Results 1 to 20 of 116

Thread: On the avoidance of small wars

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #22
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    JMA, keep in mind I am educated in economics. This means I have spent almost five years at a university and was indoctrinated with a huge aversion against wasteful behaviour AND the tools to do the analysis which option is more or less wasteful than the other.
    I suspect this is the huge difference between us. You appear to be more guided by sentiments than cost/benefit consideration.

    "when it comes to interfering in messy affairs in faraway countries" it should be done properly. You can't take the military option off the table because the political direction and the military execution have been poor. Fix the problem.
    (1) The advantages offered by a widely recognised and respected international law system are so strong - especially for the smaller countries - that nuisances far away do not justify damaging the IL system.
    An intervention should thus only happen if
    a) it's legal in IL (= allowed by UNSC or due to formal alliance obligations)
    or
    b) morally necessary (intervention against well-proved genocide; ethnic cleansing does not suffice)

    (2) The decision pro or contra once (1) is met should be guided by national interest.
    This means that the nation should be better off with the intervention (in math speak: I mean the expectation value) than without.

    This is extremely difficult, for even the best philosophers have no real clue how to determine a exchange rates between a citizen's (soldier's) life, money, reputation and a foreigner's life. It's thus impossible to sum up costs and benefits.

    This should not keep us from understanding (and applying) that intervention has to be better than non-intervention to be justified.

    After all, military action means a lot harm - which is undesirable by default and requires a specific justification.


    About "being on the table": I don't subscribe to it as totally excluded or as being only a tool of last resort. I have (as mentioned) my reasoning for its use or non-use.


    edit: Notice the difference between war and intervention when I write. I attempt to stay clear and conscious in my choice of these words.
    Last edited by Fuchs; 11-08-2011 at 05:55 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. dissertation help please! US military culture and small wars.
    By xander day in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 01-27-2010, 03:21 PM
  2. Small Wars Journal, Operated by Small Wars Foundation
    By SWJED in forum Small Wars Council / Journal
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 03:19 AM
  3. Small Wars Journal Magazine Volume 6 Posted...
    By SWJED in forum Small Wars Council / Journal
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-02-2006, 12:37 PM
  4. Book Review: Airpower in Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2006, 06:14 PM
  5. Training for Small Wars
    By SWJED in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 06:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •