RoR: Forum

Brook attacked just-war theory's principles that force used in war must be proportionate to the threat. "In my view this is horrific," he said. "That's saying we must balance the deaths of U.S. soldiers and civilians with the deaths of enemy soldiers and civilians ... and sacrifice the greatest nation in the history of the world to the worst countries today."

This argument is simply disingenuous. He equivocates proportionality of force with the number of victims in both sides. Necessary force is what is effectively needed to stop a threat, death or no death.

"War is a last resort" does not mean we can resort to any weapon in any war. If a lesser war would prevent a greater war involving nuclear and chemical weapons, why not respond with a lesser force now than wait for a greater necessary force later? Even war has gradiations of intensity that should not be lost for the sake of a rationalistic argument.

And the current insurgency in Iraq has far more to do with allowing Islam a foothold in the government of this 'infant democracy' than any "shock-and-awe" factor in the conduct of the war. There is no such thing as 'shocking and awe-ing" your way into a rule of law based on individual rights. It doesn't add up.

Considering that the last thread here about Dr. Brook was rather positive, are these his real words or some mangled-up version from the journalist? And wasn't Peikoff anti-war? Should this be taken as the "official" ARI position?

Well this will certainly further Objectivism's popularity... Check out the reader reactions to get a perspective on how this is received by the non-objectivist population.
(Edited by num++
on 4/27, 5:03pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 2:58pm

Num, good comments. This is exactly the sort of display that will relegate Objectivism to that of a fringe ideology in the marketplace of ideas.

Post 2

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 3:01pm

This was really uttered by Dr. Yaron Brook?

Civilians of enemy nations are part of the [enemy] war machine,"

That is the single most collectivist idea I have ever heard uttered by a prominent Objectivist.

Civilians (package concept) most definitely are not part of the "war machine." Many are just innocent bystanders who get in the path of "war machines."

I usually avoid negative condemnations, Not here though. Not from a source officially talking in the name of my beloved Ayn Rand.

That quote is thoroughly despicable and contemptible.

Michael

Post 3

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 3:32pm

"This was really uttered by Dr. Yaron Brook?

-- 'Civilians of enemy nations are part of the [enemy] war machine,'

That is the single most collectivist idea I have ever heard uttered by a prominent Objectivist."

Agreed, but that sounds like Yaron's view and I'd not be surprised at all if he said it. I saw him speak in March concerning terrorism. His exit strategy for Iraq is to invade Iran. However, before leaving, choose one Iraqi city (other than Fallujah) and level it including civilians to serve as an example to insurgents who killed US troops.

Another audience member asked him if he really intended to justify killing all the city's inhabitants. Yaron responded that it would be moral since the entire population is guilty for not stopping the insurgency. He added as an afterthought that small children may not be guilty, so he'd feel sad about killing them, but that is no reason not to devastate the city.

Whatever disagreements I have had with the pro-war faction here, I realize you guys are softies. :-)

Post 4

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:28pm

Brook said ... "Just-war theorists say that to go immediately to war would be selfish ... "

I question the use of the word "selfish." He failed to cite a source. A good source would be a major policy institute or a US defense agency. Citing the Local Presbyterians for Peace would be weak. This is one of the common failings of Objectivist rhetoric and it was a gambit with Ayn Rand. "Professor Fuzzybrain of Ivy League University said that we need more feelings and fewer thoughts when studying world affairs." Well, maybe he did, but who cares? When short on Professors Fb to pick on, trot out unnamed individuals from anonymous collectives.

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote: "That is the single most collectivist idea I have ever heard uttered by a prominent Objectivist."

Some unprominent Objectivists have said the same thing here.

Personally, I highly recommend my SOLO essay "Capitalism and Peace." http://www.solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0337.shtml

Post 5

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 5:08pm

Had to edit the post above a bit for the typos...

Aaron [Post 3]

I saw him speak in March concerning terrorism. His exit strategy for Iraq is to invade Iran. However, before leaving, choose one Iraqi city (other than Fallujah) and level it including civilians to serve as an example to insurgents who killed US troops.

What!!!???

Is ARI out of their frigging minds??? Letting this guy speak for them in public like that?

I would expect that ARI will again issue some "clarificatory statements" if this hits the mainstream media. That is, if there's any cache left for them to get mainstream.

Historically speaking, this is actually the best time, in a long time, for a rational philosophy to take root. Communism, fascism, and monarchies are now in the ash heap of history. Islamic Fundamentalism, while virulent, is still nowhere near creating the potential havoc that Soviet Russia was once capable of. A "great" pope has just died, his successor is a 71 year old ex-Nazi-Youth-Brigade member.

The political ideology that will triumph over cave-dwelling terrorists and tin-pot dictators will most certainly determine the ascendant philosophy of this century. Considering the financial and military might of the West, and the fragility of the Middle East, this 'determination' is plausibly within two decades. Right now the choices appear to be:

1) Euro-style socialism (democrats are also here)
2) American style neoconservatism
3) A Rational Philosophy for Rational People (what could this be?)

And now this hype-pandering for a media footnote. What a disappointment these "intellectual airs" have turned out to be.

Somebody <insert prominent and sane Objectivist here> please remind Dr. Brook that #3 is the goldmine he is sitting on.

Post 6

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 5:23pm

"Another audience member asked him if he really intended to justify killing all the city's inhabitants. Yaron responded that it would be moral since the entire population is guilty for not stopping the insurgency. He added as an afterthought that small children may not be guilty, so he'd feel sad about killing them, but that is no reason not to devastate the city."

Gee, isn't this how the terrorists justified 9-11?

Post 7

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 5:31pm

I have a hard time believing this. For two reasons:

1. It's bad marketing.
2. It's philosophically wrong.

Regarding the "sacrificing our solders" argument, it's incoherent. The real sacrifice comes from the military policy of forcing people to fight. It should be a voluntary army anyway. In that context, you have to *convince* men that it's worth fighting for, and then only those who agree would enter into battle.

Post 8

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 5:43pm

Regrettably, Leonard Peikoff has said the same things publicly, on "The O'Reilly Factor" and other platforms.

Recently, when I suggested that broad acceptance of Objectivism was doomed if alleged public advocates of the philosophy distorted its meaning, someone accused me of "social metaphysics" for being "concerned about public opinion."

Well, on the day that the "Objectivist" position on fighting terrorism comes to mean deliberately targeting civilian populations with nuclear weapons, I will gladly wash my hands of the "Objectivist" designation.

Before that happens, it's time for those of us outraged about that distortion of a philosophy of rational individualism to say so -- and publicly.

Post 9

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:22pm

Thanks for reminding me of O'Reilly. Seeing Brook on O'Reilly a few months ago is when I first realized ARI had gone over the deep end. Here's his O'Reilly appearance from Dec 2004, where he called for increased brutality and turning Fallujah into dust:

http://movies.ziaspace.com/Ayn.wmv

Post 10

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 7:39pm

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki devastations were moral.

Our failure to use nuclear weapons against the Soviets in '46 and against the Chinese, North Koreans and others later has resulted in the world as it is today.

The only problem I have with Brook in this regard is that he's too soft. The only reason the main terrorists can hide is they know we won't use the big guns (nukes) to level whichever city they're hiding in. Meanwhile, our guys in uniform get blasted to bits. If it makes you guys feel any better, we can do as we did in Hiroshima: drop leaflets telling the civilians to get the hell out fast. Meanwhile, China, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Libya and others need to be on our immediate raze list -- nonobjectivist public opinion be fucking damned!

Post 11

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:05pm

I'd like to second David's opinion by saying that one whole dictatorship country is not worth one American soldier. If, unfortunately, civilians under an enemy regime have to die on a massive scale to protect the U.S. so be it.

Aquinas

Post 12

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:15pm

David, WWII was a war of nation states, each with a government that was 'rational' in the sense that it valued its self preservation. The nuclear attacks and firebombings were moral because there was a reasonable chance of ending the war in a clear cut fashion through using them. Note how there are definitive dates when those ended. The war on terror is totally different. Islamic fundamentalists will not just sign a treaty saying "we give up and will no longer fight you." Using nukes for counterinsurgency would motivate muslims around the world to enlist in violent jihad. Any hopes of Western style democracy to emerge would be lost for several generations.

Post 13

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:20pm

Pete,

Are you saying that we don't have enough nuclear weapons to take out those Muslim countries if their "civilians" decided to join in a jihad or would you be against that option?

Aquinas

Post 14

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:30pm

Oh my - I think I just went down the rabbit hole..........
Red Queen anyone?

(Edited by robert malcom on 4/27, 8:31pm)

Post 15

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:34pm

Pete,

Changing boundaries does not change the essence of an enemy. If nation/states have morphed into regions or even pockets, then if we have to use 450 nukes, so be it. As Aquinas said, I'd rather wipe out an entire nation of terrorists and those who support them directly or implicitly (by doing nothing) than lose one American soldier's life.

Not sure what you mean by "counterinsurgency." I'm not talking counterinsurgency. I'm talking annihilation. Any good people who are left will understand. Any bad people who still want to play terrorist can learn what 6 million degrees feels like. War is not about changing minds any more than prison is about rehabilitation.

Oh, I forgot to mention nuking the Saudis in my last post. My bad.

Post 16

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:37pm

I agree with David and Aquinas about the use of nuclear weapons. If they win the war more quickly and with fewer American deaths, they should be used. But I disagree with Yaron Brooke that civilians killed in a dictatorship were guilty. They were victims, but not of the US. They were victims of the dictator.

Kelly

Post 17

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:38pm

Pete, excellent point in post #12.

I have no problem with a defense policy that may harm civilians as a regrettable side consequence of taking out an hostile, threatening regime. But deliberately targeting civilian populations wherever a conspiracy of terrorists (not a government) may be hiding, is morally beneath belief.

If it's such a grand idea, why don't we just have the police employ the same strategic principle when dealing with criminal gangs in our major cities? After all, is the life of a single American cop worth risking by sending them up against urban gangsters?

Post 18

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:43pm

Robert,

I just want to be sure. Are you equating a regime like Iran or North Korea or Syria and its civilians with the local mafia and the rest of AMERICANS?

Aquinas

Post 19

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:47pm