Posted on 03/11/2003 8:31:41 PM PST by beckett
1: THE PROBLEM
Of the many words written for and against the coming war with Iraq, none has been more perceptive than Paul Johnson's observation in his essay "Leviathan to the Rescue" that such a war "has no precedent in history" and that "in terms of presidential power and national sovereignty, Mr. Bush is walking into unknown territory. By comparison, the Gulf War of the 1990's was a straightforward, conventional case of unprovoked aggression, like Germany's invasion of Belgium in 1914 and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor."
The implications of this remark - like the implications of the war with Iraq - are profound. The war with Iraq will constitute one of those momentous turning points of history in which one nation under the guidance of a strong-willed, self-confident leader undertakes to alter the fundamental state of the world. It is, to use the language of Hegel, an event that is world-historical in its significance and scope. And it will be world-historical, no matter what the outcome may be.
Such world-historical events, according to Hegel, are inherently sui generis - they break the mold and shatter tradition.
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
If we could win this war in Iraq bloodlessly, I am sure we would. If they could realize their vision of an Islamic world bloodlessly, they would. But that is not an option open to them or to us - people will resist, and resist forcefully.
Allow me once again to suggest that it there is a difference between acting rationally and acting morally. I had rather assumed that people here would understand the difference, but apparently this argument is too subtle for some. The Islamists can act perfectly rationally in pursuit of of an immoral goal - that is, in fact, exactly what they are doing.
I really didn't want to go to this extent, but everyone's having so much fun labeling me a relativist that I can't resist any longer. To label them as "irrational" comes perilously close to excusing them for what they do - after all, if they are "irrational" or "deluded" or otherwise somehow disconnected from reality, how can we hold them responsible for their insane acts? We don't hold the criminally insane responsible for their acts by punishing them, after all - we put them in hospitals where their condition can hopefully be treated. But the Islamists aren't "irrational", any more than Hitler was "irrational" - they know exactly what they want, and they have a rational agenda designed to advance that immoral goal. For those scoring at home, that makes them evil. And I decline to excuse evil by chalking it up to "irrationality".
In any event, if Irak is converted to a facsimilie of a democracy a whole lot of good things will happen whether we intend them or not. Within a year we have seen Pakistan turned around - although I am not naive enough to believe that there is not miles to go- and Afganistan groping toward democracy. This year we could well see the same in Irak and Iran. Irak in turn implies Saudi Arabia. Jordan can be reasoned with. Don't you like this scenario? And the sun will always shine.
But to win asymetrical warfare means that one cannot lose a single battle, or you have lost Detroit. We must win every battle and every war and we must win them in time. That means that whatever good that will happen in Iran must occur before they get the bomb.
And, thanks to the democrats at home and the metastisizing left in europe, Bush must win every battle within a week or two, on television, without casualties (on either side), with a giant coalition, under UN auspices and subject to its veto and make a profit.
Radical Islam's "vision," the prime mover of this mess, is precisely the spilling of blood.
I would suggest that the problem is not others' capacity to discern nuance; it is your capacity to define the problem.
Your problem appears to be a semantic one. By "rational," I mean logically consistent with the rules of the system in which we operate. I am not referring to soundness of mind.
As I stated in a previous reply, it is possible to construct a closed system in which the irrational is rational. That is what you are doing. That is why others here have labeled you a relativist.
If I were forced to assign a label to you, it would be "accidental deconstructionist."
LOL. So close, and yet so far. They are doing exactly that, except that it's logically consistent within the rules of the system in which they operate. They aren't "we", and defining anyone who isn't "we" as a priori "irrational" may be convenient, but it is also intellectually dishonest. And I must point out again that no one has yet managed to explain away how it is that their claims are logically indistinguishable from ours. Logically, not morally.
Yes, the problem does appear to be semantic in part - "rational" does not equal "moral", and I suspect that the inability to understand that is the source of the difficulty here.
If I were forced to assign a label to you, it would be "accidental deconstructionist."
Rather easier than actually refuting me, isn't it?
Makes you realize why logic was a critical subject at early colleges.
Rather easier than actually refuting me, isn't it? --you
You asked for nuance ;) … I agree with you that "relativist" didn't quite cut it.
Rather than repeat myself…again, I will paraphrase Boswell. I did refute your argument , but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.
Okay, one last try:
You are missing the essential point.
The system to which I refer is a result of evolution, not personal preference.
The rules describe the invariable bias of humans in favor of self-preservation
("Survival isn't chocolate ice cream." - Get it, yet?)
The rules are encoded in our DNA.
The behavior of radical Radical Islam is inconsistent with those rules.
Radical Islam's behavior is irrational.
QED.
The concept of neo-sovereignty and an official double standard where the US polices the world, controls the arms race, regional conflicts and even human rights in other countries while rejecting outside influences on our actions is here in this article portrayed as perfectly reasonable given the new reality of the day. What is not discussed here is the cost of running the world and maintaining the large army and bureaucracy necessary to do the job. How that impacts our liberty and pocketbooks is not a minor factor that can be causally left out of the equation. One might argue of the cost of not doing it being greater from a security risk point of view as threats may arise but minding ones own business is never considered as a way of decreasing the potential of harm. As the 2nd amendment defenders say a well armed society is a polite society so to it is with the world at large. Arms races are natural and hegemony begs for challenges. Leaving other countries to work out their own destinies and to manage relations with their neighbors could be considered social darwinism and what this man is describing is the end of evolution for our benefit i.e. calling an end to the game of "king of the hill" while we stand on top. In sum this is Kristol and Kagan's benevolent hegemony.
Of course this new reality idea is to prevent a rival like the old soviets rising and insure our safety but again it does not factor the issue of blow back - making us less secure in the long run. Probably we will be successful acheiving and maintaining this new policy due to our vast military technological superiority and foreign outposts from which to deliver deadly force anywhere. What is not considered is how finacing this overstretch combined with fiscal irresponsibility domestically will eventually be our demise.
Please see my post, #89.
cordially,
The system to which I refer is a result of evolution, not personal preference.
The rules describe the invariable bias of humans in favor of self-preservation.
The rules are encoded in our DNA.
The behavior of American soldiers is inconsistent with those rules.
The behavior of American soldiers is irrational.
It's that simple. We die for our causes, they die for theirs. If that makes them irrational, we are necessarily equally irrational. And if we are rational in sacrificing our lives for a greater cause, so too are they - surely you recall from your introductory logic that the validity of the argument is a formal matter, independent of the particulars.
Your notion that radical Islam sees death as an end unto itself is simply not supported by the evidence - if that were the case, why is it not extinct? They've certainly had 1400 years to achieve that goal, and yet they exist. For them, death in the service of a noble cause brings greater rewards in another life after death - I suppose I will only attract more scorn for pointing out that we preach the same thing in pulpits across the land every Sunday.
Your hatred and fear of them blinds you to their true nature. This is - dare I say - not a rational position to assume. I do not hate them, and I do not fear them - they are merely another danger in an endless series of dangers that must be dealt with. And the only way to properly solve this problem is to understand them for what they are, not by making them into cartoonish lunatics, unbound by any sense of reason.
They can be perfectly rational - or at least as rational as we are - and yet be completely immoral in what they do, just as we can be moral in performing acts that are logically indistinguishable from theirs. This is because motive is completely irrelevant to the rationality of an action, and yet entirely relevant to the morality of an action.
And if that still doesn't persuade you, ask yourself this - why is it that I am the only one here who has a reasonable basis to call them evil? Everyone else seems to be operating under the assumption that they are deluded or disconnected from reality or somehow otherwise mentally defective, apparently in preparation for sentencing them to a few semesters of logic and ethics. I find that...troubling, especially insofar as it provides a wonderful rationale for absolving them of their bad acts. No, thank you - they know exactly what they are doing, they know exactly what they want, and they act deliberately and with great consideration to further their goals. They cannot be excused by labeling them as "deluded" - such flies in the face of any sort of objective justice and morality we might imagine.
No, thank you. I cannot support this labeling of them as "irrational", both as a matter of practical reality and as a matter of principle. They are not irrational - they are evil. Period.
No, I rather think that nobody understands that point, and I take as evidence your most recent post. All along I have merely been suggesting that it is a mistake to regard Islamists as irrational. You have presented a wonderful case for why we ought to regard them as immoral, as though I somehow, at some point, suggested that they were moral actors, pursuing a moral goal. But, of course, I haven't - you have successfully attacked a position I do not hold, and refuted a case I do not make.
I am beginning to think that the term "rational" has become somewhat emotionally overloaded any more, carrying connotations that it really oughtn't carry. It seems that suggesting that Islamists act rationally in pursuit of their goals, as we act rationally in pursuit of our goals, and that those goals are chosen by them as a matter of their personal and cultural values, just as our goals are a result of our personal and cultural values - pointing out some similarities has been taken to mean that I think that both cultures are morally equivalent, or that their actions are equally valid. But of course, they aren't - it is precisely the moral tenor that differentiates us from them, and not the rationality or irrationality of their actions or ours. Which is really all I started out saying - that calling them irrational was not helpful, and not useful, and not accurate. I don't see why we shouldn't expect to see certain commonalities of action and of rhetoric between them and us - at the end of the day, we are all human beings, after all.
But somewhere along the line, suggesting that we are all humans was taken to mean that all humans are morally equivalent. For the life of me, I don't understand why - I still stand by my earlier post, in that I am the only one with any reasonable basis to call them "bad" or "evil", and that virtually everyone else pursuing this "deluded and irrational" explanation for their behavior cannot possibly condemn them in the terms they deserve. Follow this "deluded" or "irrational" path much farther, and about the most serious condemnation you'll be able to justify is that they are "sick" or "ill". As I said before - no, thank you.
I do not know why the fact that they can act as rationally as we do in pursuit of a less moral goal than ours is so violently and vehemently rejected by some, although I am tempted to think that pointing out similarities and hinting at a sort of common humanity between us and them interferes with the (perhaps necessary) process of demonization that allows us to do as we are doing to them without the pangs of conscience bothering us - casting others as subhuman has a long and storied history throughout the world, as it makes possible things that would not otherwise be possible in most societies. In which case, all I can say is that a perfectly reasonable case can be made that we should be acting towards them exactly as we are, or even that we should be acting more aggressively towards them than we are, and it can be made without resorting to lying ourselves about who or what they are. The Islamists radicalize their own people by making you, Westerner, into a cartoon devil. Let's not steal that particular page from their playbook.
I would have to agree with you here that it is not true at all.
A Government can choose to violate the Natural Rights of its citizens but when it does so it loses the "Mandate of Heaven".
As all of them do. So what?
Second point. Don't assign feelings to me. I can just as easily state that your rigidity or intellectual dishonesty causes you to reflexively twist the clear meaning of words; you still refuse to accept what is uniformly meant by "rational" in this context, i.e., ratiocinative, logical, not 'soundness of mind.'
Incidentallly, "irrational" in this context and "evil" are not mutually exclusive contructs; you are, therefore, arguing with yourself.
Finally, there are many ways to counter your extinction argument.. I'll do it by analogy/ counterexample. Consider the Shakers; they are, in fact, a worse case since they invariably die before they reproduce. Why aren't they extinct? The answer, of course, is recruitment.
Counter-counter example: the original Shaker sect is extinct.
As was your original argument...
For a change of pace, check out DECAPITATION.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.