A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Iran

War Crimes

by 17 Comments

Image Credit

After assassinating Soleimani, Trump went on Twitter to threaten a “disproportionate response” to any Iranian retaliation and to destroy Iranian cultural sites. Intentionally targeting cultural property violates the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. As such, Trump seems to have been threatening to commit a war crime. To be fair to Trump, he probably had no idea that doing so would be a war crime nor any idea that the United States signed the treaty. He is, by all accounts (other than his own), the most ignorant American president in history. Laying aside Trump’s ignorance of matters critical to his job, this threat does raise matters of philosophical interest.

Trump’s threat could be defended by noting that the United States military does allow for attacking cultural property when doing so is a matter of military necessity. This is certainly reasonable—no military could be expected to allow enemies to occupy and launch attacks from cultural property with impunity. The moral burden of the destruction of such property would weigh heaviest on those who turned it into a target, though those deciding to destroy or damage it would not be entirely blame free—they should attempt all reasonable alternatives.

In the case of Trump’s threat, there is clearly no military necessity in striking those targets. The cultural sites do not seem to have any military value nor do the Iranians seem to be posting military forces in or near them. And even if they had some value or targets were nearby, there would still be an abundance of military targets to hit.

It could be argued that Trump’s threat is justified because of its deterrence value. This takes us into the ethics of threats and a common issue in this area is whether it is wrong to threaten to do what would be wrong to do. One stock argument in favor of allowing such threats is utilitarian: if threating something that is wrong to do creates a greater good than not making such a threat, then it would be morally acceptable. In this case, if Trump threatening to commit a war crime deterred Iran from a severe retaliation and thus removed the need for the United States to retaliate in turn, then the threat could be morally justified. However, if the same result could have been achieved without such a threat, then the utilitarian argument would not justify it—this is because there would be better alternatives that would have yielded the same results.

There are also clear negative consequences to making such threats. The most obvious is the damage to the reputation of the United States. It is no coincidence that fictional villains make terrible threats to try to achieve their ends—doing so is villainous. For the United States to threaten war crimes is certainly not a good look and, more importantly, serves to degrade our moral standing in the world. After all, if we want to claim to be the good guys, we must earn that and this involves, at the very least, not acting like the bad guys. But why is the destruction of cultural property wrong?

Since terrorist groups, like ISIS, and terrorist states often aim to eradicate cultural property as part of their agenda, this suggests that there is something wrong with this practice. But this is hardly decisive proof. The proof rests in the fact that the aims of such attacks include the destruction of history and the eradication of culture. This destruction does obvious harm to the culture that owns the property—it is destroying part of the record and reality of who they are as a people and an attempt to erase them from the world and memory. But the harm goes beyond this: cultural property also belongs to all of humanity as part of our history and heritage as a species; to destroy the culture property of one people is to destroy the cultural property of all of us.

Culture property often endures far beyond the time of its creation, out lasting the politics, religion and ideology of that time. To destroy such things for the fleeting wants of the powerful to advance some short-lived agenda or satisfy some irregular passion would be to destroy something of enduring and significant value for something ephemeral and of far less worth. I will certainly acknowledge that there can be exceptions, perhaps the sort of crazy examples that philosophers delight in.

To the credit of Trump’s wranglers, Trump seems to have been informed that destroying cultural property is a war crime and he has asserted that he likes to follow the law. While this is obviously not true, walking back the threat of war crimes is certainly a positive thing.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Trump & Kim

by 7 Comments

Trump made history by meeting with Kim (not the Kardashian, the other one) to discuss denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The reaction to this event has been mixed. As would be expected, people tend to respond along their party affiliations and pundits have tended to stick with their usual lane.

One interesting counterfactual question is to ask how people would respond if Obama had been the one to meet with Kim during his presidency. Presumably, people would divide up by their party affiliations and pundits would stay in their usual lanes. For example, Fox New would probably have run harsh criticisms about Obama being a buddy to a tyrant and being weak. There would presumably also have implied that Obama was a secret communist.

Speculation about the reaction to a hypothetical meeting between Obama and Kim can be grounded by considering the response to a nuclear deal actually conducted by the Obama administration, namely the Iran deal. Trump harshly criticized the deal as did many of the pundits and politicians on the right. While a deal more favorable to the United States is imaginable, more objective observers tended to agree that it was a decent deal and was generally positive in its consequences. It is also important to note that Iran, as far as all the evidence showed, was sticking to the deal. As such, Trump broke a deal in which the other party was sticking to the terms. While this is the way of Trump, it certainly undermined the credibility of the United States and violated a basic principle of agreements, namely that they should be followed unless there is adequate justification to break them.

Trump and his supporters did allege that the deal was a bad one but tended to be short on evidence-based details regarding exactly why the United States should break this agreement. Breaking the deal was, of course, consistent with Trump’s generally approach of undoing what Obama did. It was also consistent with his vision of himself as the master deal maker. This leads to the obvious question of whether Trump’s deal is better than Obama’s deal. If Trump secured a better deal, then it would be reasonable to consider Trump’s claims that he is a skilled deal maker and that he needed to break the old Iran deal—presumably because he can get a better deal.

Embed from Getty Images

While it is better that Trump and Kim are talking and not engaged in war, the deal Trump has worked out seems to be worse than the Iran deal. This point is, obviously enough, a contentious one: Trump’s supporters will assert that Trump got the better deal; his most devoted detractors will simply insist on the opposite. However, it is possible to compare the deals point by point to see were they differ and Trump supporters need to argue why the attacks on the Iran deal would not also apply to the North Korea deal and show it to be as bad (or as good). As with all matters political, it could be contended that whether the deal is better or worse does not matter, what matters is the perception of the base and how it impacts upcoming elections in the United States. However, the possibility of a nuclear conflict should make this a matter of greater concern that transcends the scoring of short-term political points. Sadly, the Iran deal shows that this is not the case. A possible reply is to point out that perhaps the meeting will result in North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons.

The obvious concern here, one that is always raised when a country is asked to give up a nuclear weapon program, is that the country is well-aware that its nuclear program is the reason it is being offered a deal. I will look at this matter using two different analogies.

One way to look at it is analogous to a person who has something of great value, like money. Other people want to make deals to get that money (or just take it). However, if the money runs out, then there is no longer any reason to make deals. Or stick to past deals. Unless, of course, that person was able to get more money in the future.

The same would seem to apply to a nuclear program—if North Korea gives up its weapons, then there would no longer be any reason to make nuclear deals with them—or keep past deals. Unless, of course, North Korea was able to get more nuclear weapons in the future. Given the past references to basing the North Korea deal on the Libya model (in which Kaddafi ended up being sodomize with a bayonet and then killed), perhaps this is Trump’s plan—to play Kim until he can bayonet him.

Another way to look at the matter is analogous to a person who has a drug or alcohol addiction—they have something bad that makes them terrible. In this case, the point of a “deal” is to get them to be rid of the drugs. In this case, the person making the deal has an incentive to keep dealing to keep the addict from going back to the drugs. The addict thus has an incentive to stay clean, assuming the deal is better than the drugs. This deal might, for example, involve being able to stay in a relationship or keep a job.

In the case of North Korea, perhaps Kim wants something that he is willing to give up his weapons for, such as membership in the international community. That is, he is like the addict who wants to go and stay clean to get into a relationship that requires him to be clear.

As a closing point, it is worth noting that Kim might simply be playing Trump and the United States and that he has no intention of yielding anything of value. Other than stroking Trump’s ego, of course.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Syria & Team America

by 14 Comments

Syria
Syria (Photo credit: ewixx)

As I write this, the United States and our allies are contemplating military action against Syria. While the Syrian government has been busy killing its people for quite some time, it is now claimed that it has crossed the red line by using chemical weapons. Thus, there is apparently a need for a military response.

The United Kingdom, which has often been the Tonto to America’s Lone Ranger, has expressed reluctance to leap into battle. Even the American congress, which rushed to authorize our attack on Iraq, has expressed opposition to Obama taking executive military action. As others have said, memories of the “slam dunk” that led up to the Iraq war are playing a significant role in these responses. Interestingly, the leadership United Kingdom seems mainly concerned with how quickly the attacks will begin as opposed to being concerned about attacking Syria. In the United States congress’s main worry seems to be that the President will rush ahead on his own and deny them what they see as their right to get us into war.

Despite the fact that the people of the United States and the United Kingdom seem opposed to attacking Syria, it seems likely that there will be an attack soon. One obvious reason is that Obama played the red line game (which, on the face of it, said to Syria that they could keep killing as long as they did not use weapons of mass destruction). If he fails to make good on his red line talk, the United States will lose credibility. From a moral standpoint, it could be claimed that the United States and the West have already lost some moral credibility by their ineffectual condemnation of the slaughter in Syria.

Assuming that we will be attacking Syria, there is the obvious question of what we should be endeavoring to accomplish and what plan we have for what will follow the attack. Iraq and Afghanistan stand as examples of what happens when we go to war without properly considering the matter and setting clear, attainable and worthwhile objectives.

One approach is a limited, punitive strike. That is, to attack Syrian targets in order to punish the government for its alleged use of chemical weapons. In this case, the obvious questions are whether or not the Syria government actually used chemical weapons and whether or not such a punishment strike would achieve its goal(s). The goal might be simple punishment: they use chemical weapons, then we blow some things up to pay them back for their misdeed. Or the goal might be deterrence via punishment: they use chemical weapons, we blow some things up. And we will keep doing it until they stop.

Morally, the Syrian government has certainly earned punishment and it would be a good thing to deter them from engaging in more killing—or to even deter them from killing with chemical weapons. However, there is the question of whether or not our attacks will be just punishment or adequate deterrence.  If the goal is deterrence, then there is the question of how long we will engage in deterrence attack and what sort of escalation we should engage in should the initial attack fail to deter.

Another approach is to strike in support of the opposition. That is, to attack Syrian targets with the primary goal of improving the opposition’s relative position. This could, of course, also be a punishment attack as well. In this case, the questions would be whether or not such intervention would be effective and whether or not the results would be desirable for the United States.

One obvious concern about the conflict in Syria is that it is not an oppressive government against plucky, freedom-loving rebels. If that was the case, then the matter would be rather easier.  Rather, it is a battle between an oppressive government and a bewildering array of opposition groups (including an Al Qaeda franchise). There are also outside forces involved, such as Iran, Russia and China.

Because of the fragmentary and problematic nature of the opposition, it is important to consider the consequences of attacking in support of the opposition (or, more accurately, the oppositions). While the Syrian government is a morally bad government and an enemy of America, it has imposed order on the state and is, obviously enough, not the worst option. If, for example, the Syrian government were to topple and the area fell into almost complete chaos, that would be worse than the current situation. Even worse for the United States and most other people would be a takeover of the state by radical forces and extremists.

It is also rather important to take into account the possible and likely reactions of the other powers that are involved in the conflict. Iran, China and Russia have a significant stake in the matter and they might actually react to an American attack. Russia, for example, is sending warships to the area. While Russia or Iran most likely would not engage American forces in the region to defend Syria, this is not an impossibility. For example, the conflict could escalate from an accident.

Unfortunately, I do not have a great deal of confidence in any of the leaders involved in this matter. After all, there are rather different skill sets involved in being a politician who wins office and being able to make effective policy and military decisions. That is, playing the political game is rather different than war. That said, I do hope that wise decisions are made. But, no matter what, many more people are going to be killed—it is mainly a question of how many and with what weapons.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Enhanced by Zemanta

Iran's Fashion Police

by Leave a Comment

President of Iran @ Columbia University.
Apparently ties are also banned.

It is often the little things that reveal the big things. Iran is currently cranking out laws that are intended (supposedly) to fight Western and un-Islamic influences. These laws, at first glance, seem like little things. In fact, these laws seem like parodies of law. However, they are quite serious and reveal some significant truths about Iran.

The current laws include rules against men wearing necklaces and women wearing scarves that are too loose, overcoats that are too tight, and pants that are too short. These rules are, of course, reminiscent of the dress codes of some strict schools and, as such, the laws treat the citizens of Iran as if they were bad children.

There is even a law planned to ban dog ownership dogs apparently present a dire cultural threat to Iran. As the Iranian leadership seems to see it, Iranians want dogs not because humans like dogs and have partnered with dogs almost since humans have been around. Rather, they want dogs so they can imitate Westerners. While this might be true in some cases, I am reasonably confident in my claim that dog ownership is not an exclusively Western thing and that it dates back long before the rise of the West. I am also fairly confident in claiming that people often own dogs simply because they like them. Then again, maybe I am saying this merely because I am part of the Western Dog Conspiracy to spread western canine (preferably husky) dominance throughout the world.

Oddly enough, there are no laws aimed at ridding Iran of Western inventions such as the automobile, the airplane, computers, vaccines, phones, television, machine guns, or nuclear weapons. This seems to be a serious oversight. After all, if Western necklaces are a grave threat to Iran, one can only imagine the dangers posed by all that Western technology.

As far as the big things behind these little things, these laws give the regime an excuse to send over 70,000 “moral police” into action. This enables the regime to launch a campaign of intimidation under the guise of defending the citizens from Western influences. This strongly suggests that the rulers of Iran are rather worried that their hold is weakening and that they believe they need to crack down on the people, so as to prolong their time in power.

History shows that the boot can keep some people in line all the time. It can keep all of the people in line some of the time. But it cannot keep all the people in line all the time. At some point, the people grow weary of that boot pushing their faces into the ground and they rise up against their “leaders.” It is, I suspect, merely a matter of time before Iran has another revolution. It will probably be bloody and awful-tyrants do not yield their thrones lightly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It’s not only about clamping down on clothing, but they are spreading panic and fear by sending out this much of police into the streets under the name of this plan, to control the society. It’s unbelievable to see a regime that is not only concerned about its own survival, but it goes into your personal life and interferes in that,” one resident told the paper.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Post Bin Laden World

by Leave a Comment

osama bin laden t-shirt (1)
Image by Paul Keller via Flickr

Now that Bin Laden is dead it is natural to wonder what impact this will have on the world.

The pundits have, of course, speculated on what effect this will have on Obama’s chances in 2012. Obviously, this will have some positive influence on his chances. Equally obviously, the election is still a long way off and much can happen between now and then. At the very least, memory of this event will fade away (although it will be brought up again in 2012) and its influence on the American psyche will diminish with each passing day. As such, the obvious conclusion is that this will help Obama a bit, but will not be a major factor in 2012.

It is, of course, interesting to do a bit of counter-factual history. While killing Bin Laden won’t be a huge plus for Obama, if the mission had failed, then it could very well have been a major loss for him. While a failed mission would not have been as bad as the failure of Carter’s mission to rescue the hostages in Iran, it would certainly have made America look bad and would have given Bin Laden a nice piece of propaganda. Obama probably could have recovered from such a disaster, but it would have been a significant problem.

Another point of concern is what impact this death will have on terror. On the face of it, the impact would seem to be fairly minimal. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not particularly active or impressive in recent years. After all Al Qaeda’s most famous attack in recent years (at least in America) was the underwear bomber. While Bin Laden no doubt served to inspire others, his influence and the influence of Al Qaeda seemed to have already been waning. As such, while killing Bin Laden was clearly important, the impact seems to be primarily symbolic rather than one that will radically change the world.

To engage in some more counter-factual history, if Bin Laden had been killed shortly after 9/11, then that would have most likely had a major impact. It could even be argued that his timely death might have resulted in the United States not going to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Returning to the actual world, his death might serve to remove some of the justification for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. After all one of the reasons given for our presence in Afghanistan was to fight Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. Since Bin Laden is dead, there is no reason to keep looking for him. Since the remains of Al Qaeda seem to be in Pakistan, there seems to be little compelling reason to stay in Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda. Of course, we seem to be stuck in Afghanistan which is a fate that history should have warned us against. After all, we actually used Afghanistan to grind the Soviets and hence we should have known better.

A third impact is that his death has enabled people to jump  on the Bin Laden funeral wagon and make a buck. Some of this is honest buck making: people are already pushing books and movie deals are in the works. Cyber criminal have also been busy exploiting his death by trying to sucker people into exposing themselves to malware by promises of photos of the dead Bin Laden.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Freedom & the Middle East

by 9 Comments

President George W. Bush and Egyptian Presiden...
Image via Wikipedia

While the Middle East is a land of seemingly endless turmoil, it seems that a democratic sandstorm might be striking the region with a vengeance. This potential for democracy exists, sadly enough, largely despite and not because of the United States. In general, we have backed autocrats, kings and despots in the hope that out cash would buy us allies in our war on whatever. For the most part, these allies tend to enrich themselves and their fellows while ensuring that their countries are most certainly not democracies.

Looking back on our own revolution, it should have come as no surprise that people in the Middle East would grow weary of living under the rule of despots and would rise up against them. While Egypt is the main focus of the media, Iran is also a place of potential revolution. The leadership in Iran is doing its best to keep its people focused against the United States and Mubarek. The official line is that Iran supports the people of Egypt against Mubarek and they are urging the installation of an Islamic government comparable to that in Iran. Obviously enough, Iran is hoping that the situation in Egypt will end up in their favor-either gaining Egypt as an ally or, at the very least, seeing the United States and Israel lose Egypt as an ally.

I suspect that the Iranian leadership is also a bit worried. After all, revolution can be a contagious sort of thing and seeing the people of Egypt revolting against a despot might serve to inspire Iranians to rise up once more against their own despots.

This upheaval could prove to be a good for the people of the region as well as the United States. In terms of the people, the result could be the creation of democratic states. Or, at the least, states that are not as repressive and autocratic in character. This change could, over the course of several years, create more stability in the region and lower the threat of terror by addressing some of the motivating and enabling factors.

However, it is well worth considering the lesson of Iran. That revolution resulted in the creation of an oppressive regime that has been consistently hostile to the United States.  While the Brotherhood in Egypt seems to be relatively moderate, there is the real possibility that radical elements might take the reins of the upheaval. There is also the reasonable concern that those who come to power will resent the fact that America has been a major force in keeping Mubarek in power and not regard the United States as a friend. The possibility of a protracted struggle that plunges Egypt into chaos is also well worth worrying about.

Ideally, the outcome will be resolved by peaceful elections and result in the dawn of a new era for the people of Egypt. However, the history of the Middle East suggests otherwise.

Enhanced by Zemanta
%d bloggers like this: