olsen@masala.lcs.mit.edu (James Olsen) (02/19/91)
In article <2247@njitgw.njit.edu> matth@mars.njit.edu (Matthew Harelick) writes: >Peace ? This conflict has nothing to do with peace. This conflict >exists for three reasons: > 1. Keep Western control over the world oil supply. > 2. To Clean up a NATO foreign policy mess > 3. To secure a U.S. Presence in the region. >[Matthew later asserts his belief that these are the *only* reasons for >this conflict, the other supposed reasons being mere rationalizations.] The three reasons Matthew gives are important, but he is mistaken in thinking that these are the only reasons. Reasons for war fall into two categories, and Matthew errs in considering only one of them. In considering the initiation of a major war, a democratic country must answer two questions: - Is the war just? (Would it be morally right for someone to fight this war?) In order to acquire and maintain the necessary public support for a major war, the people of the country must perceive the war to be just. (For short conflicts like the invasion of Grenada, this is less important, since public support isn't vital.) If you doubt that the immorality of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was important to the US entry into the war, consider the following hypothetical: Suppose that Kuwait had voluntarily agreed to be annexed by Iraq. All of the amoral geo-political war reasons that apply to the current conflict would apply in this case too, but it would be completely impossible for George Bush to get the requisite national and international support for an aggressive war against the hypothetical Iraq-Kuwait, and the war would therefore not occur. The illegality of the Iraqi invasion (the only difference between the hypothetical case and the actual case) is therefore one reason for the war. If the first question is answered 'yes', we must ask the second: - Is the war wise? (Is it advisable for _us_ to fight this war?) Even if a war is seen to be just, often it will not be wise to fight it. This hinges on the likely cost (human and material) of the war, and its likely benefits. Matthew's three reasons would enter into this calculation. States never fight wars unless they see it to be in their own self-interest. This step causes the 'inconsistency' that antiwar people see in our use of force. But why must we be consistent? No state is the 'World's Policeman', dedicated to upholding international law. The states in the Gulf war situation are more like private citizens seeing a friend attacked by a mugger: they can fight for their friend if they wish, but they are not obliged to do so. The 'consistency' argument would say that unless you undertake to thwart every mugging anywhere, it is immoral for you to defend your friend against a mugger. The 'consistency' antiwar argument is absurd. In sum, this war, as all wars, is being fought to further the national self-interest of the belligerents, but it is also being fought because of the Iraqi breach of international law. >Fight for Peace? All that is is a version of the Orwellian doublespeak >statement : War is Peace, or even better, Ignorance is Bliss Matthew's statement is false. There is a legitimate line of reasoning to the effect that fighting a war now may prevent larger wars in the future. One may dispute the validity of that line of reasoning, but to dismiss it as mere doublespeak is intellectually dishonest.
cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Phoenix) (02/19/91)
In article <1991Feb19.060633.11270@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> olsen@masala.lcs.mit.edu (James Olsen) writes: > The illegality of the Iraqi invasion (the only difference between the > hypothetical case and the actual case) is therefore one reason for the war. Not quite. It is one thing that makes the war possible. Without the illegality, we couldn't have a war--we agree there. But without our military-industrial complex, we couldn't have a war either. And I'm sure you don't agree with me that the military-industrial complex is one reason for the war! > Even if a war is seen to be just, often it will not be wise to fight it. > This hinges on the likely cost (human and material) of the war, and its > likely benefits. Matthew's three reasons would enter into this calculation. > States never fight wars unless they see it to be in their own self-interest. > >This step causes the 'inconsistency' that antiwar people see in our use of >force. But why must we be consistent? No state is the 'World's Policeman', >dedicated to upholding international law. Your pragmatic point of view makes good sense. But it is inconsistent with our government's stated reason for fighting it. We needn't be consistent--unless we are claiming moral high ground, claiming that we are fighting solely on moral principles, claiming that what the enemy has done demands a war in response... the rhetoric I have heard from Bush sounds to me like he's saying we *are* those policemen. My main problem with the war at this point is that the gov't's insistence on morality as the basis for our actions has convinced me that it is trying to conceal the real reasons for the war. Why would they do that? Because they know I wouldn't like the reasons. But then I should be against the war. >In sum, this war, as all wars, is being fought to further the national >self-interest of the belligerents, but it is also being fought because of >the Iraqi breach of international law. In sum, this war is being fought to further the self-interests of the people who promote it (*not* necessarily our national self-interests) and the Iraqi breach of international law is just providing a convenient excuse. The reported Iraqi treatment of Kuwaitis is providing an even better excuse. Though I recently read on other newsgroups people claiming that it was Palestinians in Kuwait who were doing most of the raping. Offhand I don't trust that last, but who knows? -- But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. And the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. ... You desire and do not have; so you kill.
jim@visix.com (Jim Edwards-Hewitt) (03/01/91)
gary@ncar.ucar.EDU (Gary Strand) writes: > So, the whole war between the Shiites and the Sunnis was due to > colonialism? Colonialism played a part, of course, but the similarities > between the peoples of the Middle East are greater than the differences. > For example, the strongest hatred is between Arabs and Jews, when in fact > both speak very similar languages, have similar religions (same roots) and > so on. Do you really think that "Me and my group versus the Other and Its group" explains the wars between the Arabs and Jews better than the fact that Israel is essentially a colony of European Jews? I agree that Jews and the Arabs have much in common, but just because the Israelis are descended from a tribe native to the area doesn't make them the *same* as a tribe native to the area. > They choose to fight, because of tribalism (which *doesn't* mean > "primitive", it means "Me and my group versus the Other and Its group"), > which explains better the long history of war in that area, which predates > colonialism by many centuries. I didn't say tribalism *meant* "primitive", I said it has a connotation of "primitive". Which it does. Would you say the cause of the long history of war in Europe is "tribalism"? "Me and my group versus the Other and Its group" *describes* the history of war in the Middle East because it describes war anywhere. It doesn't *explain* anything, because all it says is "There are different groups that don't get along, so they fight." -- Jim Edwards-Hewitt jim@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!jim __ And remember -- your guess is *never* as good as mine. -- Dr. Science
jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) (03/01/91)
Gary Strand is right in explaining many conflicts to tribalism. The concept even applies to many controversies on the net. A person develops such loyalty to one group that he thinks up arguments rather than tries to discover the truth. However, in many political controversies, people are more motivated by their hostilities than by their loyalties. To us conservatives and to us American patriots, some people defend Saddam Hussein, e.g. by repeating as truth all his accusations against Kuwait, not out of love for him but out of hostility to American society as currently represented by George Bush. This doesn't seem to be quite the same as tribalism.
gary@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) (03/01/91)
> Jim Edwards-Hewitt > Do you really think that "Me and my group versus the Other and Its group" > explains the wars between the Arabs and Jews better than the fact that > Israel is essentially a colony of European Jews? Yep. Enmity between Jews and Arabs goes back much farther than Europe as an entity. > Would you say the cause of the long history of war in Europe is > "tribalism"? Yep. > "Me and my group versus the Other and Its group" *describes* the history of > war in the Middle East because it describes war anywhere. It doesn't > *explain* anything, because all it says is "There are different groups that > don't get along, so they fight." There are many things that can cause tribalism, and many things that cause those causes. You can't synthesize it down and say "Aha! *This* is *the* reason humans fight each other." I'm not attempting to do so. But what I am pointing out is that the identification process that humans make (as do animals) with My Group, and therefore Others not of My Group are dif- ferent (and attempts are made to destroy the Different) is an important thing to consider when analyzing conflict. Do you disagree? -- Gary Strand There is only one success -- to be able Internet: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu to spend your life in your own way. Voicenet: (303) 497-1336 - Christopher Morley