But wars are such attention grabbers and they keep the
media and the chattering classes busy instead of allowing them to poke into other things. Occupy the Diplomatic types and allow them to "tut-tut." Puts people off balance, trying to figure out what the war maker is up to. Upsets the neighbors and causes rats to crawl out of their holes. Stirs up the world economy in unpredictable ways. Makes the ungodly focus on the wrong objectives. Stops Constitutions from being approved. Sews dissension among the onlookers. Forces people to choose side and tip hands. Modifies economic hegemony. Disrupts currency changes -- and more...
Sort of like a magician who palms something in one hand while keeping up a stream of patter and waving the other hand about airily... ;)
One would think any strategist worth his pay would glom onto that. Not to mention that the many would realize there is almost never a single reason for any war but a multiplicity of things synergistically collide at a time and place. One would also think that any thinking person would realize that if he or she sees an inexplicable anomaly, many others also see it as that. :cool:
The easy solution is to elect a Hanlon's Razor explanation. That may or may not be correct. ;)
No, I don't speak in parables, I tend to say what I mean
OTOH, there are a lot of parables about and one can pull one out to support about any proposition.
I'm familiar with the 'Broken Window' and Bastiat -- many of whose ideas I strongly support -- but have to point out that he, like all Economists, relies unduly on metrics, and that you can take any given economic theory or postulation from one or a group of them and find another equally well know individual or group who are diametrically opposed.
I'd also point out that the economic and other costs of war are only part of the equation. There are intangibles and no Economist or metrics can properly weigh them because they are in the minds of infinitely variable human brings.
Sometimes, you just have to make a subjective call...
If your allusion to Bastiat was to make the point that unintended consequences can outweigh seeming benefits, well yeah. They always do and most of us over 16 are aware of that. He also pointed out that war was almost always not a sound endeavor from an economic perspective. True, certainly -- but irrelevant. If it were relevant, there would be no war...
May I ask what is the precise point of your donated parable? :confused:
I stand corrected. I do not stand corrected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
yet "all" is entirely off.
True, hyperbole on my part. I should have said 99%. :D
Joking. Should really have said many or even some. So I do stand corrected on that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Surferbeetle
No sly subterfuge......here...
Didn't suspect it, just wasn't sure what the point was as my contention was apparently that those costs, unintended as well as foreseen were worth the possible results while Bastiat IIRC seemed to say they rarely were -- which is okay, Frédéric and I agree on much but do not have to agree on everything. :wry:
Quote:
In short, more links in your discussions would be greatly appreciated Ken...
I was not channeling Bastiat, just stating my opinions based on open sources and common sense so I'm unsure what I could have linked in that post. Everything in the subject line and the first paragraph of that 1715Z post of mine has been said by others in many places.
Sorry, not a linker. I do link when I think it necessary but I do not believe that the number of links discloses the merit of a comment. I am in fact inclined to think the reverse is true. To me they are a distraction more often than not. Most of what I say here is fairly common knowledge (with the caveat that some of it is restricted to us Dinosaurs) and should be easily Googled (including the saurian recollections...). If someone wants me to 'prove' a certain statement (provided that said statement is not merely my opinion), I may or may not provide a link depending upon what kind of mood I'm in at the time. ;)
So I stand chastised but uncorrectable or is that incorrigible? Unporridgeable? Unvinculumable... :eek:
Things were not that rosy in aug 2001
I am surprised at the notion of "everything was going fine until we invaded" (OK, I am exaggerating, but there are a couple of posts saying something close to that). I am not saying the invasion was the best thing to do, but things didnt look that rosy to me back in August 2001. There IS such a thing as the serious jihadi project, which is not just "geopolitics by other means" (meaning its not just Pakistan, and certainly not just Afghanistan, playing at geostrategic thinking and using whatever means are at hand). Since the time of General Zia, there has been a determined core of jihadis who had/have a vision of avenging Palestinians, capturing Kashmir, humiliating India, liberating Central Asia, etc etc, all under the broader goal of Islamist revival. This project was going swimmingly until 2001, when someone overreached or whatever and things started going south. There are definitely Taliban who are only interested in ruling Afghanistan and there are many many Pakistanis who are only interested in improving Pakistan's position vis a vis India, but the idea that the Pakistani Taliban are completely different from the Afghan variety and AQ is completely detached from both is an exaggeration. All the jihads are interconnected and will stay interconnected. IF there is a non-jihadi Pakistani govt and a non-jihadi Afghan govt, then yes, its just a local insurgency with occasional terrorist acts far away. But the Pakistani govt of pre-2001 did not qualify in that category. Probably out of foolishness, the army high command (even the whisky drinkers like Musharraf) were all on board the jihadi project or willing to look the other way, which is much the same thing. The status quo ante was not as rosy as projected. Pakistan has indeed become destabilized after 2001, but a big part of that is precisely because the army has had to pull back from its jihadi partners and they are going berserk. Are you suggesting that it would be in US interest to have left that arrangement in place? (I am not saying this was the best way to achieve the change...this was probably a lousy way from the US perspective, costing too much and not achieving enough. It may have been better to use carrots and sticks more subtly and carefully). I should add that I am conflicted about this myself. I am generally left of center and close to being a pacifist (besides being a Pakistani and not really wanting to have the US "help" the country the way they helped Iraq), but still, unlike most American leftists I am aware that there are real people out in the world, with "agency" and sometimes with very violent and dangerous desires.In this case, the alternative to this war is also a war.