And Libya goes on...

[carl]

Ken:

Our disagreement over Rwanda is this, I believe it would have been wise to have saved the lives of 800,000 people and it was borderline immoral not to have done so, or at least done more. You believe not.

Moral equivalency -- either one has a perceived duty to intervene if evil is being done or one does not. It is not a conditional thing.

This is a definition of moral equivalency I pulled off the net, class notes from a KSU English class.

"An author who suggests that one act of serious wrongdoing does not differ from a minor offence commits the fallacy of moral equivalence. Many people say that “all sins are equal in God’s eyes,” which effectively equates ethnic cleansing with stealing a pencil. Our laws make many precise distinctions amongst the various types of violent crimes. Motives are different, and so these criminals are held accountable accordingly."

That is how I understand the phrase. You may have to adjust your definition. Or you don't have to.

I'm not one bit ashamed about Rwanda -- I am however ashamed of the way this Nation, America, your paragon of virtue, has treated those from other nations where it has intervened. The plight of the South Korean agents and operators we shipped north, of the Hmong and the numerous south Viet Namese we employed for various things, of the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and Southern Iraqi Shia among others we have abandoned. Those things are something to be bothered about...

The "paragon of virtue" line isn't fair. I have decried all those things numerous times in the past, except the South Korean agents thing. I didn't know about that one. You don't have to play like that.

We have a chance to do a good and benefit ourselves at the same time, now, in Libya. The cost can be minimal. It might not work but that risked would be low also. I've already fully explained why I think so.

[Ken White]

Our disagreement over Rwanda is this, I believe it would have been wise to have saved the lives of 800,000 people and it was borderline immoral not to have done so, or at least done more. You believe not.

That appears to be correct. Quibble on the moral bit, though...

This is a definition of moral equivalency I pulled off the net, class notes from a KSU English class...That is how I understand the phrase. You may have to adjust your definition. Or you don't have to.

We both understand the same definition, we addressed only the act and we addressed remedies taken or not taken on the basis a cost:benefit ratio, not a punishment thereunto but that's getting into the weeds and I'll acknowledge partial misuse of the phrase. My point was and is that if you're going to use the moral argument for the actions -- or lack of them -- on the part of a nation, some consistency is advisable lest you be accused of hypocrisy -- of which we are, too often and quite regularly unfairly but, again, the world isn't a fair place.

I will again note that 'moral' is an individual construct and that nations are not individuals nor do they, can they, have individual attributes. Nations simply do not have morals. They can act in a manner not consistent with the moral beliefs of an individuals or group of them but they can't do immoral things. Thus it's okay for you to say that in your opinion, the moral thing to do would have been to do something about Rwanda. However, you cannot say that I thought that such an action was moral or immoral because that didn't enter into my thinking. To me, there is no morality to it, either way.

The "paragon of virtue" line isn't fair.

There is no fair or unfair to it. That comment addressed a specific statement, your earlier:

Sometimes too, it is just something to be ashamed of.

and this follow on:

America should be ashamed because the leaders we elect didn't act...I am ashamed because of that.

The implication in those comments is that America did not live up to some higher standard, I was merely reminding you that such has often been the case and that IMO, those abandonments of people we had enticed or used for our -- not their -- ends in nations where we had or had developed some interests was far worse than not going to the possible aid of persons in a nation where we had not one interest at stake. None. IOW, I hold sins of commission to be worse than sins of omission.

You don't have to play like that.

I am not playing. We're having a discussion about a subject of great national import. You believe in humanitarian intervention. Many Americans would agree with you -- many in positions of authority have exercised that authority to order such interventions.

I strongly disagree. Not because I am a heartless neanderthal but because I've been on a few of those, have seen the damage they do to the very people they were supposed to be helping. The old saw about the Hippocratic Oath should be required of all policy makers, "First, do no harm..."

So, no play involved. This is important. When anyone posits a thought here that is IMO inimical to the nation, the armed forces or to the survival of troops in the field, I tend to respond. You're a good guy Carl, and I have a lot of respect for you but I disagree quite strongly with your notion of national morality and responsibility and I've discussed this in person with a bunch of folks who believe as you do. What you and they advocate is nice, it is also potentially harmful to some people you would help, can lead to a belief -- hubris, if you will -- that America can fix it. We cannot fix a good many things (and I believe that both Rwanda and Libya fall in that category) -- and encouraging the belief that we can or should has, as I said elsewhere, done us and others far more harm than good

Further, as I said in that other comment, the history on these things is not good...

We have a chance to do a good and benefit ourselves at the same time, now, in Libya. The cost can be minimal. It might not work but that risked would be low also. I've already fully explained why I think so.

And I why I disagree. We can continue to do that and so so without being disagreeable, I hope.

We'll never know what might have happened in Rwanda. Nor what might have had we intervened before today in Libya but in that other comment, I named most of those in which we engaged over the last 50 years. None achieved what their originators hoped, though the jury's still out on a few.

Intervening for 'moral' reasons has done us no favors, opting for it is usually dangerous and ill advised. It always costs more than its supporters hope and claim -- in every aspect.

The subject line is from Kennedy's 1961 Inaugural speech. Brave words. Brave words cause a lot of problems. Kennedy's long gone, we're left with a few myths. Myths also cause a lot of problems...

[carl]

I will again note that 'moral' is an individual construct and that nations are not individuals nor do they, can they, have individual attributes. Nations simply do not have morals. They can act in a manner not consistent with the moral beliefs of an individuals or group of them but they can't do immoral things.

Were the actions of Germany, a nation state, when it occupied Poland immoral? Were the actions of Japan, a nation state, when it occupied China immoral? I am intentionally picking extreme examples to illustrate the point that I think nations can act in an immoral way.

[Pete]

I am intentionally picking extreme examples to illustrate the point that I think nations can act in an immoral way.

True, but it doesn't prevent "moral" nations from suffering consequences when they do ill-advised or stupid things. The world isn't moral or immoral, it just is what it is.

[carl]

Pete: The physical world is neither moral or immoral, it is just what it is. But men and the affairs of men are moral or not.

[Surferbeetle]

Carl,

I appreciate your breathtaking trust and faith in the ability, capacity, and desire of the world's elected leaders and the existing political, economic, diplomatic, intelligence, and security systems in place to handle crisis's.

IMHO the Middle East is in the process of coming apart, similar to the fall of the Berlin Wall but with more bloodshed this time around. 'History does not repeat it itself but it rhymes' is attributed to Mark Twain and it is an apt description of what is occuring.

Last time around we were concerned about things going very badly as the old order of things were rearranged. Fortunately, the international community worked very hard, and we were all very lucky. Hopefully we all can do it again, however: today we also have the reconstruction of Japan (and it's potential default), the potential default and breakup of the EU, America's potential default, and the recovery of the international financial system to contend with in addition to the realignment of the Middle East.

I advise extreme caution, and further recommend that the GCC, the AU, the Arab League, and the EU take the lead on resolving Libyan issues. IMHO the US needs to keep it's powder dry, as there is more to come....

On a personal note, you and your family members are able to enlist in the military, join the DoS, USAID, sign on with an NGO, or corporation which operates in the middle east. It would be an educational and eye-opening experience regarding that part of the world and it would be an opportunity for you and yours to pitch in and help resolve the current and upcoming troubles. We can always use the help....

Steve

[carl]

Surferbeetle:

Your good natured sarcasm is noted but I have no trust and faith in the ability of the world's leaders to handle crisis' at all. I have a little faith in our ability and good intentions sometimes. My mind has been irrevocably altered by looking at too many Norman Rockwell paintings I guess.

Your point that we must not get too entangled so we can do something else more important when it comes up it well taken. That is exactly the reason, I advocate "doing something" but only if a. it will have some actual effect and b. if it doesn't draw us in so deeply that we can't get out easily. The things I suggested seem to, to this forever a civilian, fulfill that criteria (as do some of the things suggested by JMA). There seems to be some disagreement with that position regarding effectiveness and our being able to limit involvement. So be it.

One thing I would like to clarify though is I am strongly against any kind of no fly zone or action that would be effectuated with Manned Aircraft Flying Over Libya. That would get us into the whole very weird American cultural dynamic of airplanes, pilots, SEAD and all the other things that go with it. When manned airplanes get involved our eyes sort of glaze over and then the whole thing does go on autopilot to points unknown.

As you say, we were very lucky the last time things fell apart. But we actually took a side the last time and I think that had an effect in things coming out like they did. We may have to consider taking a side this time, at least to a small extent. Right now I don't know exactly what we are doing. Whatever it is may be the right thing, but I am starting to think we are not going to be able to turn the stampede.

The GCC (what does that stand for?), the AU, the EU et al taking the lead would be the best thing of course. Of course, they being completely ineffectual organizations, they won't take the lead on anything. The wait for them may be a long one.

On a personal note, you and your family members are able to enlist in the military, join the DoS, USAID, sign on with an NGO, or corporation which operates in the middle east. It would be an educational and eye-opening experience regarding that part of the world and it would be an opportunity for you and yours to pitch in and help resolve the current and upcoming troubles. We can always use the help....

Turn about is fair play I guess. I used exactly the same line on Motorfirebox. I don't have much influence on my family. They look at me very strangely when I encourage them along these lines. As for myself, I've tried to do my bit and will again if able; though I don't know how useful my efforts have been.

[Ken White]

Were the actions of Germany, a nation state, when it occupied Poland immoral? Were the actions of Japan, a nation state, when it occupied China immoral? I am intentionally picking extreme examples to illustrate the point that I think nations can act in an immoral way.

They were stupid, they were not in accord with international norms and they hacked off a lot of people but they were neither moral or immoral -- though I'm sure they were viewed as 'immoral' by many.

Possibly by about as many as thought they were 'moral' -- or the right thing to do. I suspect most folks in that latter category were German or Japanese or their hangers-on. Equally probably, many of those thinking them immoral were most likely Chinese and Poles.

With respect to Nations, morality is in the mind of the observer. As you told Pete:

men and the affairs of men are moral or not

I certainly agree and most of us have our own moral code which may differ from that of others even acknowledging remarkable group consensus generally.

But nations do not have morals and cannot act in a moral or immoral manner, they do what they do. One can talk about the leadership of a nation acting in one manner or the other but even that is a judgement call by each individual observing.

Consider that to many, war, all war, is immoral by almost any definition. It is in their view one of the most immoral things humans do (in my view it's just the dumbest thing we do...). So any nation voluntarily partaking of a war is arguably engaging in an act of morally dubious behavior. If that is true, then anyone who wishes to engage in warlike acts, no matter for what cause, no matter how good or important that cause could be construed as voluntarily and willfully entering into an immoral activity...

BTW, I owe you an apology for the "paragon of virtue" comment -- it was emphatically not intended as a personal attack, it was to illustrate that we, the US, do a lot of things we shouldn't do and don't do a lot of things we should. As is true of morality, what those things are those are is very much an individual judgement.

Please accept my apology for poorly stating a point.