A Question That Must NEVER Be Asked if One Loves Peace!

[jordan179]

Ran into some people who are happy that we're pulling out of Iraq and wish that we'd pull out of Afghanistan, right now! When I asked them "What about the Taliban and Al Qaeda, wouldn't they just keep on attacking us like they did before 9-11?", it threw them into a ferment. I'd asked a question that no one is supposed to ask

Comments

[squid314]

I have a theory on this.

I once heard a lecturer discuss deaths from side effects of experimental medication. He claimed that a certain number of deaths in this area were unavoidable, and that at some point, preventing deaths from medication side effects would become so difficult that any extra regulation would prevent drugs from ever being produced, or prevent doctors from being able to prescribe them effectively, and actually make matters worse.

He also said we are long past this point, and that politicians know this, but that they won't do anything about it. They won't do anything about it because if they were to set policy that "5,000 deaths from experimental drug side effects per year is an acceptable amount", then they'd have to go on national television and say "5,000 Americans are dying a year, and I'm totally okay with this and don't plan to do anything", and that would be the end of his career.

I think the reason people get so freaked out when you ask them whether we should stop fighting terrorism is that you're forcing them to take that same position, something like "Yeah, a few dozen Americans die in terrorist attacks per year, and I think that's a pretty okay casualty level when you consider how much work it would be to stop it."

This is actually a totally reasonable position when the work to stop it costs a trillion dollars and would kill scores of soldiers and thousands of civilians, but people generally don't have the intellectual integrity to admit to holding a position that includes the phrase "okay casualty level". So they just get angry at you and tell you you're crazy and evil.

[gothelittle]

This is true, and you've got a good theory there. However, it's at least partially inapplicable in this case, as the Iraqi/Afghanistan military actions are a drop in the bucket compared to our national debt.

The majority of our debt is welfare, Medicaid/Medicare, and unemployment benefit extensions.

The only other problem I see with your theory is that it neglects intent. On one side, you have accidental deaths as a result of attempting to help someone, with their consent. On the other side, you have deliberate murder, often premeditated. When you bring morality into the picture, the 'cost/benefit analysis' becomes far less useful.

In which case, yes, it's worth sacrificing scores of soldiers in order to teach the enemy that we won't stand for them targeting our innocent civilians.

[squid314]

I disagree with you about the relevance of a trillion dollars to the national debt, but I think there's an argument that can cut through the disagreement and prevent us having to compare budget pie charts: if our goal is to save lives, that trillion dollars could be spent in a much more effective way - for example, spending it on disease research would multiple the budget for that a hundredfold and save far more than a few dozen lives. Thus, the question isn't whether it's economically possible to spend that money, but rather whether spending it on war is worth the opportunity cost.

I also think I disagree with you about morality, pretty fundamentally, probably too fundamentally to address in a single LiveJournal comment. In short, I'm a utilitarian. I believe killing evil people feels good, but is not a moral necessity, and is certainly not more important than saving innocent lives. Intent matters not at all, and the innocent dead will not and should not forgive us just because our hearts were pure.

[gothelittle]

You're right, our worldviews are very different, and yours is internally logically sound. Thanks for hearing me out!

May I suggest something that might work with your worldview, though? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just playing with ideas now.

In my yard, I have an ancient oak tree that simply has to come down. It's going to take some work and some time, and that thing is huge. It takes up much of the landscape. You'd say it's a priority, right?

It isn't, because the moment I see a sprig of Oriental Bittersweet vine, I hasten to the site and do my best to raze it to the ground.

Why would I spend my resources dealing with a sprig of Oriental Bittersweet instead of that old oak tree?

It's because if I let that old oak tree alone for another year, it'll grow another couple of inches taller. Oriental Bittersweet, however, puts on that much length in a couple of days. If I leave it alone, it'll be a sprig in June, brush in July, and an enormous thicket in August. It can climb a porch and cave in part of the roof in just one season. I've seen it completely demolish an old barn in two.

Yes, we could spend a trillion dollars to save more than 3,000 lives in medical research. However, extremist Muslim terrorist activity is like Oriental Bittersweet. If no punishment is forthcoming, it'll be 10,000 next year, and 500,000 the next. Meanwhile, if 3,000 people die from medical conditions this year, it'll be 3,000 the next, and 3,000 the next.

[jordan179]

if our goal is to save lives, that trillion dollars could be spent in a much more effective way - for example, spending it on disease research would multiple the budget for that a hundredfold and save far more than a few dozen lives. Thus, the question isn't whether it's economically possible to spend that money, but rather whether spending it on war is worth the opportunity cost.

You are ignoring the issue of the lives saved by waging the war -- specifically, the lives that would be lost were our enemies allowed to wax in power unchecked.

[jordan179]

The only other problem I see with your theory is that it neglects intent. On one side, you have accidental deaths as a result of attempting to help someone, with their consent. On the other side, you have deliberate murder, often premeditated. When you bring morality into the picture, the 'cost/benefit analysis' becomes far less useful.

In which case, yes, it's worth sacrificing scores of soldiers in order to teach the enemy that we won't stand for them targeting our innocent civilians.

And morality is here based in practicality. To allow attacks on the scale of 9-11 to go unavenged is to invite them in the future, assuming sapient foes. Unlike a hurricane or an epidemic, terrorism is not a random force: it is a tool of warfare.

[jordan179]

I think the reason people get so freaked out when you ask them whether we should stop fighting terrorism is that you're forcing them to take that same position, something like "Yeah, a few dozen Americans die in terrorist attacks per year, and I think that's a pretty okay casualty level when you consider how much work it would be to stop it."

I am not "freaked out" by this position: I merely consider it irrational. The false assumption on which it is based is that the level of international terrorism is fixed, that it can neither be reduced by military action (killing terrorists in their foreign bases) nor increased by inaction (the terrorists having time and peace to assemble larger and more powerful attacks).

You are treating the Islamic Terrorists as a natural phenomenon, following blind natural laws; rather than a political-military faction, under sapient leadership. The problem is that treating them in this manner does not transform them into a natural phenomenon. If we had simply left the Terrorists alone, their attacks would have grown ever more powerful, and severe.

This is actually a totally reasonable position when the work to stop it costs a trillion dollars and would kill scores of soldiers and thousands of civilians ...

We lost "thousands of civilians" back when we were following your advice. Since we have prosecuted the war vigorously, American civilian losses have been measurable in dozens, at most. The main civilian losses have been citizens of countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) whose leaders made the mistake of being sympathetic to the Terrorists, and thereby were invaded by America. The object lesson to other would-be Terrorist allies is clear: ally with the Terrorists, and your leadership will be slaughtered and your people die in the ensuing wars.

This is a good thing. Attacks on America must be made costly, not cheap, for the attackers.

... but people generally don't have the intellectual integrity to admit to holding a position that includes the phrase "okay casualty level".

I acknowledge the concept of an "okay casualty level," in the sense that we must choose the lesser of two evils. Clearly, allowing the Terrorist threat to grow unchecked, and choosing to let American civilians do the dying, is the greater evil from an American POV, and we must accept the fairly low level of losses our troops have taken as the price of avoiding far greater losses to our civilian populace.

So they just get angry at you and tell you you're crazy and evil.

You're not "crazy and evil." Merely very, very naive, and inclined to treat the Terrorists as if they were a mere natural hazard rather than a real human foe.

foolishness

[ilion7]

"You're not "crazy and evil." Merely very, very naive, and inclined to treat the Terrorists as if they were a mere natural hazard rather than a real human foe."

Foolishness *is* wicked (morally evil).

Re: foolishness

[ilion7]

That's what it means, after all.

Most people, if asked, will say that 'foolishness' means 'stupidity.' But, then, most people speak (and frequently think) like kindergarteners.

Yet, regardless of what most people will say that 'foolishness' means, these same people do not *use* the word in that way. Except for the odd case when "you're a fool" is being used as an endearment, the accusation is *always* made in anger or indignation and with moral disapproval. The accusation, "you're a fool" never means "you're stupid, and you simply can’t help yourself for behaving stupidly." Rather, it always means something like "you're behaving *as though* you were stupid, and this is a moral failure on your part."

Re: foolishness

[jordan179]

It's not "wilful ignorance." Most people -- those with little background in history or in conflict gaming -- tend to treat power relationships as if they were decreed by God and set in stone. It literally doesn't occur to them that the Terrorists would kill as many of us as they could, and that the number that they could is determined by relative power at the time, not directly by some natural law limiting their power.

Re: foolishness

[kalance]

Do you ever feel that Game Theory should be taught along side Social Studies classes that are covering wars and politics?

Re: foolishness

[squid314]

Yes. IMO, Game Theory is one of the most important discoveries of the 20th centuries, since it allows the direct application of mathemtically-based logic to situations in which there is more than one decision-maker affecting the outcome.

A lot of the problem with the "conventional wisdom" regarding foreign policy decisions is that it assumes that we are the only ones making the decisions, and the other parties' actions are completely controlled by ours.

Re: foolishness

[jordan179]

That was me.

Actually, no

[ilion7]

"This is actually a totally reasonable position when the work to stop it costs a trillion dollars and would kill scores of soldiers and thousands of civilians, but people generally don't have the intellectual integrity to admit to holding a position that includes the phrase "okay casualty level". So they just get angry at you and tell you you're crazy and evil."

Actually, that isn't a reasonable position. But, you're right on the rest.

The *reason* this isn't a reasonable position is that it thoroughly delegitimizes the government -- the PRIMARY rationale for, and legitimacy of, any government is that it protects its citizens/subjects from external threat. And, failing that (as, in this world, all governments must, from time to time), that it avenges them.

A government which cannot ... or will not ... avenge its citizens/subjects is no government at all; it is at most a set of gangsters.

[kalance]

The thing is, the whole purpose of the federal government and the military is to protect people from foreign threats. Pretty much all of the federal budget is supposed to be allocated in order to "Provide for the common defense".

All those extra things the government is putting money into like welfare and education and bail-outs, isn't supposed to exist within the confines of Article I of the Constitution.

Yeah, rooting out dug in groups like the Taliban or Al Qaeda or whomever pops up in the next decade or two will cost money and soldier's lives. However, do not forget that that is exactly how that money is meant to be spent, and that that's exactly what those soldiers volunteered and agreed to do.