Tags
George W. Bush, Harvard University, Jim Wilton, Linton Weeks, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas K. Gandhi, Nazism, Osama bin Laden, Pamela Gerloff, S.N. Goenka, T.R. (Thill) Raghunath, United States, war
The momentous yet mixed results of this week’s Canadian election were overshadowed on the global scene by the killing of Osama bin Laden. Though the first event riveted me more, the second has more philosophical significance – or rather, not the event itself, but the reaction to it.
Americans have typically greeted bin Laden’s death with jubilation and celebration, often waving American flags and chanting “U.S.A.” But some minority voices, such as Linton Weeks at NPR radio and Pamela Gerloff of the Huffington Post, have raised questions about this celebration. Is it really a good idea to celebrate a human death, even the death of one’s enemy?
This all makes a good occasion to revisit an earlier short post of mine, one of my favourites. The thing that affected me most at my one Goenka meditation retreat was not the meditation practice in general, but the closing practice of karmic redirection, because it specifically involved wishing George W. Bush well – and, more generally, wishing one’s enemies well. What applies to Bush here applies to bin Laden – the two men are of course enemies of each other, but I also consider them both enemies of mine.
A couple months ago, Thill questioned the value of Goenka’s practice – not over its efficacy, but over the values that underlie it. Thill asks: “Is wishing the enemy well actually a case of masochism since the enemy is a person who wants to harm us?… What if the enemy is a sadist whose happiness consists in seeing you suffer? Then, wishing this enemy happiness is tantamount to wishing one’s own suffering!”
As Jim Wilton rightly noted in his replies, wishing enemies well does not entail wishing them success in their aims, or wishing that their desires be fulfilled. This is as true of one’s friends as of one’s enemies. If my friend is addicted to crack cocaine, wishing him well does not mean that I wish he find more crack to smoke. Indeed I wish him the exact opposite. What he needs most is a change in the structure of his desires; he will probably be better off with the desires unfulfilled, as that would bring about the relevant change. And the same applies to people with evil or hateful aims: wishing them a good and happy life carries with it the wish that they improve and become better people. Thill’s comments here have assumed a simplistic understanding of happiness that equates it with the satisfaction of desire, when often what is needed for a long-term and stable happiness is the exact opposite.
In reply to Jim, Thill makes an important point: “note the element of self-interest in all this. In wishing all that for your enemy, you are also wishing a change in your enemy’s attitude towards you. It is all tantamount to wishing that he or she is in a condition in which he or she ceases to be your enemy!” That’s true. But even if one characterizes it as self-interested, one should notice what such wishing for one’s enemy’s virtue doesn’t imply: namely revenge. One wishes that, in spite of the bad things the enemy has done, he might still become better and happier, in the process ceasing to be an enemy. One does not take the enemy’s violent and painful death as an occasion for celebration.
Now let me clarify: this is not a call for pacifism. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, I sat in on a class at Harvard where the professor’s response to the attacks was “I think we should set up an exchange program, so that people in our countries can better understand each other.” (Students applauded.) I was stunned at the naïveté expressed there. We are not talking about people who express frustrating differences at the ballot box (like, say, Québec separatists – most of the time). We are talking about people who want to kill you, and have just killed several of your fellow countrymen simply because they were your fellow countrymen; they would do it to you if given the chance – like on an exchange program.
Gandhi, to whom Thill refers in this context, was considerably more sophisticated than said professor. Gandhi understood that his pacifism would cause great suffering, even many deaths, to his own side; but that it was worth it to achieve his goals in a morally upstanding way. It’s worth celebrating the success of Gandhi’s nonviolent methods against colonialism – and those of Martin Luther King, who derived many of his methods from Gandhi. But Gandhi and King were facing enemies who believed in justice over power, in the rule of law, in the value of human life. The goals of the British Empire and of the American South were to preserve an unjust and discriminatory social order which they believed to be benign. The goals of the Nazis, by contrast, were extermination. If an Indian stood fearlessly in front of a British soldier’s gun, the soldier would rightly fear the public repercussions of shooting. If a Jew stood fearlessly in front of a Nazi gun, she would merely save the Nazi the work of rounding her up. Bin Laden, in this respect, was far more akin to the Nazis – his attacks weren’t even to make demands, the destruction itself was the goal. (It is worth noting that Bush, however, would have been significantly more akin to the British Empire.) I agree with Thill on this much: one often must fight against one’s enemies, and sometimes this does require violence.
This violence is, however, regrettable. In war, killing another human being can be – and often is – the best course of action. But it is a tragic right action, and one should be aware of this fact. Thill claimed in another context: “Even if you want to kill a dog or a horse in order to put it out of misery and you do it skillfully, it would still be a gross distortion to describe this act as one which gives pleasure to the agent.” That is, one feels compassion, a painful emotion occasioned by another’s suffering. I discussed compassion myself in response to Thill’s post, noting that because we are not perfect or ideal people, we need remind ourselves that others’ pain is a bad thing (even if a hypothetical perfect person might need feel no regrets). The killing of an enemy, it seems to me, fits under exactly this class of action: necessary but regrettable, a proper occasion for compassion. Finding and punishing bin Laden was an important goal, and it is good that the US government under Obama succeeded in accomplishing this goal. And yet even so, it is not an occasion for celebration, but for sadness that it had to come to this.
Your post is stimulating and “uncanny”. It’s “uncanny” because I meant to ask you a few days ago whether you would like to discuss the brutal killing of Bin Laden (which has disturbed me in my meditations) in an upcoming post and also expected that you would.
I hope to respond later.
“Thill’s comments here have assumed a simplistic understanding of happiness that equates it with the satisfaction of desire, when often what is needed for a long-term and stable happiness is the exact opposite.”
Yes, I thought that wishing your enemy well meant wishing your enemy happiness. This is not controversial.
It is also not controversial that happiness depends on the satisfaction of desires, a whole range or variety of them including desires constitutive of benevolence or compassion. (Compassion involves a strong desire to end another being’s suffering.)
Now, does wishing someone happiness mean that you wish the fulfillment or satisfaction of ALL of their desires? Certainly not.
How then do we distinguish between desires whose satisfaction is essential to the agent’s happiness, desires whose satisfaction is not essential to the agent’s happiness, and desires whose satisfaction is inimical to the agent’s happiness?
And whose judgment is final on these distinctiosn?
It seems to me that the agent’s own ranking or evaluation of the importance of the satisfaction of a desire to his or her own happiness is an indispensable and ultimate factor in the assessment of what would contribute to his or her happiness.
So, if Bin Laden’s cherished desire is to see a Taliban-led government in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and in the Islamic countries of the Middle East, to see an orthodox interpretation of Islamic laws enforced in Muslim communities, and so on, then the satisfaction of this cherished desire is essential to his happiness.
This means that if we wish his happiness, then we are bound to wish the satisfaction of his cherished desire to see a Taliban-led government in Pakistan, etc.
It also means that if Bin Laden’s cherished desire is to destroy America (he may have his reasons for this desire and we cannot assume apriori that all of those reasons are irrational), then to wish him happiness is to wish the satisfaction of this cherished desire.
We may reason with an agent to show that his cherished desire is irrational or that it rests on irrational beliefs. What if an agent does not accept our reasoning and justifies that desire and acts as though it were essential to his or her happiness? We cannot deny that for this agent the fulfillment of this or that desire is essential to his or her happiness. And the agent’s judgment is the last word here. Of course, the agent may revise this judgment in the future.
So, if an enemy truly and stubbornly believes that our destruction is essential to his or her happiness, then, if we are rational, we will not wish this enemy happiness.
Thill, the flaw in your argument is the view that “the agent’s judgment [of what causes happiness] is the last word.”
It is transparent that people often make terrible choices that result in terrible suffering to themselves when they are governed by desires. A mother may deny a child’s desire to eat a whole bag of Halloween candy and be entirely motivated by concern for the child’s happiness. Do you really insist that the child’s judgment is the last word?
Happiness is subjective and relative to the agent’s beliefs, desires, and experiences. Since those can change, happiness is also mutable.
I was assuming that the agent was an adult or rational agent. Certainly, adults or rational agents can make mistakes in their judgments on what would make them happy. This is obvious.
But how are such judgments revised? Who decides and on what basis that a judgment or belief that the satisfaction of desire X would make me happy is mistaken? Again, I have the last word based on my experience concerning the impact of the satisfaction of desire X on my happiness! I now see that it does not make me really happy or that it has produced suffering which outweighs any pleasure it has given.
Jim, even in the case of a child, would we say that a mother who invariably overruled its judgments on what would make it happy, is really concerned with the child’s happiness? Why not?
Jim, the flaw in your response is that you assume (or assume that I assume!) that if the agent has the last word on what make her happy, then another person has an obligation to help this agent satisfy a desire she considers essential to her happiness. The antecedent does not entail the consequent!
Thus, there is no inconsistency in saying that the child has the last word on what makes it happy and also accepting the mother’s refusal to make the child happy on a given occasion.
It is rational to wish that your enemy ceases to be your enemy, but, given the entrenched and ubiquitous tendency to harbor resentment, grudges, hatred, etc., it may not be rational to believe or expect that this is likely to happen.
So, “disinterestedly” wish your enemy the privilege of ceasing to be your enemy, but act as if he or she continues to be one in reality if not in appearance. LOL
“Gandhi…was considerably more sophisticated…But Gandhi and King were facing enemies who believed in justice over power, in the rule of law, in the value of human life. The goals of the Nazis, by contrast, were extermination.”
I agree with you (and, Aurobindo, who by the way, made essentially the same point in defense of his unpopular support, in the heyday of struggle for Indian independence, for the Allied forces in WWII) that there is a crucial difference in values between the British and the Nazis.
But I don’t know whether Gandhi would have countenanced this qualitative distinction you are making between the British imperialists and the Nazis. He is supposed to have quipped that “Western civilization is a good idea.”, meaning that the West wasn’t really civilized (in terms of his absolutist moralistic standards).
How could Gandhi be considered “sophisticated” in the face of the fact that he either couldn’t perceive, or ignored, the difference you point out between the British colonialists and the Nazis and actually exhorted European Jewry not to fight back and to give the Nazis what they wanted to take from them?
A person’s happiness is a function of her own beliefs concerning the contributing factors, e.g., satisfaction of important desires, to her happiness.
If we disagree with those beliefs, or disagree that those desires ought to be satisfied, it makes more sense to refrain from wishing her happiness rather than to revise this plausible point on happiness to accommodate our wish.
Your post does not really address a central issue: Was it justice, or honorable even in terms of a warrior code (which the American military conspicuously lacks), to kill an unarmed Bin Laden who could have been easily captured by the overwhelming force (several dozens of SEALS and other combat and special forces) which cornered him in his room? He was slaughtered in front of his young daughter who was with him in the room.
One of the striking aspects of the “collectivity pathology” of Americans is the compulsion to “feel good” even at the expense of the really good action and to keep patting themselves on their backs on a “job well done” even if it is at considerable distance from the benchmark.
“Your post does not really address a central issue: Was it justice, or honorable even in terms of a warrior code (which the American military conspicuously lacks), to kill an unarmed Bin Laden who could have been easily captured by the overwhelming force (several dozens of SEALS and other combat and special forces) which cornered him in his room?”
Let us remember that as far as ‘Warrior Codes’ are concerned, almost all civilizations that sport them also have notable exceptions.
While the Samurai might have followed strict codes of behavior, no Ninja would feel restrained by those same codes. ‘Black Ops’ teams have existed throughout history, and are by definition not bound by those codes.
In other words, no, there was nothing particularly ‘honorable’ about the way OBL was killed. No more so than through the use of an assassin’s bullet, poison, or via a tomahawk missile.
But let’s be sure we do not attempt to relate ‘just’ with ‘honorable’. Justice is a critical concept used to protect society from exploitative powers, and to ensure that individuals are not punished without reason – at least, when it is working properly.
Honor (as it pertains to warriors) unfortunately, does not stand up as well as a social concept. While many fine tales are wreathed about it, it is as often as not used to insulate warrior classes from criticism by their societies and to control conflicts in such a way as to ensure the continued dominance of said warrior classes. This was certainly the case in feudal societies where the concept was most popularly bandied about.
Honor, as in the term ‘honorable’ as a synonym for trustworthy is a finer virtue by far than a warrior’s honor. A warrior’s job is to kill, and when it comes down to it, that’s what they need to do. It’s not a terribly honorable profession. I would far rather deal with a warrior constrained by a sense of justice, than by one of honor.
“Ramachandra” makes a good point. I would have had no qualms about the killing of Bin Laden if he had exchanged fire with the overwhelming force he encountered in his compound or room,or was about to do so, but to kill an unarmed man, even if he is a horrible criminal, when he could been easily captured and taken away alive, is unjust and dishonorable.
Perhaps, the infernal CIA which masterminded the entire operation was afraid that a trial would lead Bin Laden to “spill the beans” on the generous funding and training it provided him when he was fighting its dirty wars against the Soviets and also expose the complicity of the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment (whose cooperation the CIA depends on in other matters)?
I guess a SEAL is no Saigo (Takamori) when it comes to a sense of honor in combat!
I agree that Ramachandra1008 raises an interesting issue of whether this action was just in a military sense. I would also wonder whether it was just in a general moral sense, especially since everyone (including President Obama, I think) has been saying that “justice has been done.” I’m not saying justice hasn’t been done or that bin Laden wasn’t a terrible human being, I just think it would be interesting to discuss whether killing him was really just or whether taking him into custody for an eventual trial may have been more just. I really don’t know what to think about this.
We will never know what actually happened within that compound in Abbotabad. As conspirators the President and his advisors get an F for general incoherence and not keeping the story straight. Imagine actually telling us that OBL was unarmed but that he offered resistance which merited a deadly response from a Seal who previously had the presence of mind to shoot a maenad in the leg. It was lucky for the others who were left alive in that compound that the helicopter crashed or some of them would now be enjoying the benefits of hydrotherapy.
The correct precedent in this case is that of Eichmann and Milosovic and Saddam who were brought to a trial and the banality of their evil displayed. Justice as exemplified in the boring mechanism of legal proceedings must be allowed even the obviously guilty.
In any event, maybe the Americans can all go home now and let the Afghanis sort out their own problems.
“Perhaps, the infernal CIA which masterminded the entire operation was afraid that a trial would lead Bin Laden to “spill the beans” on the generous funding and training it provided him when he was fighting its dirty wars against the Soviets and also expose the complicity of the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment (whose cooperation the CIA depends on in other matters)?”
Not much of a motivation to ‘hide’ this fact, given that it isn’t a secret to begin with. The world at large (including any American who bothers to pay attention), is well aware of the CIA’s considerable involvement in Bin Laden’s origins.
Likewise we are quite aware that Pakistan’s intelligence service had active links with Afghan militants, and has had considerable difficulty ‘letting go’ of them since 9/11 changed the political calculus away from those links.
I think it is pretty clear that the team in question was sent in with the intention of killing Bin Laden outright, probably to utterly minimize the risk that something might go wrong resulting in his escape – but also because the US government probably did not wish to try him.
There would be almost no benefit to capturing him. Regardless of how he was treated, any enemy of America would assume we were torturing him for information (or fun).
Trying him would have been even worse. The entire US population already presumes him absolutely guilty, and any result otherwise would cause outright unrest and the collapse of whichever government was in power at the time – so a trial would ultimately (and correctly) be viewed as a kangaroo court, no matter how fair we tried to make it in theory.
In the end it appears that our government determined that he was ‘better off dead’. I imagine he would only have been captured if he had actively moved to surrender to his attackers – and perhaps not even then.
Jesse, you might want to try and educate yourself on the real facts and issues, as opposed to propaganda claims and agenda-setting, concerning 9/11. There are very serious anomalies in and substantial evidence against the official conspiracy theory propagated by the Bush administration.
Take a look at the facts and questions raised in the following website:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
You might well ask at the end of your reading of the analyses on this website: What’s Osama got to do with it?
There is a pragmatic difference between killing Osama Bin Laden and killing other less well known members of the organization.
Bin Laden was a political figure and the head of a powerful and dangerous movement with the ability to influence world events notwithstanding his trail or imprisonment. In fact, the conduct of a trial would have created a platform for Bin Laden’s organization to promote its political agenda. Bin Laden’s situation is similar to the situation with Naploleon after his defeat or the situation with the Czar and his family after the Russian revolution. The difference with Eichmann and Milosovic and Saddhan Hussein is that none of these former leaders were charismatic heads of a viable and dangerous political organization or constituency at the time they were brought to trial.
Everything that was done in the operation — the killing of Bin Laden, the report that the killing was in response to threatened resistance, the burial at sea with nominal religioua rites, the refusal to release photos of the corpse, was done with one motivation — to minimize the ability of Bin Laden’s organization to capitalize on the news politically in the Arab world.
It is also worth pointing out that the primary alternative to the entire operation was to target the entire complex with a smart bomb from high altitude.
Presumably the desire to confirm that Bin Laden had been killed, the desire to gain intelligence information, and the desire to minimize harm to innocent third parties weighed in favor of the commando style operation.
So when we say that the Seal team should have exercised greater restraint and not killed Bin Laden, we are saying either that the alternative of bombing would have been unethical or unwarranted or that, having chosen a more precisely targeted and flexible approach, the Seal team was under greater ethical constraints. The second of these two is the correct analysis — if one agrees with the official U.S. government position that the killing is warranted absent Bin Laden’s surrender but not if he had surrendered.
If one concludes based on political considerations that Bin Laden should be assassinated in all circumstances and that his resistance to capture is irrelevant, then the only ethical constraints relate to risk of loss of life of third parties and, perhaps, that the execution be as quick and humane as possible.
These are difficult issues. I don’t know where I come out on these.
“This violence is, however, regrettable. In war, killing another human being can be – and often is – the best course of action. But it is a tragic right action, and one should be aware of this fact.”
Fully agreed on this point. Both on the regrettable necessity of violence – and the fact that it should continue to be viewed as regrettable to the greatest degree one is able, and still execute it effectively.
Now psychologically speaking, this is a very difficult line to tread, and for some soldiers it is apparently not feasible to retain this sense of regret while fighting and still maintain effectiveness.
As a result, it falls to the rest of us as a society to maintain some concept of regret in their stead. If we fail to do that, we risk stepping over the line into callousness, which will eventually be reflected onto each other in a most unpleasant way.
As for the concept of killing Bin Laden, I can celebrate the death of an enemy leader (symbolically), I feel no honest regret at the death of a murderously violent individual – but I DO hold regret that we in some fashion shaped the world in such a way as to push any individual into the position where they felt that such actions were warranted or necessary.
Historically there have been many cases where one side was victimized at virtually no fault of their own save coincidence – but this is not really one of those.
We have rarely acted out of malice as a society (at least during the 20th century) but we have often acted arrogantly or carelessly, and that is sufficient to claim some part of the blame for the results, and thus to share in the regret.
Just a factual point: I live in DC, and have neither felt nor witnessed any glee at the death of bin Laden. Some satisfaction, yes, but overlaid with sorrow over the hideous waste and debasement between 9/11 and this event. There is general consensus here that a trial would have been a circus, also widespread pride in the Navy Seals and relief that it wasn’t a bomb for once. DC news reports say the celebrating in front of the White House was mostly done by college kids. The chanting of “USA, USA” is at a visceral level disgusting. The only unmixed satisfaction is the uptick in Obama’s approval ratings.
Perhaps Lao Tzu is more on point than the Buddha:
Tao Te Ching 31.
“Weapons are evil things, abhorrent to men:
The sage avoids them.
Victory is never sweet.
Those who hold otherwise delight in slaughter.
No one who delights in slaughter is fit to rule the world.
* * *
On happy occasions, the place of honor is on the left.
On unhappy occasions, the place of honor is on the right.
When celebrating victories, the place of honor should be on the right.
Many lie slain; it is a lamentation; one should weep.
And so upon victory one conducts the funeral rites.”
As for justice, it depends on whether we apply the crime model or the war model. The crime model doesn’t fit (requesting extradition by Pakistan fails the laugh test) but neither does the war model–bombing the compound would have been dreadful. A special ops kill mission gets it right. May there be more of them to take out the jihadi kingpins. So I disagree with Amod that the action is “regrettable” even though, on the whole, the muddled feeling is mostly unhappiness. What a tangled mess.
What is the hard evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for planning and/or facilitating terrorist acts, particularly 9/11, against the U.S. government and/or its citizens? Have we examined this issue or are like the denizens of Orwell’s 1984 mindlessly repeating official propaganda?
Interestingly, the FBI webpage on “Most wanted Terrorists” makes no mention of Bin Laden’s complicity in planning and/or executing 9/11. All it says is:
“Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.”
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden
Note that it refers to him as a “suspect”. A “suspect” is not a person whose crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is an elementary standard of justice.
In fact, according to the Muckraker Report published in 2006, an FBI official stated that there was “no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11”.
More on this here:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Connecting_bin_Laden_to_9-11
One matter not discussed here is the value of empathy towards one’s enemy – for the sake of defeating them.
‘Know Thine Enemy’ is of course an ancient phrase that has probably arisen in any number of cultures, and its benefit is clear. In order to oppose someone, it helps greatly if you understand not just their strengths and weakness, but also their motivations and perspectives.
The latter is quite difficult to achieve without a degree of true empathy for your enemy. A willingness and ability to view the world as they do, at least for a time.
Overt demonization of an enemy will cause most people to lose this ability to empathize, weakening your ability to understand your opponent.
As a result demonization should generally be reserved as a last resort, when only the brute force of societal mobilization will suffice to counter a threat – and it should be discarded the moment that threat has subsided to the point where more diplomatic and empathic methods become possible.
Unfortunately conservative societies tend to use demonization as an early, rather than a last resort, choosing to perceive any significant threat as existential rather than dealing with them in more moderate terms.
Just like the fall of communism took the CIA by surprise so did the Arab Spring. It is this last that makes the fulminations of OBL pointless and redundant. He has no relevance to those people putting their lives on the line in Syria where no one is proclaiming the desirability of a Caliphate. Not allowing Osama the platform of a trial is a mistake because the more he speaks the more evident it will be that his message is threadbare and irrelevant. He has no social programme that anyone would want to follow and the reduction of the ultimate bogeyman to a pathetic looper consumed by fatuous megalomania would be good. Trials are good in that they show that on Saturday the 14th the nightmare is modeling an orange suit and awaiting certain death. The manner of his death suited him perfectly and was what he wanted. To kill him in the manner prescribed by law would be altogether more fitting.
“To kill him in the manner prescribed by law would be altogether more fitting.”
I’m unclear on why he wasn’t simply tried via military tribunal In Absentina several years ago. So long as you believe the outcome is without question, you might as well at least formalize it before you shoot someone.
As for a ‘real’ and ‘fair’ trial, I think that would honestly cause more damage to the US standing than the original attack did. The sheer waste of time and the years long world-wide media circus that would imply would in no conceivable way repay itself with any sense of justice or closure that wasn’t arrived at in a matter of minutes in his compound.
It would only act to inflame passions on either side pointlessly, magnifying the act for months and then years on end until by the end of it we’d probably be debating whether war between the West and the East was completely inevitable.
Jesse:
This is part of the voodoo that surrounds the all-powerful terrorist that the great ones in your government are protecting you from. Did the trial of Milosovic revive Serbian ambitions, did the trial of Eichmann inflame Nazi sentiments worldwide? Timothy McVeigh did not increase the numbers of Michigan Militia. Captive and arraigned before a court of law these figures are reduced to their proper status. Osama having been shot out of hand merely confirms the jihadist view of American justice.
It’s not so much a real and fair trial that’s at issue though the fact that the Gitmo detainees have not been afforded one is a disgrace, it’s more the solemn aspect of due process that tempers the aspect of hot blooded vengeance. It’s more civilised.
The trial of Major Hasan, the Fort Hood slayer of his comrades will proceed to its conclusion without the opportunity for him to descry the great Shaitan.
“This is part of the voodoo that surrounds the all-powerful terrorist that the great ones in your government are protecting you from.”
Please. Terrorists could blow up a couple skyscrapers each year and it wouldn’t notably affect our country if we didn’t get into such a useless psychological frenzy about it.
Unfortunately, most people DO get completely swept up in such idiotic responses, to the point where even those of us who think it stupid to do so are forced to admit that severe harm is resulting from it.
As long as we are sitting here in the tower discussing philosophy, we must admit that our viewpoint is in the dramatic minority, and that any philosophy meant to be of use in the real world must acknowledge that the vast majority have neither the time nor the inclination to understand the world to such a degree as we at least strive to.
People react as they react, however foolishly or self-destructively, and any policy or philosophy meant to aid the world must operate in that less-than-ideal environment and all it entails. If it cannot satisfy some great number of those who are poor students of math or human nature, then it is of limited value.
This is why unstructured Atheism, for example, is unlikely to have any great following in the foreseeable future, despite its obvious logical appeals. It provides no insulation from the face of oblivion, and so most people cower away from it in abject terror.
A pity, but that is the reality.
As always, Noam Chomsky offers food for serious moral reflection. Here he is on the killing of Bin Laden:
My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
By Noam Chomsky
It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them.
In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany.
What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”
Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.
There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.
There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.
Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”
There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.
http://www.zcommunications.org/my-reaction-to-osama-bin-laden-s-death-by-noam-chomsky
You know, in this case I’m inclined to take OBL at his word, and the response that goes with it.
All respects due to Noam Chomsky, but to imagine that a national government could allow operations against active terrorist groups – particularly foreign ones that have executed effective attacks – to be restricted by the same legal standards as internal criminal cases would require a rather foolish level of naivete, and indeed, would invite the removal of the government that argued along those same lines.
In most cases the rule of criminal law should be held forth as the preferred standard – but warfare and terrorist actions alike cast too chaotic a fog across society to allow that standard to hold in the more extreme cases.
That’s not to downplay his concerns regarding the often inappropriate and imperialistic actions of the US, but this was perhaps a poor matter upon which to make his point – it will doubtless serve to weaken the regard with which many people view his arguments.
“to imagine that a national government could allow operations against active terrorist groups – particularly foreign ones that have executed effective attacks – to be restricted by the same legal standards as internal criminal cases would require a rather foolish level of naivete…”
Do you grant the same “right” to the governments of Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam? Do you agree that they would be justified in sending their commandos into the U.S. to take out U.S. government functionaries, e.g., CIA agents and high-level officials, who have participated in terrorist plots and actions against the governments and civilians of those countries, in exactly the same way?
Or do you believe that only the U.S. government has this “right”?
“Do you grant the same “right” to the governments of Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam? Do you agree that they would be justified in sending their commandos into the U.S. to take out U.S. government functionaries, e.g., CIA agents and high-level officials, who have participated in terrorist plots and actions against the governments and civilians of those countries, in exactly the same way?”
The right? Sure. The US has engaged in a number of rather dastardly deeds for which it would be nice if those responsible were HELD responsible. I’d hand Cheney over to a howling Iraqi mob as a simple gesture of goodwill.
The capacity? No, or at least, not without inordinate risk. Might may not make Right – but it does prevent it when you are weaker than the wrongdoer. Natural law is pretty close to absolute on this point.
Powerful empires have always had extra privileges afforded them by their might. As citizens of such an empire, the best we can generally do is try to restrain our leaders’ worse impulses via protest and political pressure.
You might want to consider taking OBL at his word in a recent message he recorded:
“In a message to Muslims made public 16 days after his death, Osama bin Laden praised the pro-democracy uprisings that had swept the Arab world and, in the view of some experts, had called into question the relevance of Al Qaeda, the terrorist network he founded and led for 23 years.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/world/middleeast/19binladen.html?_r=1&hp
The American psych(o)e has shown a consistent pattern of demonizing, scapegoating, and targeting for murder a number of non-white leaders in developing countries for problems it can’t successfully understand and grapple with, e.g., Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega (of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas), Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Qadhafi, and on and on.
What is the relevant moral difference between GW and OBL in this context? As Chomsky points out, the (war) crimes of the former are on a far greater scale than the latter and are well-documented.
So, you would have to admit that your premises and assumptions on the OBL murder case also justify an Iraqi commando force taking out GW in the same way.
“So, you would have to admit that your premises and assumptions on the OBL murder case also justify an Iraqi commando force taking out GW in the same way.”
In essence, Yes. Did I anywhere suggest otherwise? I think I made myself rather clear. Leaders should be held culpable for their decisions.
Alas, the world is a decidedly imperfect place, and the same power that protects us as citizens of the US also serves to harbor those who abuse that power foolishly. :(
“Alas, the world is a decidedly imperfect place…”
Alas, there is no dearth of individuals willing to support actions and their predictable consequences which would only add to the imperfections of the world! Call it the “vicious cycle of imperfection”!
“Alas, there is no dearth of individuals willing to support actions and their predictable consequences which would only add to the imperfections of the world! Call it the “vicious cycle of imperfection”!”
You would note that I did not mount any moral defense of that structure – I simply stated that this was the functioning reality.
Acknowledging reality and attempting to change it are two entirely separate concepts. Denying an unpleasant reality because you do not wish to acknowledge it is just egotism.
The world is as we find it, which, mathematically speaking is a bit more violent and unjust than we would prefer. We can improve upon it, but only by convincing literally billions of people that it is in their interests to cooperate and compromise more than it is to fight.
That has never been an easy task, and it comes with the caveat that there will always be a subset of people who simply prefer conflict, and the rest of us will need to be willing to deal with them – one way or another.
This has turned out to be an interesting thread and I would like to make two points in exiting it:
1. There is a fallacy of perfectionism: if a proposal or action is not perfect (relative to a set of standards or expected outcomes), it ought not to be carried out.
But there is also a fallacy of “imperfectionism”: since the world is imperfect, any imperfection in a proposal or action is justified.
From the fact that the world is imperfect, it doesn’t follow that we should maintain any existing imperfection or add to the imperfections of the world.
2. There are three main types of considerations on the OBL killing: moral, legal, and prudential. I have maintained in other posts that moral considerations alone do not determine the wisdom of an action. Reasons of prudence also play a role and will obviously include, in many cases, considerations of legality. There is need for “reflective equilibrium” and balance between considerations of morality and considerations of prudence.
3. I think that the capture and trial of Bin Laden would have been the better course of action on both moral and prudential grounds. Among other things, it would have improved the moral standing of the Obama administration and the American military, given OBL a close encounter with the values and procedures of the Western justice system, given an opportunity to present to the world any evidence of his complicity in terrorist plots, etc.
Thanks for a good discussion.
Thus the problem I have with Noam Chomsky’s argument is that he has turned it against himself in a worthless gesture.
In his effort to implicate GWB, he appears to be excusing OBL. Foolish, in the extreme. OBL’s epitaph was written the moment the world saw those videotapes of him giggling in glee at the images of the attack.
I have no problem with Noam Chomsky calling for GWB to be called to account – I’d like to see it myself.
Unfortunately he does so in a manner that makes it trivial for any opponent of his philosophy to hang his picture right there next to Osama’s in the public eye, thus branding himself a fool and pariah.
Similarly in appearing to paint the military operation as unjust due to a lack of proof, he also sounds like a conspiracy nut who is unsatisfied with a mere ‘certificate of live birth’ and demands to have the original document dragged out of the vault.
Now don’t get me wrong, I ultimately agree with most of his points in PRINCIPLE – but his method of presentation leaves a great deal to be desired.
Well, Chomsky is stating the truth: OBL’s complicity in 911 has hardly been shown, whereas GW’s responsibility for the war crimes in Iraq is plain as pikestaff.
You don’t seriously think that the video showing OBL happily talking about 911 shows his complicity beyond a reasonable doubt? If you do, then you would also need to admit that the people who cheered the assassination of OBL thereby demonstrated their complicity in planning “Operation Geronimo”, or that the people who cheered the American invasion of Iraq thereby demonstrated their complicity in planning the invasion also deserve an epitaph!!!
If you could provide one solid piece of evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt OBL’s responsibility for a terrorist action against the U.S., I would be heavily indebted to you!
“You don’t seriously think that the video showing OBL happily talking about 911 shows his complicity beyond a reasonable doubt?”
Uhm, between that and his claims to that effect? Yeah, I’m good with that. If he wants to make the claim, and all the circumstantial arrows point to him, then he can take the fall too.
I’m not sure why you’re bothering to try to play a game of ‘gotcha’ here. If you think I’m going to defend the Iraq War in any way, you’re sorely confusing me with someone else.
And YES for the Nth time, if someone is out there on the streets cheering for the death of OBL, then they are in a fashion ‘complicit’. Not in any strong legal sense obviously, but socially, morally, of course they are. I’m pretty complicit. Doesn’t particularly bother me either.
“Uhm, between that and his claims to that effect? Yeah, I’m good with that. If he wants to make the claim, and all the circumstantial arrows point to him, then he can take the fall too.”
In an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on Sept 28, 2001, he claimed that he was not involved:
Ummat Interviews Usamah Bin-Ladin
28 September 2001
Bin-Ladin Denies Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks
Source: Khilafah.com, 10 Oct 2001
“The Al-Qaidah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usama bin Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat.”
http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html
The basic facts pertaining to the 911 plot and plotters make it clear that the “circumstantial arrows” couldn’t possibly point to someone who was at that time hiding in a cave in the Pakistan- Afghanistan border.
“The basic facts pertaining to the 911 plot and plotters make it clear that the “circumstantial arrows” couldn’t possibly point to someone who was at that time hiding in a cave in the Pakistan- Afghanistan border.”
I see. You’ve made your beliefs reasonably clear at this point.
We should end this particular thread of the conversation in favor of civility. It has reached an irreconcilable position.
What claims? In a video, OBL praised the individuals who carried out 911. I don’t think he is on record claiming credit for it. I don’t know the basis for Chomsky’s attribution.
I am trying point out or pose the problem of the slippery slope your premises and assumptions lead to.
It’s not about whether you would justify the Iraq invasion, but about whether you are prepared to accept the implications of justifying the murder of OBL in the given circumstances on the grounds you proffer.
Thus, consistency requires that if a group of Iraqis or Afghans came over and did the same thing (whether they actually have the capacity to do that is irrelevant)to GW, you ought to think it is justified. And then again, if a group of Indians went over to Pakistan and did the same thing to high-level political, military, and intelligence officials for their role in supporting the Mumbai attacks, you ought to think it is justified. And then if a group of Pakistanis went over to India and did the same thing to officials responsible for abuses and atrocities in Indian-occupied Kashmir, you ought to think it is justified. And the less said about the implications of your premises and assumptions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the better.
I doubt whether a rational person would be willing to embrace these implications of the premises and assumptions you have deployed to defend the murder of OBL in the available circumstances.
What claims? In a video, OBL praised the individuals who carried out 911. I don’t think he is on record claiming credit for it. I don’t know the basis for Chomsky’s attribution.
I am trying point out or pose the problem of the slippery slope your premises and assumptions lead to.
It’s not about whether you would justify the Iraq invasion, but about whether you are prepared to accept the implications of justifying the murder of OBL in the given circumstances on the grounds you proffer.
Thus, consistency requires that if a group of Iraqis or Afghans came over and did the same thing (whether they actually have the capacity to do that is irrelevant)to GW, you ought to think it is justified. And then again, if a group of Indians went over to Pakistan and did the same thing to high-level political, military, and intelligence officials for their role in supporting the Mumbai attacks, you ought to think it is justified. And then if a group of Pakistanis went over to India and did the same thing to officials responsible for abuses and atrocities in Indian-occupied Kashmir, you ought to think it is justified. And the less said about the implications of your premises and assumptions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the better.
I doubt whether a rational person would be willing to embrace these implications of the premises and assumptions you have deployed to defend the murder of OBL in the available circumstances.
Your blindness to the slippery slope you are on is astonishing! Don’t tell me this doesn’t particularly bother you either!
“Your blindness to the slippery slope you are on is astonishing! Don’t tell me this doesn’t particularly bother you either!”
I’ve never been particularly fond of the ‘slippery slope’ argument in any context.
In my opinion that phrase is most commonly used as a call to abandon any form of moderation in favor of whatever ideological extreme that the writer is touting.
“In my opinion that phrase is most commonly used as a call to abandon any form of moderation in favor of whatever ideological extreme that the writer is touting.”
This is irrelevant to the issue of whether a given argument from slippery slope is a good one. The logical way to respond to an argument from slippery slope is to show that there is no slippery slope and to point out with plausibility factors or conditions which would prevent the slipping onto the slope, e.g., consider the rebuttal of slippery slope arguments against voluntary euthanasia in cases of terminal illness, or the rebuttal of slippery slope arguments against the legalization of marijuana.
“This is irrelevant to the issue of whether a given argument from slippery slope is a good one. The logical way to respond to an argument from slippery slope is to show that there is no slippery slope and to point out with plausibility factors or conditions which would prevent the slipping onto the slope.”
If you’re referring to the unilateral use of force to kill militant targets, that slope was traversed to its bottom years ago – and that came about NOT because of any change in political calculus or attitude, but because of changes in technology (remote weapons), and geopolitical balance of power (expiration of the USSR).
If you are referring to the killing of a militant leader without the full recourse of law, I only wish we’d resort to that particular tactic more often in today’s world.
For the sake of some imagined ‘justice’ we instead sacrifice the lives of thousands of innocent soldiers in futile efforts to ‘bring dictators to justice’ when a single well timed bomb might resolve the situation with a miniscule fraction of the bloodshed.
The simple answer that we seem to be having so much trouble comprehending here is that war is not, and has never really been about Justice. There is no true system of Justice between nations. There are only vague agreements and balances of power.
Ever noticed that nation states are often compared to children in an unruly schoolyard? This is not by coincidence – it is because the situation is so similar.
There is no adult supervision, and conflict without a reasonably impartial and powerful arbiter is very difficult to resolve amicably.
“If you are referring to the killing of a militant leader without the full recourse of law, I only wish we’d resort to that particular tactic more often in today’s world.”
The crimes of your militant leaders, a bunch of White psychopaths in three-piece suits playing “Chimp politics” (forgive the insult real Chimpanzees!) with the lives of the peoples of entire nations, pale before any crimes of those militant leaders.
I meant to say: “The crimes of your militant leaders, a bunch of White psychopaths in three-piece suits playing “Chimp politics” (forgive the insult real Chimpanzees!) with the lives of the peoples of entire nations, render pale any crimes of those militant leaders.”
“The crimes of your militant leaders, a bunch of White psychopaths in three-piece suits playing “Chimp politics” (forgive the insult real Chimpanzees!) with the lives of the peoples of entire nations, render pale any crimes of those militant leaders.”
You don’t like our leaders? Try living with them. :(
The imbeciles running our country most of the time drive me completely insane. Particularly with the recent conservative swells in our politics. They behave like drunken fools at the wheel of an oil tanker.
The liberals at least have some sense of social conscience and justice. The conservative party of the US abandoned that completely in the last cycle.
If you think Bush was bad, he’s likely to be a cuddle toy compared to the next president that party gets in office.
In America, the term “conservative” has no connection to its original and real meaning. It includes different shades of fascism. The American liberals are mostly muddle-headed and/or double-minded in their ideas on freedom and justice.
Ultimately when people act against each other, they are going to trigger reprisals like those between Pakistan and India, or between the US and Bin Laden.
An Eye for an Eye (makes the world blind, and all that)
We construct legal systems and enforcement systems for the sake of moderating and in some cases preventing these conflicts between groups and individuals.
However, for all our modern prowess, these legal systems classically only function effectively when imposed from above by an entity with a near-monopoly upon the use of force – which is one of the basic definitions of a nation-state.
Unfortunately, when we start dealing with international affairs, you cannot help but notice that the legal system there is decidedly weak and murky. There IS no world government with a monopoly on force, and the legal treaties between nations are at best treated as a strong form of Gentleman’s Agreement.
In short, in the international arena, there IS NO FORCE OF LAW. Law, yes – Force, no.
Worse yet, what sense of Law and Justice that does exist between nations via treaty or acknowledgement of UN authority is often seriously contaminated by domestic politics and nationalism.
Thus, when serious conflicts arise between nations – or between nations and sub-national entities such as corporations or militant groups – legal avenues have a tendency to disintegrate quickly into impasse, due to lack of enforcement authority.
Nations around the world find themselves quite frequently resorting to unilateral seizure, force, or other penalty in order to redress faults.
This condition is regrettable, but very difficult to avoid in the absence of a stronger overarching structure.
NATO and the Warsaw Pact could potentially have become those entities in a supranational sense, but the Warsaw Pact disintegrated, leaving NATO without a purpose, thus severely weakening its authority.
This effectively left the UN and IMF as the primary supra-national authorities. These, for better or worse, have little force to apply, and no counter-weight to strengthen their purpose.
Again I refer to Game Theory wherein it is very difficult for any group to claim authority that does not have an ‘other’ against which to balance itself, even in constrained rivalry. It is a problem that inevitably arises whenever one reaches the top of any group hierarchy.
One year after we discover the aliens on Alpha Centauri, we will have a functioning world government with military authority and strong functions of Law and Justice world-wide – but it is somewhat difficult to see how we get there before then. Perhaps not impossible, but definitely working against the natural order of things to impose it otherwise.
Today I learnt from Gareth Peirce on the radio (Human Rights Lawyer) that after the WWII the British were for hanging Nazi leaders within an hour of capture but that the Americans persuaded them to take the route of the famous trials. Wikipedia confirms this: check Nuremberg Trials. Wise counsel.
It was cunning of Osama to tuck his compound within the shadow of the elite military academy. If he had been out in the country in a village or small town then the weapon of choice, the drone, would have been used. They could not take the risk which they have done in the past of blowing up wedding guests and children gathering firewood. Why some of those boys could have been the children of generals and that would never do. Only option then was to send in GI Joes that swim. John Rambo was not available.
Believe it or not, people get killed in wars without trials.
It’s a shockingly frequent occurrence, and in fact, they get massacred while unarmed, going to the bathroom, and a host of other entirely unjust and unfair situations, all while honorably defending their countries.
I’d go so far as to say that the deaths of over 90% of soldiers world wide, regardless of what side they are fighting for, are terribly unjust.
I’m just not going to get worked up over the assassination of one particular enemy commander, on the premise that because he is famous for helping plan the murder of a few thousand people, he must deserve some particular protection. I don’t buy that.
He wanted to play the War game, he played it pretty well for a decade or so, he got shot. Big deal.
There always was a down side to the Nuremberg trials; they were correctly understood as victor’s justice at a kangaroo court. But there were benefits to Nuremberg too. The trails established a historical record and helped western civilization come to terms with itself. A bin Laden trial would likewise have made hash of normal criminal procedure but with none of the benefit. As for the drone attack option, I believe it was seriously considered and rejected, which was the better outcome. Of course, those who were angry at America before the raid continue to feel that way.
Jon:
The benefit is that there are no exceptions to criminal justice unless you think the absence of paper work of Lynch Law is a greater benefit. OBL was not reduced by this action. ‘Freddy’ lives.
Sooo, what we’ve really learned here today is that mixing realpolitik with philosophical musings remains as bad an idea as it has been for roughly the last 5000 years. No surprises there. :)
Well, Sir, “Realpolitik” is itself based on philosophical and value assumptions, as the following passage from the man who coined the term makes abundantly clear! So, you are drawing a false opposition between “philosophical musings” and “Realpolitik”. Neither the approach itself nor the invocation of “realpoliitik” has any immunity to philosophical criticism.
“‘Realpolitik’ was coined by Ludwig von Rochau a German writer and politician in the 19th century.[1] His 1853 book Grundsätze der Realpolitik angewendet auf die staatlichen Zustände Deutschlands describes the meaning of the term:
The political organism of human society, the state, originates and subsists in virtue of a natural law which man, with or without consciousness or will, carries out… The imperative of Nature on which the existence of states depends is fulfilled in the historically given state through the antagonism of various forces; its condition, extent and achievements varying infinitely according to space and time. The study of the forces that shape, sustain and transform the state is the starting-point of all political knowledge. The first step towards understanding leads to the conclusion that the law of the strong over political life performs a function similar to the law of gravity over the material world.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
“The benefit is that there are no exceptions to criminal justice unless you think the absence of paper work of Lynch Law is a greater benefit.”
There are alas a wide array of exceptions to criminal justice throughout the world, ranging from failed states that cannot administer justice internally, to those that refuse to recognize each others’ laws or have no extradition treaties.
Likewise there are commonly recognized – albeit dangerous – statutes such as Martial Law in most national constitutions that allow for summary law in states of emergency. Often abused of course, but with valid uses that generally render their existence necessary.
To state that there are no exceptions to criminal justice suggests that you are speaking only in ideological terms, and not in terms that address the actual state of the world?
Even the Lynch Laws you speak of were drafted originally to deal with bands of horse rustlers that the weak enforcement powers of the state could not at that time effectively deal with. Of course, they were later severely abused, even after rule of law had been more firmly established in those areas.
In almost all these cases, the laws and methods that lead to an abuse of Justice generally comes about because the normal mechanisms of civil justice have failed, either due to crisis or some conflict that exceeds the scope of a state’s courts.
When you come to think of it the average bust of a crack house is probably more hazardous than the assault on the Bin Laden compound. They had the place monitored for months, they knew the routine. The cop team has none of this sort of intelligence before they break down a door yet they manage to mostly arrest and detain armed people.
The Obama administration wanted to deliver a message – ‘we’re bad, sooo bad’, ruthless so to speak. This would have been a good point on which to stop the erosion of the normal conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners etc which has been a feature of American Gov.
“The Obama administration wanted to deliver a message – ‘we’re bad, sooo bad’, ruthless so to speak.”
That’s simply a continuation of policy crafted and applied during the Bush regime. In the policy document on America’s nuclear stance, it states that God’s Very Own Nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons even against nations which do not possess those weapons.
Chomsky has an analysis of it and points out that there is a call for a strategy involving irrational and violent behavior to frighten actual and potential enemies.
But human beings are only temporarily restrained or deterred by behavior or actions calculated to instil fear, terror, and “shock and awe”.