Comments on: Defiant, I guess

By: LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® » Blog Archive » Counterfeit rodent gets the cheese

Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:31:30 +0000

[...] Decadent western culture is rat obsessed, it’s true. But sometimes the rodent has to take one for the team. Now, in true Islamist fashion, but with an IP twist: How to avoid (mostly theoretical) trademark / copyright liability while still being …. defiant? [...]

By: Radioactive Liberty

Radioactive Liberty — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:53:31 +0000

Channeling Sir Winston Churchill

Ron Coleman, at the Likelihood of Success has a post about his view on the Iraqi Front in the current World War – Defiant, I guess. In the comments, one of the commenters, “double-plus-ungood,” asks:
Suppose that this particular war is and…

By: double-plus-ungood

double-plus-ungood — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:05:11 +0000

I disagree with this idea that you invalidate your moral cause if you depart from the Marquis of Queensbury’s Rules, or even worse. War is, you know, heck.

Indeed, but my point is that one of the many arguments for the overthrow of Hussein was that he butchered many of his own people in response to several insurgencies, and it was therefore a moral act to step in and remove him from power. If the argument is made that brutal action is required to put down the current insurgency similar to that used by Hussein, I think that particular argument is invalidated.

The argument can be made that that level of, uh, well, force is extreme and isn’t necessary, but I think one of the reasons that Hussein used assassination, collective punishment, torture and fear to maintain order and power in Iraq is that these tactics may be the only thing that would work (and I’ve heard all of these tactics expressed at one time or another by bloggers frustrated with the way the counter-insurgency is going, which is a bit creepy).

Besides, one of the features of democratic societies is that they have a say in foreign policy. Wars tend to lose much of their political backing when brutal military action is used, accompanied with the usual unintended civilian casualties and occasional atrocities.

By: FIAR

FIAR — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:59:49 +0000

This argument is and always had been unwinnable! It was immoral for me to have gotten involved in it. Time to redeploy to Radioactive Liberty.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:35:13 +0000

Well, DPU, I’m not sure that your argument follows. It can be said that the Red Army was, in terms of atrocities committed against civilians, in the same range as Wehrmacht (not SS) units during World War II and, in some places, perhaps far worse. Yet while their behavior was despicable, even Stalin’s USSR still has a moral claim to victory over that of Nazi Germany. Indeed, U.S. troops committed some atrocities, too, as soldiers evidently almost always do in war, and arguably the whole US-British bombing campaign against non-military targets in Germany and Japan was of very questionable morality. So those actions must be judged, but this does not invalidate the moral quality of our victory.

I disagree with this idea that you invalidate your moral cause if you depart from the Marquis of Queensbury’s Rules, or even worse. War is, you know, heck.

By: double-plus-ungood

double-plus-ungood — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:53:59 +0000

He’s unwilling to do what it takes to win, and thus starts from the premise that it’s unwinnable.

You’ve this assumption about me based on what?

I said that liberal democracies place restrictions on the actions of their militaries. Hussein’s defense of his crimes against the Kurds and the southern Shia was that in both cases he was doing what was militarily necessary to defeat an insurgency. His techniques worked. Presumably the US does not want to replicate those methods to do the same. If it did, where is the moral authority to depose Hussein?

By: FIAR

FIAR — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:23:43 +0000

My point is that war is horrific, and if you go into it unwilling to do what it takes to win, then you shouldn’t go into it. On that mark I give double-plus-ungood credit. He’s unwilling to do what it takes to win, and thus starts from the premise that it’s unwinnable.

It’s human nature that if you are convinced that you can’t do something, you won’t. Period. It’s just not possible to achieve something when you are firmly convinced that is impossible.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:51:43 +0000

Gosh, Fitch, isn’t that an oversimplification? Do we say ,”At the end of World War II the Russians raped and pillaged their way across Eastern Germany. Germans prayed to be occupied by the American and British forces instead, who were known for their weak effort”?

By: FIAR

FIAR — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:56:10 +0000

if you take into consideration the restrictions that liberal democracies place on the actions of their military

I called it a lack of effort. Same thing.

By: double-plus-ungood

double-plus-ungood — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:30:44 +0000

Why should I? Why should I believe that there’s any such thing as an “Unwinnable” war?

Well, because there are always unwinnable wars, given circumstances. In this particular case, the goal is fairly difficult to achieve. If you define winning as Iraq having a self-governing democratic society, then the chances of it being unwinnable are fairly high, if you take into consideration the restrictions that liberal democracies place on the actions of their military, and the large number of groups in the region that would benefit from US failure.

But the reason that I ask is that some of those who opposed the war did so because they felt it unwinnable, and that the end result would be a scenario with a destabilized Middle East, a severe weakening of US influence in the region, and an increase in the use of terrorism as a tactic of extremist groups. Given that some felt this would be the outcome, would it have been moral to support the war anyway, even with a bleak outcome? Or immoral?