The Loony Left on war

[Hutch]

To get back to Arts' OP, I have a couple of comments:

"There is nothing special to tell about this superfluous conflict. All wars are alike. They killed us and we killed them."
-Joshua Ashenberg, in a letter to, and endorsed by, the editor of Tikkun, discussing the Yom Kippur war.

Since Art has seen fit to not provide a link and quote out of context, we can but take the above statement at face value. FWIW, superfluous conflict is defined as Beyond what is required; extra and Ed knows, we have had enough wars in history to make any conflict superfluous. and the second and third statements are merely statements of fact that could apply to any conflict and be said by any military man from Thutmose II to Tommy Franks. Exactly how Art expects us to get from that to his following conclusions without additional references is asking a lot, IMHO.

Joshua is trying to paint a moral equivalency not only between the Israelis and the Arabs during the Yom Kippur war (which, according to him, the Israelis deliberately provoked), but between all sides in all wars. The Americans were no better than the Nazis, the Finns no better than the Russians, the South Koreans no better than the North Koreans. It was just a bunch of people killing each other.

I fail to see how we can arrive at this conclusion based on the quote provided. Finns killed Russians, Russians killed Nazis, Nazis killed Americans, Americans killed Japanese, Japanese killed brits, Brits killed Italians...you get the idea. I would require more of what Mr. Ashenburg wrote to reach Art's conclusions, rather than Art having drawn them for us.

It seems to me that there are two strains of the Radical Left: the "pacifists", who claim to be opposed to all violence, but seem to spend most of their time criticizing Western violence, and the militants, who are committed to destroying the existing oppressive hegemony so they can set up their own oppressive hegemony. The latter is constantly engaging in acts of violence against those that disagree with them, while the former is constantly trying to create a culture of passivity which prevents us from confronting this violence, because doing so requires us to engage in violence ourselves, and they have successfully fooled people into thinking that violence is evil in and of itself, rather than merely a tool, sometimes used for evil, but often needed to fight evil. One has declared war on the West, while the other is bent on a campaign of disarmament that by necessity will be unilateral. They make excuses for the aggressors, while demonizing those that fight them. And all in the name of being "progressive".

Bolding above mine. Which makes all that follows Art's personal opinion-which one can accept or discount as one wishes (I personally take Art at a 22% discount). I let jj argue opinions with him.

In sum, much ado about one sentence in a un-referenced letter from a relatively unknown source by one individual of modest importance (unless demonstrated otherwise).

IMHO as always.

 

[Darat]

This is in danger of devolving into a semantic debate, where you're talking past each other by using the same word but meaning different things by it. So let me propose a few ideas for uses of various terms to help avoid that. We can use the term "negative" for results that causes suffering to people, and the term "positive" for results that releive suffering or create enjoyment for people.

...snip....

Under the terms I'm using, war can indeed be good, as you have said. But I think the point Darat is trying to get at is that it still produces negatives. And I'd agree on that point as well. My guess is that you're mostly talking past each other.

Perhaps - but I think there is a little bit more here and I think it does boil down to some real differences about how various people view the world.

I lean more to a utilitarian concept of what makes something "good", in other words I don't use a subjective absolute definition of "good". So for me it is quite easy to see that an immoral (or bad) act can result in moral (or good) result.

I say "war is bad" because of the individual acts that make up what war means e.g. the killing, the maiming the suffering, are all things which I consider bad. But that doesn't mean that sometimes, killing, maiming and causing suffering can't have a good (in the utilitarian sense) result.

People who say war is good (using my viewpoint) are in fact saying that killing, maiming and causing suffering is good (which of course I don't believe they do believe).

What I take it to mean is that they are actually saying: "The result of war can be good."

But I could be wrong and perhaps some people may think acts like maiming, killing and causing suffering in themselves are good?

 

[Cleon]

In sum, much ado about one sentence in a un-referenced letter from a relatively unknown source by one individual of modest importance (unless demonstrated otherwise).

IMHO as always.

Just to point out...Tikkun is actually a fairly well-read magazine among Reform Jews. It's not really "unknown," but neither is it "radical left," either. (I'd put its politics somewhere in the center-left of the Democratic Party.) I'm very suspicious of Vandelay's claim that "according to him, the Israelis deliberately provoked." If so, I really doubt Tikkun would ever endorse such a letter--they're very pro-Israel, although anti-occupation and pro-human rights.

 

[Hutch]

Appreciate the info, Cleon; I had never heard of the magazine before, doubt many of us had.

 

[Mephisto]

No, not really. Some have to be fought. Loosing such a war is a very bad thing.

The problem with the idea that, "some have to be fought," is that is precisely what is screwing us up as a race (the human race). There is ALWAYS a reason for war! Whether it's the color of your neighbor's skin, the way he worships, his political beliefs, the idea that they're trying to acquire weapons you don't approve of, they're sneaking across your borders to work, their leader is a terrible dictator . . .

I would go along with TragicMonkey and state that WE SHOULD ALL AGREE that war is a despicable solution by any means and should always be used as a last resort. I personally believe that every means of diplomacy be exhausted AND every means to ensure that the threat levels are accurate before committing troops to a cause.

 

[hammegk]

The real question is, does claiming the dichotomy of us vs. them "false", offer survival value to the side who otherwise by their will and intent would prevail?

If so, who will be the first who successfully bases his political platform on that idea?

 

[jj]

Maybe we should just agree that there are lunatics on all sides, and that killing them would be wrong, possibly because of an absolute ethical standard against killing, possibly because the situation doesn't call for it.

What about self-defense?

There comes a time when it comes down to "him or me".

 

[jj]

Lunatic right, radical right, same difference.

Really?

Are you sure about that?

 

[jj]

The real question is, does claiming the dichotomy of us vs. them "false", offer survival value to the side who otherwise by their will and intent would prevail?

If so, who will be the first who successfully bases his political platform on that idea?

My now, there's a whole history of that, isn't there?

Clearly, more than "us vs. them" is required? Say, some secular understanding of what social contracts and long-term self-interest would ask for?

 

[Mycroft]

Really?

Are you sure about that?

That lunatic and radical are interchangeable?

I’m willing to admit I’m wrong about that if you can explain the difference.

 

[Kerberos]

That lunatic and radical are interchangeable?

I’m willing to admit I’m wrong about that if you can explain the difference.

A radical is simply somebody far from the main stream, though it mihgt also implie violence. Loonie would require gross irrationality, not simply divergent values.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Hmm. There seem to be those who either cannot understand or refuse to accept that some things are bad in themselves, despite sometimes being necessary to survival. Why is that? Is it because people want to believe their every action is good, so they'll label all their sins as virtues by necessity? Or is it that they really do not believe certain acts can be bad, regardless of situation? Please, please, please note that I am not arguing for pacifism: I am perfectly aware that sometimes war, and killing, are necessary for survival. I'll even state that sometimes war and killing are the best choice and not to do them would be bad....but they are still bad things, and doing them is making a conscious choice to evil. Necessary evils are still evils.

If the whole war and killing thing is too ingrained in culture to use them as examples of inherently bad things, then how about rape? In this thread, people have come up with situations when it was necessary to kill or make war, and therefore, because of the situation, these things were good. Well, use your imagination. If you can come up with the right situation, then you should be able to state that sometimes rape is a good thing, right? How about child abuse? You cannot have it both ways: either some actions carry an absolute inherent moral valuation, or there are situations when rape and child abuse are good things. Anybody got the guts to stand by the latter?

 

[Ziggurat]

I would go along with TragicMonkey and state that WE SHOULD ALL AGREE that war is a despicable solution by any means and should always be used as a last resort.

There are two problems with that formulation that I see. First is that there's no way to define what constitutes a "last resort". For example, regarding the first Gulf War, we gave Saddam plenty of time to leave before we attacked. But did we really attack as a "last resort"? In a sense, no: we could always have given sanctions more time, tried more diplomacy, etc. And yet, if it becomes clear that remaining alternatives won't work, attacking is a last resort. But how do you decide if the remaining alternatives are doomed to failure? You make a judgment call. And you cannot get universal agreement on a judgment call. So the term "last resort" cannot actually be defined in a way that gets us to agree on when to go to war, even if we all agree that we should only go to war as a last resort.

The second major problem I see (and one that is perhaps more fundamental) is that spending time and resources on possible alternative ways to resolve a conflict can increase the damage that going to war would do. Suppose, for example, that pursuing the only alternative to war had a 5% chance of success, but if we tried that alternative and it failed, the situation would change in the meantime so that the number of people killed by going to war would double. Should we really only use war as a last resort in such a case? A cost/benefit analysis suggests that the preferable course of action is war now at lower cost than risking probable war later at much higher cost. And in such a hypothetical, I would choose war now even though I am not choosing it as a truly last resort. If you would too then you are not actually choosing war as a last resort. If you would not then you are choosing a course of war which is likely to produce more of the horrors of war, not less.

The decision to go to war should never be taken lightly, and the costs (in lives and dollars) are always high, but I cannot see an absolutist formulation of "only as a last resort" as a useful guideline. The real world rarely gives us sufficiently clear alternatives to live by such simple guidelines.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'd just like to point out that "the last resort" bit is Mephisto's, not mine. I'm more pragmatic, and willing to pursue a necessary evil before a potential good, if it's going to be more effective.

 

[Freakshow]

You cannot have it both ways: either some actions carry an absolute inherent moral valuation, or there are situations when rape and child abuse are good things. Anybody got the guts to stand by the latter?

I can have it both ways. Some actions carry an absolute inherent moral valuation, as you said. But killing is not one of them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I can have it both ways. Some actions carry an absolute inherent moral valuation, as you said. But killing is not one of them.

That is highly disturbing.

 

[Freakshow]

That is highly disturbing.

Opinions vary. Some lives have little or no value, based on a person's own actions. I don't lose any sleep over worthless s**tbags getting killed. Such as somebody tries to break into a house to rape someone, and ends up getting shot and killed by the homeowner. Good riddance. The world is a better place now.

I feel sorry for the homeowner, though. Having to clean up the bloodstains and everything. Would probably have to get the carpet replaced, which is a hassle.

 

[Metullus]

Perhaps - but I think there is a little bit more here and I think it does boil down to some real differences about how various people view the world.

I lean more to a utilitarian concept of what makes something "good", in other words I don't use a subjective absolute definition of "good". So for me it is quite easy to see that an immoral (or bad) act can result in moral (or good) result.

I say "war is bad" because of the individual acts that make up what war means e.g. the killing, the maiming the suffering, are all things which I consider bad. But that doesn't mean that sometimes, killing, maiming and causing suffering can't have a good (in the utilitarian sense) result.

People who say war is good (using my viewpoint) are in fact saying that killing, maiming and causing suffering is good (which of course I don't believe they do believe).

What I take it to mean is that they are actually saying: "The result of war can be good."

But I could be wrong and perhaps some people may think acts like maiming, killing and causing suffering in themselves are good?

Okay. So is this analogous?

I am at this moment subjecting my mother to physical therapy (she recently had a hip replaced.) The PT causes her considerable pain and suffering, frequently bringing her to tears. I submit that if I apply your concept of what makes something "good" or "bad" what I am doing to my mother is "bad" (it causes her to suffer.)

Is this what you mean? Or am I not grokking you?

 

[Metullus]

What about self-defense?

There comes a time when it comes down to "him or me".

Or to alleviate suffering?

 

[Mephisto]

The decision to go to war should never be taken lightly, and the costs (in lives and dollars) are always high, but I cannot see an absolutist formulation of "only as a last resort" as a useful guideline. The real world rarely gives us sufficiently clear alternatives to live by such simple guidelines.

I think most of us can agree on this point especially, and by "last resort" I meant as a solution and not a last-ditch attempt to defend ourselves. I hope that the American people are going to be less likely to trust ANY politician making a fervent case for war.

The way I see it, if the world were a neighborhood then we're the rich kid who drives to "the other side of the tracks" to pick fights for familial insults and perceived threats. You can bet I'm not the only person in the world who sees the U.S. that way as well.

I understand full well the necessity for vigilance and combat-preparedness, and I especially advocate a strong military, BUT I believe that all diplomatic solutions be exhausted BEFORE committing American sons to battle. We scoffed at the UN when they told us there were no WMD (while pointing out their gross inefficiencies) and we decided to attack Iraq without a UN coalition. We later put our tails between our legs to beg them for help in Iraq (which we later complained about).

Of course, an actual, imminent threat is a different story, but will we ever be smart enough to know one when we see it?