Quick Question on the Ethics of Peace

[BigBallinStalin]

What is the technical meaning of terrorist that the US government goes by? Does anyone know. The reason I ask is cause terrorism is thrown around so much.

Terrorism is a tactic within the insurgent's arsenal. Terrorism is also used by governments and even the US, but people like to arbitrarily distinguish between these two kinds of terrorism. Essentially, terrorism is the killing of innocents by a political organization seeking to attain some goal (e.g. political change, usually). The FBI's definition is used more loosely. For the FBI, if you commit a crime and damage some property for a political goal (e.g. being a militant environmentalist), then the FBI calls that "ecoterrorism." It's BS, but that's how it goes. Every drone strike that involves the deaths of "innocents" is also a terrorist attack.

With terrorism, there's a murky distinction between "innocent civilian" and "combatant."

[BigBallinStalin]

Right. But we aren't in any costly wars with nuclear powers.

We are, but they've been cold--and not as scary as the Cold War. It depends on how you wish to define "war."

[DoomYoshi]

Why Nations Fail is one of the worst books ever written. This conversation is over.

EDIT: sorry, I confused Why Nations Fail for Collapse, which actually is the worst book ever written.

Yeah, I was gonna say, google acemoglu and email that to his face.

In any case, it's not my assumption. It's based on a statement by Meir Dagan. So, you are saying that you disagree with Dagan? If you disagree with Dagan, that means that Israel should invade Iran.

The following is what you said, and it's what I disagree with:
1. the reason the Islamists can't enter a successful war with Israel is that they are too scattered and face "internal problems"
2. So, our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos,

and,
3. Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other.
('Americans', i.e. the US government, has been in several wars and conflicts with many "Islamists" for the past 10-15 years.)


But that's different from Meir's position:
Meir: a strike on Iran (from Israel) "would lead to a regional war and solve the internal problems of the Islamic Republic,".

It depends on what assumptions he's rolling with. I agree with Meir that striking Iran may likely exacerbate the situation because the civilian casualties would be high (try bombing nuclear facilities that are buried under cities), and/or it may involve some prolonged hostage situation (e.g. if Israel sends in commandos), or maybe "striking Iran" involves moving in the armed forces. The last assumption would most likely lead to a regional war. Iran has tried air strikes with great success and little repercussions in the past, so there's that to consider.

The other part is most likely to occur. A war against foreigners can be effective in mobilizing the population (e.g. Iranian Revolution 1979 and then its subsequent war with Iraq). But again, it depends on what he means by "striking Iran."

As for your position, I'm not seeing much of a similarity with Meir's.

Ok, I understand the problem. I interpret the quote as saying

(3)if: strike on Iran
then:regional war and: solve internal problems
with regional war and solved internal problems being an unwanted outcome

I also assumed that the two were inexorably linked. (1)If: regional war then:solve internal problems but also (2)if:solve internal problems then: regional war.

So, BBS, you are saying that statement (3) is correct but not statements (1) or (2)?

You have also claimed that (1) is correct by the blue highlight. So what evidence is there that (2) is not correct? Or are you just saying that (2) is not correct because there is no evidence for it, meaning it doesn't matter if there is evidence against it?

[BigBallinStalin]

Oi yoi yoi!

All Meir is saying is this, "if Israel attacks Iran, the attack could (a) spark a regional (Middle East) war, and (b) consolidate the power of Iranian Islamic Republic/Theocratic Whatever Asshole Government."

The benefits and costs of a regional war are different for individuals, and so are the BnC's of "solving internal problems" for different individuals (i.e. consolidating the Iranian government's power over its own people), so A and B, and your #1 and #2 aren't linked in the sense, which you seem to think. The regional war introduces more 'players' to the scene; whereas, the "solving internal problems" strengthens the Iranian government--domestically. They're generally separate events--but it depends...

So, BBS, you are saying that statement (3) is correct but not statements (1) or (2)?

You have also claimed that (1) is correct by the blue highlight. So what evidence is there that (2) is not correct? Or are you just saying that (2) is not correct because there is no evidence for it, meaning it doesn't matter if there is evidence against it?

Basically, "(1) If: regional war then:solve internal problems" is not the primary sequence of causes here because if Israel strikes Iran, there may be a chance that Iran will kick in the nationalist furor, thus consolidating power. No regional war is necessary here.

Now, "(2)if:solve internal problems then: regional war" is the lesser likely event because Israel has struck against nearby nations, and no regional war has broken out. However, if Iran can consolidate its domestic power sufficiently, then it can divert more resources to foreign interventionist policies (e.g. funding Hezbollah and others). Meir didn't explicitly state this, but I'm sure he would agree. That could be one avenue of "regional" war.

Another avenue is where the Arab nations rise up because they've had enough of Israel's shite (e.g. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which in my opinion presumes too much). I'm not sure what Meir thinks about this possibility.


Evidence...
This is just guesswork based on my small knowledge of history. If you were paying me, I'd write a more detailed, convincing report. However, all analysts are constrained by the inadequacy of theory in this realm of social behavior, and there's that annoying problem of The Slippery Slope, where we can imagine scenarios where things get worse--but we have no way of proving its soundness. That's just how it is in foreign policy. You stick with a certain theoretical framework and roll with it (e.g. Realism, International Liberalism, and Idealism/that one about ideas--hearts and minds, soft power, that stuff).

If I had access to classified information, then (1) I wouldn't be willing to share it with you, but (2) I could provide more evidence for my take on the situation. Governments are simply unwilling to share such information with the public. At times, the outcome is the "Noble Lie" or plain, outright lies, or no lies at all--just incompetence, or perhaps the right thing was done. The public, the hoi polloi, will never know--until the freedom of information act kicks in, but that's still a maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

Meir Dagan said: that a strike on Iran (from Israel) "would lead to a regional war and solve the internal problems of the Islamic Republic,".

Basically, what he is saying is that the peace between Israel and Iran is dependent upon non-peace between different Islamic factions.

Is peace based on conflict actually peace? Is this political selfishness something that should be supported or dissuaded by the UN?

Arguably, I would say that if our goal is "World Peace", then an internal power struggle between Islamic tribes is just as damaging as a war between Israel and Iran. Ideally, for peace to occur in the region, Israel should be forced to go to war, so that the Islamists can organize.

We have to reach a place of tolerance, but that is anathema to the extremists, by definition.

Extremism is really about power. It really doesn't matter if the fight is over ideas or land or soem person's individual vision. Its ultimately one person or a group of people wanting to control others.. its about power.

Getting around extremism means convincing most people that they have more to gain from not following, not fighting. Than requires information, access to the things people need and want.

[DoomYoshi]

Another avenue is where the Arab nations rise up because they've had enough of Israel's shite (e.g. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which in my opinion presumes too much). I'm not sure what Meir thinks about this possibility.

This is the possibility I want you to consider. If the Islamists could finally work together in a concentrated attack on Israel, then there would be a regional war which would drag in the United States.

My claim is that no such regional war can happen because the various Islamist government are too busy infighting (e.g.Rebels as in Syria/Egypt) or they are too standoffish with each other. If this claim is correct, then the peace of America is guaranteed by this infighting, no?

[PLAYER57832]

Another avenue is where the Arab nations rise up because they've had enough of Israel's shite (e.g. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which in my opinion presumes too much). I'm not sure what Meir thinks about this possibility.

This is the possibility I want you to consider. If the Islamists could finally work together in a concentrated attack on Israel, then there would be a regional war which would drag in the United States.

My claim is that no such regional war can happen because the various Islamist government are too busy infighting (e.g.Rebels as in Syria/Egypt) or they are too standoffish with each other. If this claim is correct, then the peace of America is guaranteed by this infighting, no?

No. All it takes to unite the Islamists is to have an external enemy. It has worked before.

[DoomYoshi]

So Israel/America/France/wherever aren't external enemies? I don't understand

[BigBallinStalin]

Another avenue is where the Arab nations rise up because they've had enough of Israel's shite (e.g. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which in my opinion presumes too much). I'm not sure what Meir thinks about this possibility.

This is the possibility I want you to consider. If the Islamists could finally work together in a concentrated attack on Israel, then there would be a regional war which would drag in the United States.

My claim is that no such regional war can happen because the various Islamist government are too busy infighting (e.g.Rebels as in Syria/Egypt) or they are too standoffish with each other. If this claim is correct, then the peace of America is guaranteed by this infighting, no?

Well... it's not just Islamist governments. It's pretty much any Middle Eastern (ME) government, so we have to consider more than the Islamic ones--however defined. Each ME government plays according to US-mandated rules, and each one is rewarded for doing so. In other word, what is the price at which these countries (and their various groups of people) are willing to pay in order to become involved in a regional war? And through what means?
Depending on that answer, you could (somehow) determine the likelihood of these various countries joining a certain side. I don't see how "the Islamists" would all unify... that position needs to be explained.

Keep in mind. In the past the Arabs had a more or less unified war against a common enemy (the Crusades), but we forget that their governments/principalities have been at war with each other as often enough as the infighting of Western/Central Europe states around that time as well.

That being said, re: underlined. With foreign policy, "never" is too strong a word, but a regional war which (somehow) unifies enough Middle Easterners against a common enemy (Israel? The US? NATO?) is almost ...

...because the various Islamist government are too busy infighting (e.g.Rebels as in Syria/Egypt) or they are too standoffish with each other. If this claim is correct, then the peace of America is guaranteed by this infighting, no?

Let's narrow "the Islamists" to "all those international fighters who operate under various organizations which may or may not use terrorism, and their general goal is to promote fundamentalist Islamic values through violent means."

The path to a unified war is already being taken and is beyond regional--it's international. Fortunately, that path is not being taken by many--even in the Middle East. Note the resistance to such a path. It's not just the US/NATO and foreign powers instigating this 'infighting'. It's also normal citizens engaging in civil disobedience changing their governments (Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco). You might be hyping up the 'infighting' in the ME too much, thus overlooking some details, so the "Eastern Infighting, Peace in the West" conclusion seems incorrect.

[DoomYoshi]

You might be hyping up the 'infighting' in the ME too much, thus overlooking some details, so the "Eastern Infighting, Peace in the West" conclusion seems incorrect.

This is the most likely problem, and the biggest one I worried about. Let's add Russia to the list though, since they are supporting the Syrian government.

[DoomYoshi]

Ffs BBS, you have pulled a fast one on me.

If the statement is true then the cost of "solve internal problems" is "strike resulting in regional war". Since israel is not striking, they are not willing to pay the cost to solve ME's internal problems. That's the crux of the problem, now stop pussyfooting.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ffs BBS, you have pulled a fast one on me.

If the statement is true then the cost of "solve internal problems" is "strike resulting in regional war". Since israel is not striking, they are not willing to pay the cost to solve ME's internal problems. That's the crux of the problem, now stop pussyfooting.

No, those possibilities aren't as strongly linked. They would be (in general) two separate events. Israel striking Iran doesn't resolve the internal problems of the ME, but it would likely resolve the internal problems of Iran.

[DoomYoshi]

Ok. So change the statement to internal problems of Iran.

[DoomYoshi]

Let me rephrase the question: why should Iran be forced to suffer from internal problems because Israel refuses to act to solve those problems?

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok. So change the statement to internal problems of Iran.

You do understand what's implied about "solving internal problems" of Iran, right? It's not a cupcakes and roses process.

If infighting is a problem for you, and if you support a solution which a harsh dictatorship would provide, then how would you compare the value or potential lost of infighting versus "solving internal problems?"

[DoomYoshi]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

Whether or not we use cupcakes or roses, the point is that this is the stated position of Israel, and one that you supported earlier. You can't say in one breath: "a strike on Iran will solve Iran's internal problems" and then in the next post say: "well it won't really". You have switched definitions between 2 statements.

To keep it's simple, let's say "solve internal problems" is a variable, x. Now, whatever is meant by x, a strike on Iran will cause that. Why isn't x then a moral responsibility of Israel?

Are you arguing that x is a bad thing? That it is actually a blessing in disguise for Iran to have internal problems?

[BigBallinStalin]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

Whether or not we use cupcakes or roses, the point is that this is the stated position of Israel, and one that you supported earlier. You can't say in one breath: "a strike on Iran will solve Iran's internal problems" and then in the next post say: "well it won't really". You have switched definitions between 2 statements.

My position is vague because it depends on the type of strike. (see the last three paragraphs).

A strike may solve Iran's internal problems, but it's not like that outcome would be beneficial for the Iranians. It may be better for the people if the government remains less powerful, so that change for the better has a higher chance of occurring (more democratic reform; less theocracy). Hence, "solving internal problems" is a not cupcakes and roses process.

In other words, current domestic infighting/tension may actually be better than an Israel-induced Iranian revolution or violent Iranian government shift to totalitarianism.

To keep it's simple, let's say "solve internal problems" is a variable, x. Now, whatever is meant by x, a strike on Iran will cause that. Why isn't x then a moral responsibility of Israel?

Are you arguing that x is a bad thing? That it is actually a blessing in disguise for Iran to have internal problems?

X is a good and a bad thing--it depends on the individuals. Collectivist reasoning won't let us see this, yet we use it all the time, e.g. "solves the internal problems of Iran." Iran, the government and its beneficiaries, or Iran, the people? And by "government," which sectors and its individuals stand for gain from X? And which people exactly? (see the third paragraph about benefits and costs). So, it depends on the individuals affected.

A moral responsibility? Is Israel even capable of transplanting democratic institutions through militaristic means? If not, then it would be morally irresponsible to attempt to violently create such a change. The US has been exporting democracy for the past hundred years and it's rate of FAIL is 66% (After War), or >80% (I forget the sauce, but I could find it in 10-20 minutes).

If you really wanted to push me, I'd say that X is great for the current Iranian government, bad for Israel and NATO, and bad for most Iranians. Then again, not doing anything may be worse for everyone, but that would lead us into the problem of counterfactuals.

[DoomYoshi]

Ok. Thank you for that, and I believe those democracy stats.

[BigBallinStalin]

Peace for the sake of peace is not the best goal. We could "pacify" an entire land with a brutal war, and then we'd get plenty of peace--after all dissidents are dead! Unfortunately, the US did this effectively, and look at the outcomes. Israel failed at this, and look at the outcomes.

Another example: we could all be put into self-sufficient canisters and live in a peaceful, 'alternate' reality. At the very least, the human population would be very peaceful--sitting in those canisters, doing nothing violent in the actual world.

These are only two points, and I'm not sure about the pattern of the first one, but it's worth considering that if peace is the end, then certain, abhorrent means can be justified.

What's so great about seeking peace? Aren't there better goals?

[DoomYoshi]

It doesn't matter if there are better goals. Dagan was considered prescient for being a warmonger who saw the error of his ways. I just think that if one is only selectively choosing peace then all types of peace must be considered.

[BigBallinStalin]

Pick any country going through internal and/or foreign turmoil. The military and/or police are yours to command. What do you think would be the best path to peace?

[PLAYER57832]

So Israel/America/France/wherever aren't external enemies? I don't understand

I thought your premise, or the premise of the article you posted, was that our safetly essentially depended upon those groups not uniting?

That is a failing tactic, because at some point they will decide that they can deal with their neighbors more readily than us.
Few people today outside of Ireland think that the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants are worth physically fighting over.