Bloodless Coup

Rather than nitpick historical points I'll just throw out that reading through this 2 things stand out to me.

1) The scope of the aims - force can work, but usually just when it is aimed at the actions of a fairly small clique, and only when a. you are trying to manuever that clique in a direction they would be willing to go if they saw the scope of the force that would be brought down on them or b. when you are trying to move the clique from power and have a good shot at it being replaced by a set who's likely to be more to your liking on a host of matters. When it comes to moving a country or trying to change deeply embedded positions/beliefs force is much less likely to work.

2) And this is the one that always irritates me on this topic - time. People always talk about how more force will fix problem X, As if fixing the problem once takes it off the table forever. They don't talk about the one week, one month, one year, five years aftermath. This is of course related to the first topic. If a people is strongly committed to something, will they give it up over time? If you use force to deny it to them, and maybe kill lots of their loved ones in the process, isn't it much more likely they'll want it even more.

Other thoughts - people often talk about how more force would be just swell, as if all force was equal - but obviouly leadership, planning, implementation and how a war will fit into the broader strategic environment are also matters of some concern (and often war X might help you with problem A, but hurt you on problems C and D, and give your enemies G H and J room to manuveur).

And finally force often entails us doing things that supposedly we'd never ever want to do morally (which should matter to those of a Jeffersonian persuasion, to use Mead's language), and things that divert resources from our own economic prosperity (a problem for those of a Hamiltonian persuasion).

So, unsurprisingly, I tend to agree with you, and am troubled by the unnecessary costs the war mongers sometimes place on the country. Though I think force can be used effectively in some instances (Noriega/Panama being an excellent exampe).

Thank goodness we're super-rich and have a long tradition of skilled diplomats in this country to solve ou problems in more efficient ways. Oh, we're wildly in debt and not doing much diplomacy anymore? Whoops.

Good points. I also wanted to highlight (with reference to your #1) that moving a polity/society usually involves an overwhelming application of resources on our part (see: Germany, World War II). In other words, succeeding in remaking some society in our image (whether possible or not) clearly takes a massive effort (troops, resources, money, etc.). We clearly haven't put forth that effort in Iraq (or Afghanistan).

The time part is interesting to: these aren't usually short-term actions. On the other hand, it's worth noting that in the time since we invaded Iraq (41 months ago) we had accomplished significantly more in World War II (41 months after Pearl Harbor is approximately April 1945, which is when Germany surrendered).

Accomplished significantly more, yes, but with a level of national committment that would be absolutely unthinkable in modern times.

No, not "unthinkable." Difficult, but not unthinkable. Just post-9/11, my impression (annectodally(sp?)) was that the country was willing to bear a significantly increased burden in the name of fighting terror. The administration's response was "go back to the malls." I think that societies can respond to extraordinary times (difficult as they are). Thus, it isn't impossible to imagine re-making Iraq (though it is difficult, even given all the breaks). However, that level of national committment would require a significantly larger threat than Iraq presented.

I largely agree with that and it's one reason why I find talk of World War 3 really strange - we don't really see the threat in remotely the same way - it's on a vastly different scale. And given the large degree to which threat perception drives politics (especially IR) ...

That said I find it hard to imagine a WWII like war effort ever coming to pass again. I think changes in culture and the economy would make that extremely hard. But we could certainly have developed a larger committment than we did, if the president had sought that.

I don't envision a World War II level of effort again either, but we don't face a developed/industrial threat like Germany today (or on the horizon) either. If China goes more and more hostile, and more and more developed over the next 10 to 20 years, I could see it there (plus, we get some bonus xenophobia with them).

I don't think the country is capable of uniting behind a common effort short of something like a hostile alien invasion, and maybe not even then. The Vietnam model/meme will be very hard to displace.

I am no friend of PNAC, nor would I consider myself right-leaning, but I would argue that your idea of political success in war cannot be seperated from moral success. That is, wars are not simply "policy by other means". They contain moral implications and are fought for (or at least appeal to) moral ends. In fact, I would argue that our use of force historically has been initially employed to solve moral issues and not political ones.

Is there a war that we have entered for non-moral reasons? Have we used violence or force to prosecute a war or conflict without some moral reasoning to support it? No. Of course, the moral reasoning used to support the use of force can be faulty (ie. Iraq, Vietnam), but it nevertheless is present. What happens is that once the moral issue(s) is resolved, we then have to find a solution to the political problems that have resulted.

My argument, therefore, is that the use of force can solve the problems that states have with each other as long as we view those problems as moral and not just political. Violence is not only inherently political, it is also inherently moral. In fact, I would go so far to say it is almost entirely moral. So, the PNAC appeals to more violence as a means to solve our problems is, in their view, correct as they see the issue as a moral issue and not a political one.

On a dimly related tangent, Baltar, this may amuse you.

Baltar will no doubt delve into the finer points of realist theory in response to your point, but a quick comment on morality. States are fundamentally interested in self-preservation, and at times (and depending on your theoretical view of state behavior) interested in increasing power (the means to self-preservation. The maintenance and acquisition of power has nothing to do with morality.

I think the key phrase you use is:

Of course, the moral reasoning used to support the use of force

Used to support it, yes. The real and only motivator, no.

you think because in the end the emperor was the one who made the decision for Japan to surrender that that means that the emperor, and no the atomic bombs, was the real reason for the end of WWII? thats a twistedly short-sighted view of cause and effect.

its funny, that must be the same approach that liberals took in order to come to the conclusion that the Supreme Court (and not the voters will expressed through the electoral college combined with the laws of the nation) decided the 2000 election.

OK, I'll skip over getting into Florida 2000 (I can't believe that anyone can really defend the Court's action in an intellectually honest way) since it's not remotely relevant to the topic at hand and note that I'm puzzled by the earlier comment. It seems to suggest that what's moral is not inherently political. Dresden, the Tokyo fire-bombing - there are all kinds of things that took place in even the Goodest of the Good Wars that might well have been deemed immoral under other circumstances, but weren't viewed that way given the crisis at hand.

Which is not to say that morality is entirely thrown out the window in a huge war (thankfully) - but our views on it certainly shift.

And, well Baltar can state his own views on this, but I'm a little perplexed at what you seem to be saying about the A bombs. They didn't win us the war - we would have won anyway. But they did speed up matters.

Oh, and of course b/c I am political psych guy I suppose it is my job to point out that reactions to those weapons differed among people, and if someone other than the emperor had been in charge you might have seen very different behavior. I mean Hitler was ordering vast swaths of his own territory to be destroyed by the Germans to prevent things falling into the Allies' hands. The emperor looked at things (like his country turning into a burning wasteland) differently.

1. I'm not a liberal.

2. No, I'm saying that the combination of atomic bombs and the Emperor won us a cheaper victory than we would have had, absent those conditions. For all of the US firebombing of Japan, it is clear that we never "broke" their will to the point that they would have surrendered easily to us.

3. The Supreme Court did decide the 2000 election; they ended any political wrangling about how much (and how) to recount in Florida.

4. The Supreme Court acts to decide if the actions of individuals or the government are unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if everyone wants to do something; if the actions are unconstitutional, its job of the court to prevent (or redress) violations of the constitution.

5. This isn't a thread about the Supreme Court. Leave it alone.

Ooh, wait, though. Even though you are a Republican, if you don't support our dear leader, that makes you a liberal Baltar. Get with the program.

Binky, the maintenance and aquisition of power has everything to do with morality. Every state which is actively protecting and sustaining their power, or are are seeking more of it, have to make a moral decision. That is, they have to weigh the cost of determining if gaining and keeping power is morally right (from their view of morality--of course this assumes that morality is not objective which is another issue entirely).

Nevertheless, at its deepest levels, the application of force/violence to solve state problems has to be primarily moral. This is not to say that political ends don't eventually follow, it's just that they are secondary. A state must determine the moral 'rightness' of an action before that action can have political implications.

You can say "has to be" all you want to, but it doesn't make it true. Unless you are talking about an extremist moral relativism, in which any action can be rationalized by any state as being a moral action. And at that point, moral ceases to have meaning, and we are left with amoral states acting purely in their own self-interest. Unless amoral self-interest is the universal moral?

To be clear, I do not believe that the maintenance and acquisition of power is immoral, merely that it is amoral. Then again, maybe you want to argue the morality of the September Campaign?

Bishop, you may believe that point of view but it is not the one accepted by just about everyone who studies international politics. The most dominant theory of international politics ("realism", which traces intellectual roots back to Thucydides in 500 BC and onto Machiavelli in about 1500 AD) argues that states are entirely amoral and only concered with issues of power and security. States may claim the moral high ground, at times, but that is only a cover for actions grounded in gaining, maintaining, or demonstrating their power (demonstrations of power can deter potential attackers).

You are welcome to disagree with this position (there are multiple theories of international politics that disagree with "realism"), but none (that's NONE) base the explanation of state's actions on the morality of that state.

I think you are dangerously close to a tautology: when we see states gain power we know they think it was morally right, thus morals are fundamental to international politics. That doesn't really tell us anything.

Finally, your statement "A state must determine the moral 'rightness' of an action before that action can have political implications" cannot be true. Any action will likely (almost always) have political implications (change the balance of power, favor one domestic group over another, repress one ethnic group, invade another country, etc.) independent of any moral determination of the actor (the state that acts). Moreover, even if the acting state has a moral reason for acting that does not mean that the action will result in what the state intended (unintended consequences, failed plans, resistance, etc.).

Morality isn't irrelevant to international politics (it can be critical), but it isn't determinative of actions.

Let's not use the argument that because everyone believes something to be true, then it means that it is. You are too intelligent for that. I may not be in line with what the majority thinks about international politics, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. 500 years ago, everyone knew that the earth was the center of the universe, but that didn't mean that the few who belived otherwise were wrong.

States are not amoral. Binky makes that argument for me. Binky claims that if any action can be rationalized by any state as being a morally right action, then morality ceases to have meaning. If that's true, then Binky claims that we are left with amoral states acting in purely self-interest (BTW, isn't self-interest a moral claim--also isn't 'self-interest' and 'amoral' a contradiction in terms). Binky calls that extremist moral relativism. I call it your view (which by the way, Binky in the next paragraph says is his/her view as well). If a state can rationalize any action as being right, it does not follow that morality ceases to have meaning. It may mean that their morality is wrong when compared to the morality of another state. In real terms, we believe (and hopefuly continue to believe) that Nazi Germany was a morally corrupt state. That is, their actions (at least some of them) as a state were morally wrong. If that is the case, then we have to conclude that there is some objective meaning to morality, as how could our morality be more right than the Nazis?...right compared to what? It is/was more right compared to some objective standard of morality. Therefore, there must be some moral 'rightness' to the world. I argue that we (states and individuals) try to meet that moral standard in all actions, regardless of whether those actions are state or individually sponsored. States are not amoral for one very simple reason: they are made, governed, and maintained by people. People are moral beings (please let's not argue this point). As such, since they make, manage, and maintain the state, the state is moral as well.

To use a previous example of Truman's decision to drop the A-bomb on Japan. That decision was a moral decision. In fact, it was an intensely moral decision. Did it have political implications? You bet. It also had moral implications. But, at its beginning, it was a moral decision. Is it morally right to drop two bombs on Japan that would kill hundreds of thousands of people? That is what Truman, and, as he represented the United States, the state had to decide. That decision certainly involved looking at the political environment, but that did not preclude the fact that he morally had to come to grips with killing that many people before he could form a plan of action to handle the political fallout. For a look at just how moral this decision was see http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/index.php

Lastly, Baltar makes the argument that morality "isn't irrelevant to international politics (it can be critical), but it isn't determinative of actions." Again, morality is nothing but determinative of actions. How do we determine what is the right action if we don't appeal to some morality?

I realize that we probably are not going to convince each other of our arguments :) but I'd like to make a request. Can you give me an example of a state's amoral action? I'd like to see what you consider to be an amoral, self-interested decision. Thanks.

Hit the buzzer...wrong again! Self-interest is not a moral claim.

Unless, oh wait, Baltar, this might be one of your people. Getcher Ayn Rand quotes at the ready.