On the avoidance of small wars

[Fuchs]

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.

[JMA]

JMA, keep in mind I am educated in economics.

I concede the point that the German military budget is and has been constrained by the intelligent application of sound economic principles.

That said, however, the end result is that for this and other reasons the German military is merely a token force.

So yes lack of threat to homeland, economic realities etc etc all all good reasons for this but lets not for one moment consider the German military capable of anything other parades and demonstrations. This is sad but true.

[JMA]

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.

Obviously if there is no means to wage and sustain a war no matter how small it would be folly to allow oneself to become embroiled in one. To bankrupt your country through fighting a war in a remote area of the world for dubious advantage is clearly insane.

You blog entry On national defence speaks to this.

Your following point is well made:

What we're (Europe) lacking is not the capability to defend ourselves, it's the capability to launch punitive strikes and expeditions in U.S. fashion.

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.

Having been in a war I would tend to believe (and agree with you) that to start a war must surely only be an option of last resort or as you state:

Violence is justified if it's the least terrible choice.

... to act in defence of your sovereign territory is another matter of course (which offers no choice).

However all the above said and done I do believe that the capacity of the US and Britain to project (and indeed use) military violence all across the globe is a valuable option to have and use to contain by deterrent or action those countries which threaten the world trade routes, remote trading partners and oil sources. (here I speak of intervention rather than war)

Countries which are unable to project military force to protect their means of survival are vulnerable to been cut off. To ignore the risk of this on the basis that free trade will prevail is quite frankly irresponsible.

[Fuchs]

Countries which are unable to project military force to protect their means of survival are vulnerable to been cut off.

Improvised empirical test:

Countries capable of projecting military force like that: 3-4 (4 if we count Russian paratroopers)

Countries "cut off" during the last decades: 0,
unless we count aggressors who were under a UN blockade


Another approach:
Japan:
* 2nd most powerful fleet in 1941
* biggest or 2nd biggest marine force in 1941
* 4th greatest air force in 1941
* still cut off from crude oil supplies (would not have happened with a more peaceful foreign policy)


Peaceful cooperation 2, big stick 0