So they are saying even though years down the road if Iraq becomes a genuinely free country (which would resemble the history of South Korea to a T) it would not be in America's interests? Are they kidding? So an anti-west regime bent on exporting terrorism is better?

Post 107

Friday, December 14, 2007 - 3:35pm

John,

What Brook & Epstein are saying is that -- if we assume that Operation Iraqi Freedom is about freedom for the Iraqis -- even a temporary outcome of statist theocracy makes the "Operation" immoral. In Rand's -- or even Karl Popper's ("The Open Society; and it's Enemies")[?] -- terms, that would be a sacrifice of the present to the future.

Ed

Post 108

Friday, December 14, 2007 - 3:45pm

John, I can't tell you what they're thinking. I don't know them, and haven't read enough of their writings.

But I know some people believe that we should just crush our enemies. If someone is a threat, we kill them. End of story. So the idea of establishing a genuinely free country, even if it were possible, would still be a sacrifice because it would be helping them, not helping us. In this kind of view, which upholds the Omnipotence Premise, we have no need for allies. We can simply crush our enemies. If they want freedom, they can go get it themselves.

Post 109

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 4:00am

Joe what's interesting is that ARI seems to be taking the exact mirror position of a liberal's idea of when the US should go to war, of which the liberal position is go to war only if it's never in our own self-interest.

Brook and Epstein for it to be a just war, must only be in our interest and if anyone else does happen to benefit from us taking action in our own self-interest, we should no longer do it.

They almost seem to think there is no mutual benefit to war, that the US and the Iraqis can't both benefit and it's zero-sum.

Post 110

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 5:06am

But I know some people believe that we should just crush our enemies. If someone is a threat, we kill them. End of story.

Just curious, Joe. How many American soldiers� lives are you willing to sacrifice to help set up (in Bush�s altruistic and Polyanna scenario) a �friendly democracy� in Iraq? Or for that matter, a �genuinely free country,� if that were feasible. And exactly how do you reconcile the consequent loss of American lives with an ethics of rational self-interest?

No one is suggesting that we do not need allies, only that it is not our responsibility to create them with the dead and maimed bodies of our military. No, we do not need to �crush the enemy� every time he threatens us. We can use �gunboat diplomacy� and give them a polite warning first. And when they do not promptly cease and desist, proceed to crush them. And without altruistic �rules of engagement� and immoral �just war theories� that send our soldiers into battle without the highest regard for their rights and safety.

What would Ayn Rand likely have written about the war in Iraq?

�When a country is at war, it has to use all of its power to fight and win as fast as possible. It cannot fight and non-fight at the same time. It cannot send its soldiers to die as cannon fodder, forbidding them to win. When a country is at war, its leaders cannot prattle about �cultural exchanges� and about �building bridges� to the enemy, as our leaders are doing�trade bridges to bolster the enemy�s economy and enable it to produce the planes and guns which are killing our own soldiers. When a nation resorts to war, it has some purpose, and the only justifiable purpose is self-defense.

�Our national leaders tell us that we must defend Iraq�s right to hold a �democratic� election, and to vote itself into theocracy, if it wishes, provided it does so by vote�which means that we are not fighting for any political ideal or any principle of justice, but only for unlimited majority rule, and that the goal for which American soldiers are dying is to be determined by somebody else�s vote. They tell us that we must defend Iraq�s right to �national self-determination��and that anyone upholding the national sovereignty of the United States is an isolationist, that nationalism is evil, that the globe is our homeland and we must be prepared to die for any part of it, except the continent of North America.

�President [Bush�s] plans for spending billions of dollars for the development of Iraq means that we are fighting for the privilege of turning every American taxpayer into a serf laboring part of his time for the benefit of his Middle Eastern masters. In today�s conditions, the only rational alternative is to fight that war and win it as fast as possible.

�When a foreign [enemy] initiates the use of armed force against us, it is our moral obligation to answer by force�as promptly and unequivocally as is necessary to make it clear that the matter is nonnegotiable.�

The above is almost an exact word for word quote (with a few obvious substitutions, since her topic was Vietnam) from �The Wreckage of the Consensus,� written in April, 1967. The final paragraph is also a Rand quote, from �The Lessons of Vietnam,� written in May, 1975.

Post 111

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 7:22am

Dennis,

Contained in your statements and the pseudo-quote is the same phenomenon I pointed out earlier.

How does "Bush is doing/saying X" become logically identical to "Bush is doing/saying only X?"

I don't understand why so many Objectivist arguments eschew nuance, degrees, disregard one half of inconsistent argument/behavior to settle on only the dark side, etc. That's not a slam. I honestly don't understand it.

How does a belief in the law of identity and absolutist morality lead to downplaying some facts and only highlighting others? How are any of the exculpating facts less relevant or essential to an understanding of the real situation and an objective assessment of Administration policies?
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 12/15, 1:26pm)

Post 112

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 1:33pm

Dennis seems to fall prey to the Omnipotence fallacy, or at the very least a failed concretization of what he advocates.

Crushing Iraqis would be nuking them or wholesale slaughter with conventional weapons on every town, city and villiage. Or maybe that's not what he means. Who knows?

There's never any concrete given to "crush our enemies"

I can understand criticisms on the rules of engagement laid out by the administration. That is always a fair criticism but unless one doesn't think there ought to be any kind of rules of engagement, what do they suggest? That soldiers on any whim can rape villiagers or burn down entire villiages? How about concentration camps complete with gas chambers?

No one is suggesting that we do not need allies, only that it is not our responsibility to create them with the dead and maimed bodies of our military.

Let's get something clear, you are not sacrificing any of our soldiers. They are not being sacrificed. They volunteered to join our military and the majority of them support this war. They are fighting because they value the safety and defense of their country, many of themknow Islamo-fascism is a threat to us and the governments of the Middle East are the cancer that allows this vile ideology to spread. Maybe some of them view this as an altruistic war, but their metaphysical confusion over why they are fighting this war are their problem, not yours. You cannot claim any ownership to their lives to sit there and complain about them being sacrificed. You never had any choice on how they chose to live their lives, only they do. They weren't forced to fight, they chose to fight of their own free will. So this nonsense we are sacrificing our soldier's lives is bullocks.

And without altruistic �rules of engagement� and immoral �just war theories� that send our soldiers into battle without the highest regard for their rights and safety

There is a high regard for their safety. More money is spent on technology and supplies on each American soldier than what any other military spends on their own soldiers. To think we don't have a high regard for their safety is ridiculous. They have the best body armor, the best satellites, the best military vehicles than any other country's military. Why do you think there has been such a low casualty count when compared to past wars? But to what logical conclusion can we extend the notion a war must be fought with only the highest regard for their safety? If that's the case the best way to keep them safe is to not have them fight at all. They can just be for show, a military that doesn't fight. Did anyone mention to you fighting a war sometimes means some people will die? We could also just use nuclear ICBMs that don't require compromising the safety of any American solidiers. Would that suffice? Would that be in our best long-term interests?

I'd also like to point out speeches given by our President laiden with altruistic notions of "sacrifice" doesn't mean that this war is about altruism. Similar speeches can be heard from police chiefs all around this country about the sacrifice of our police officers, but no one would seriously suggest the police stop pursuing criminals because they are confused by their metaphysical reasons for doing what they do.

(Edited by John Armaos on 12/15, 1:51pm)

Post 113

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 3:11pm

John, I don't they're really arguing that we can't go to war if it happens to benefit others as well, or that we should only go to war when it's not in our own interest. My impression is that they just have a very limited view of what is in our interest. Certainly if we were omnipotent, it could be argued that it wouldn't make sense to sacrifice our soldiers to try to establish democracies, or even protect them. There's no point, since we can just crush any threat to us. From that perspective, war is pure violent force, to be used against our enemies until they're no longer a danger or a threat. Our troops are safest when they do the job quickly and get out of harms way. Any attempts to use limited force, or to act as humanitarians, just puts the troops into danger. It would be seen as a sacrifice, since we have the alternative of simply destroying the threat outright and not worrying about cleaning up.

There's an appeal to this way of thinking, especially when you're promoting the radical view that we should be concerned only with our own self-interest. You could think of this as the platonic ideal. If we ever need to use our military, it would be quick and decisive so they are not put into harms way. And by the same ideal, this would in fact be the best way to promote our freedom.

The only question is, does this properly identify reality? Can we crush any threat without consequences? If there's a violent dictator, can we simply wipe out his nation and blame it on him for initiating force? Can we wage wars on every front without allies? Will our actions push our own allies away from us? Are we really safer at the end of the day?

The question is, even if we accept that we should just act in our own self-interest, what does that mean in practice. These ARI types seem to think that the conclusions are simple and unthinking applications, without the need for trade-offs, allies, facts about the world, understanding of history, or anything else. My own view is that a foreign policy of rational self-interest needs to not be as thoroughly grounded in facts as it is in principles. Yes, it makes it tougher to sit at home deciding the proper course of US policy without knowing any of the details. Too bad. A principled approach to foreign policy must remain grounded in reality.

Dennis, you ask:

Just curious, Joe. How many American soldiers� lives are you willing to sacrifice to help set up (in Bush�s altruistic and Polyanna scenario) a �friendly democracy� in Iraq? Or for that matter, a �genuinely free country,� if that were feasible. And exactly how do you reconcile the consequent loss of American lives with an ethics of rational self-interest?

Your statement is clearly worded from your own biased position. Notice that you reject any connection between having other genuinely free countries and American interests. Really? You can't see any connection at all there? Even if you believed we were capable of taking on a world full of enemies without help, wouldn't there at least be benefits to trade? I'm wondering what your view of rational self-interest could possibly include if it doesn't include allies or trading partners. This is the big disagreement.

The biggest problem I see with this ARI perspective, which you seem to support, is that instead of offering the world a foreign policy of self-interest, you are only offering a caricature. People don't reject this position because it's not altruistic enough. They reject it because even by the standard of self-interest, it seems stupid and simplistic. It sounds like a bunch of armchair philosophers trying to sound "principled" at the usual cost of rejecting practicality.

Now perhaps it's not true. Perhaps this knee-jerk, "crush them all" reaction is actually very well grounded in reality. We don't need allies. We don't need trading partners. Any dispute is best resolved through the full force of the US army killing anything in its path. There will be no unintended consequences. Perhaps. But let's see some proof. Let's see some arguments. So far, I only hear assumptions and platonic ideals.

And until you've made that case, stop pretending that this reality-blinded approach to self-interest is the only or even best approach, and that every other approach is necessarily altruistic. The fact that other people may benefit from our actions as well does not mean the actions are taken for their benefit. A simple recognition of a harmony of interests among rational men is enough to show how we can often pursue our own interests while furthering the interests of others.

Post 114

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 3:37pm

**Intrinsicism**

> I don't understand why so many Objectivist arguments eschew nuance, degrees, disregard one half of inconsistent argument/behavior to settle on only the dark side, etc. That's not a slam. I honestly don't understand it.

Jeff, it's because they often tend to be intrinsicists, not Objectivists in their thinking methods. (A man on the street who doesn't know the terms intrinsicism or context-dropping or context-resenting would simply say they are 'oversimplifiers' - which pretty much amounts to the same thing.)

Often what attracted too many people was the philosophy seemed to offer simple, easy answers instantly applicable without lots of messy details and contexts. Or in this case following the news or reading books on the nature of the conflict or the history of Islam. (It's like what attracts people to religion, although people attracted to Objectivism make this mistake on a higher level.)

That's why a reasonable person who wants to explore context, details, military strategy gets absolutely nowhere when he argues with the "nuclear super-Objectivists" who say we should nuke Tehran, bomb the mosques and anyone who practices Islam or -- the diametrically opposite form of intrinsicism -- with the "pacifist - isolationist" libertarians" who think we should let the Islamofascists simply occupy or intimidate all the oil producers, build up nuclear weapons, and ultimately attack us.

There is a fundamental thinking disconnect you (and I and others) understand that details matter in i) fighting a war, ii) even assessing whether you are in danger from an adversary and whether that adversary will attack again, iii) assessing who the implacable adversary is and who one's legitimate allies are.

Even the above list of three areas where details matter is too detailed for the true intrinsicist. He has his cookbook or three or four principles and at a certain point in the debate he can be deaf, dumb, and blind to any hard facts which are directly relevant to how to apply them: "Don't bother me. Don't bother me. Don't bother me."

....

PS, In this case �crush the enemy� is a floating abstraction of the kind intrinsicists love. On one level, it�s a valid principle (at least in those cases where you can�t turn or convince an enemy to not be one). But you have to go much further and define who the enemy is, what "crushing" them involves, and so on.

Not so simple that you can do it in a few words, plus answer all the relevant questions of context and application.

The attitude of the true intrinsicist? �When I hear the word �nuance� I get out my revolver.� :-)

Post 115

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 3:44pm

PPS, I notice that Joe and John have just tried to reason with Dennis by citing a whole array of important concrete and contextual facts.

If he is truly an intrinsicist at least on this issue (as I seem to have sensed in other postings) these will bounce off like rubber without penetrating. And he - and those allied with him - will more or less brush aside these messy details.

And simply stay on the level of floating phrases and abstractions.

Post 116

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 3:49pm

Phil,

I considered that before posting. The other, common explanation (often just as correct) is that they are rationalistic and, of course, those are often closely related.

But those are, I think in this case, oversimplifications. We're talking about Dr. Yaron Brook in this case. He could hardly be said to be lacking thoughtfulness, or be one who doesn't ground his opinions in fact. He could hardly have led ARI to its current level of success, if that were the case.

I grant you I did say "so many Objectivist arguments," so my post indicated a wider group. Your comments no doubt apply to some, perhaps many. But there are others of whom I simply can't believe it and Dr. Brook is a prominent example.

I remain puzzled.

[Added in edit: I don't know Mr. Hardin or his views well enough to have a view. I didn't want my not mentioning him to be construed as implying that I believe your analysis applies to him personally.]

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 12/15, 3:57pm)

Post 117

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 4:10pm

Addendum:

I should add, I'm all in favor of "crushing the enemy," and I don't agree that it's a floating abstraction, even as Mr. Hardin uses the phrase. So, for example, I'd have no problem with massive air attacks on Iran, in principle. (Whether that would be an optimal use of military resources in solving the threat represented by Iran is another matter.)

However, in this case, the enemy isn't the Iraqi people nor its present government. That job was done quite a while ago. Hence, I can't see that as an option in this case. Nor does it seem practical to simply withdraw, let the chips fall where they may, and march over the border into Iran. The diffuse nature of the enemy seems to indicate a more subtle strategy in Iraq, one that is presently being pursued with considerable success.

Post 118

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 4:42pm

> We're talking about Dr. Yaron Brook in this case. He could hardly be said to be lacking thoughtfulness, or be one who doesn't ground his opinions in fact. He could hardly have led ARI to its current level of success

Jeff, I think it's possible to have intrinsicist tendencies in one area but not in another. Just because someone is grounded in one, professional, area does not mean one is also in another, philosophical, one.

> I'm all in favor of "crushing the enemy," and I don't agree that it's a floating abstraction

A floating abstraction is one that is not fully concretized. One would need to concretize who is and who is not a the enemy among the Iranian people, in the Middle East, among those who practice Islam. And one would have to prove that 'crushing' is the only option as opposed to demoralizing, intimidating, or changing the minds of ...or converting into not being an enemy.

Post 119

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 5:20pm