Quick Question on the Ethics of Peace

[DoomYoshi]

Meir Dagan said: that a strike on Iran (from Israel) "would lead to a regional war and solve the internal problems of the Islamic Republic,".

Basically, what he is saying is that the peace between Israel and Iran is dependent upon non-peace between different Islamic factions.

Is peace based on conflict actually peace? Is this political selfishness something that should be supported or dissuaded by the UN?

Arguably, I would say that if our goal is "World Peace", then an internal power struggle between Islamic tribes is just as damaging as a war between Israel and Iran. Ideally, for peace to occur in the region, Israel should be forced to go to war, so that the Islamists can organize.

[DoomYoshi]

Nouriel Roubini goes further and asserts that the entire world economy would be unstabilized by such a war:

Another one is a global perfect storm. This is more a downside scenario where the euro zone becomes disorderly and eventually you get more countries losing market access, more countries defaulting, more countries exiting the euro zone. You get the U.S. slowing down and then having a stall speed and a bubble bursting. You get a hard landing in China. You get a stall in growth in emerging markets. And you get a war in the Middle East between Israel and the U.S. on one side and Iran [on the other]. You know, it’s a bubbling of all crises. That will be the perfect storm. You know, that perfect storm is not my baseline scenario, but I would say that all five of those negative trends in a less extreme way are already underway. The euro zone is a slow-motion train wreck. The U.S. is slowing down. The Chinese landing looks harder rather than softer. Other nations are slowing down. And the tensions in the Middle East might build up again. So you have a very bumpy road ahead this year and next year for the global economy.

So, if there are any Middle Eastern Muslims on this forum...

How does it feel to know that the stability of the world economy depends on you shooting each other and living in extreme income inequality with no rights for your women?

[BigBallinStalin]

Not sure if I read the OP correctly, but basically, "the enemies of my enemies are my friends" is the gist of it, right?

Ideally, for peace to occur in the region, Israel should be forced to go to war, so that the Islamists can organize.

That would just lead to a bigger war--e.g. the Global War on Terror and how it has mobilized many organizations (secular and religious) to resist the US' conquering Iraq and Afghanistan. The US ambitious counterinsurgency campaigns throughout the ME and sub-Saharan African and its ever-expanding drone strikes also fuel the fires of resistance.


What Israel has been doing is worth noting: They simply bomb the nuclear facilities of other countries', e.g. Iraq and Syria. That way, those countries can't protect themselves while they begin funding insurgency/terrorist forces abroad. That's the expected benefit of Israel's interventions, but that outcome occurs regardless.

[DoomYoshi]

Not sure if I read the OP correctly, but basically, "the enemies of my enemies are my friends" is the gist of it, right?

Basically, the reason the Islamists can't enter a successful war with Israel is that they are too scattered and face "internal problems". So, our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos, with the income inequality and lack of women's/homosexual rights that come with that.

Yes, America would be dragged into such a war. Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other. This is the crux of my question. How can we morally support the current state of affairs without asserting "West trumps East, end of story".

If we cannot do that, then many of the recent talks on peace need to be re-analyzed in terms of this inherent contradiction.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not sure if I read the OP correctly, but basically, "the enemies of my enemies are my friends" is the gist of it, right?

Basically, the reason the Islamists can't enter a successful war with Israel is that they are too scattered and face "internal problems". So, our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos, with the income inequality and lack of women's/homosexual rights that come with that.

Yes, America would be dragged into such a war. Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other. This is the crux of my question. How can we morally support the current state of affairs without asserting "West trumps East, end of story".

If we cannot do that, then many of the recent talks on peace need to be re-analyzed in terms of this inherent contradiction.

Well, the problem with your position lies with the underlined assumption. Ask yourself:
(1) Is Hamas a failure? (I don't think so--considering its few resources and great gains)

(2) How much has Israeli investment in security hampered the goals of--not only the Islamic, but also the secular terrorist and insurgents?
(Significantly more so than internal strife among the violent, Islamic groups. That Iron Dome, those occasional excursions into neighboring countries, and Mossad are the heavylifters in curbing the effectiveness of anti-Israeli insurgencies/terrorists/freedom fighters/rebels.


Also, it's not the case that poor economic conditions in those areas results in Peace for the West. According to the several reviewed articles in What Makes a Terrorist, there is no correlation between economic conditions and the origin of a terrorist. I see no link between having economic conditions being worse in place A makes place B better. If anything, those poor conditions are the result of dictatorships/poorly managed governments, which could have arisen through foreign (US) intervention--but that's an added condition. Why Nations Fail argues that those outcomes are the result of their history of being colonized. My main point here is that "our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos" is not true.

Since it's false, then the questions you pose in the second paragraph don't need to be addressed--perhaps, rearranged, or maybe the casual connection between Western Peace and Poor economic conditions in Islamic places needs to be explained in greater detail.


("Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other?"
(Most Americans aren't in any wars, but the US government certainly has been in many wars/counterinsurgencies in many places for the past 30 years--especially in areas which the Islamists inhabit. This intervention seems to be causing the strife... but this runs into the problem of counterfactuals.

[2dimes]

Israel bette be carfull, Iran has that new stealth fighter jet man.

[DoomYoshi]

Why Nations Fail is one of the worst books ever written. This conversation is over.

EDIT: sorry, I confused Why Nations Fail for Collapse, which actually is the worst book ever written.

In any case, it's not my assumption. It's based on a statement by Meir Dagan. So, you are saying that you disagree with Dagan? If you disagree with Dagan, that means that Israel should invade Iran.

[DoomYoshi]

Well, the problem with your position lies with the underlined assumption. Ask yourself:
(1) Is Hamas a failure? (I don't think so--considering its few resources and great gains)

(2) How much has Israeli investment in security hampered the goals of--not only the Islamic, but also the secular terrorist and insurgents?
(Significantly more so than internal strife among the violent, Islamic groups. That Iron Dome, those occasional excursions into neighboring countries, and Mossad are the heavylifters in curbing the effectiveness of anti-Israeli insurgencies/terrorists/freedom fighters/rebels.


Also, it's not the case that poor economic conditions in those areas results in Peace for the West. According to the several reviewed articles in What Makes a Terrorist, there is no correlation between economic conditions and the origin of a terrorist. I see no link between having economic conditions being worse in place A makes place B better. If anything, those poor conditions are the result of dictatorships/poorly managed governments, which could have arisen through foreign (US) intervention--but that's an added condition. Why Nations Fail argues that those outcomes are the result of their history of being colonized. My main point here is that "our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos" is not true.


("Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other?"
(Most Americans aren't in any wars, but the US government certainly has been in many wars/counterinsurgencies in many places for the past 30 years--especially in areas which the Islamists inhabit. This intervention seems to be causing the strife... but this runs into the problem of counterfactuals.

I'm not sure what the point of this. I didn't make any claims about terrorists.

[warmonger1981]

What is the technical meaning of terrorist that the US government goes by? Does anyone know. The reason I ask is cause terrorism is thrown around so much.

[DoomYoshi]

What is the technical meaning of terrorist that the US government goes by? Does anyone know. The reason I ask is cause terrorism is thrown around so much.

Well their definition of "enemy combatant" includes everyone on the planet, including American citizens. I'm not sure what definition they use.

[thegreekdog]

Not sure if I read the OP correctly, but basically, "the enemies of my enemies are my friends" is the gist of it, right?

Basically, the reason the Islamists can't enter a successful war with Israel is that they are too scattered and face "internal problems". So, our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos, with the income inequality and lack of women's/homosexual rights that come with that.

Yes, America would be dragged into such a war. Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other. This is the crux of my question. How can we morally support the current state of affairs without asserting "West trumps East, end of story".

If we cannot do that, then many of the recent talks on peace need to be re-analyzed in terms of this inherent contradiction.

I'm trying to catch up here. What you (or the other dude) is saying is that if the Muslim countries (for lack of a better term) could put aside their own differences, they would be able to successfully invade Israel (which would pull the United States into a more dangerous war).

I guess my response to that (without knowing more) is that we're already in some pretty costly wars with Muslim countries (for lack of a better term) and have been for going on 20 years now.

[DoomYoshi]

Right. But we aren't in any costly wars with nuclear powers.

[thegreekdog]

Right. But we aren't in any costly wars with nuclear powers.

I wouldn't call Iran a nuclear power though. But yeah, I get what you're saying. I need to think about it some more.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why Nations Fail is one of the worst books ever written. This conversation is over.

EDIT: sorry, I confused Why Nations Fail for Collapse, which actually is the worst book ever written.

Yeah, I was gonna say, google acemoglu and email that to his face.

In any case, it's not my assumption. It's based on a statement by Meir Dagan. So, you are saying that you disagree with Dagan? If you disagree with Dagan, that means that Israel should invade Iran.

The following is what you said, and it's what I disagree with:
1. the reason the Islamists can't enter a successful war with Israel is that they are too scattered and face "internal problems"
2. So, our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos,

and,
3. Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other.
('Americans', i.e. the US government, has been in several wars and conflicts with many "Islamists" for the past 10-15 years.)


But that's different from Meir's position:
Meir: a strike on Iran (from Israel) "would lead to a regional war and solve the internal problems of the Islamic Republic,".

It depends on what assumptions he's rolling with. I agree with Meir that striking Iran may likely exacerbate the situation because the civilian casualties would be high (try bombing nuclear facilities that are buried under cities), and/or it may involve some prolonged hostage situation (e.g. if Israel sends in commandos), or maybe "striking Iran" involves moving in the armed forces. The last assumption would most likely lead to a regional war. Iran has tried air strikes with great success and little repercussions in the past, so there's that to consider.

The other part is most likely to occur. A war against foreigners can be effective in mobilizing the population (e.g. Iranian Revolution 1979 and then its subsequent war with Iraq). But again, it depends on what he means by "striking Iran."

As for your position, I'm not seeing much of a similarity with Meir's.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, the problem with your position lies with the underlined assumption. Ask yourself:
(1) Is Hamas a failure? (I don't think so--considering its few resources and great gains)

(2) How much has Israeli investment in security hampered the goals of--not only the Islamic, but also the secular terrorist and insurgents?
(Significantly more so than internal strife among the violent, Islamic groups. That Iron Dome, those occasional excursions into neighboring countries, and Mossad are the heavylifters in curbing the effectiveness of anti-Israeli insurgencies/terrorists/freedom fighters/rebels.


Also, it's not the case that poor economic conditions in those areas results in Peace for the West. According to the several reviewed articles in What Makes a Terrorist, there is no correlation between economic conditions and the origin of a terrorist. I see no link between having economic conditions being worse in place A makes place B better. If anything, those poor conditions are the result of dictatorships/poorly managed governments, which could have arisen through foreign (US) intervention--but that's an added condition. Why Nations Fail argues that those outcomes are the result of their history of being colonized. My main point here is that "our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos" is not true.


("Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other?"
(Most Americans aren't in any wars, but the US government certainly has been in many wars/counterinsurgencies in many places for the past 30 years--especially in areas which the Islamists inhabit. This intervention seems to be causing the strife... but this runs into the problem of counterfactuals.

I'm not sure what the point of this. I didn't make any claims about terrorists.

Just explaining why the following is all wrong:

1. the reason the Islamists can't enter a successful war with Israel is that they are too scattered and face "internal problems"
2. So, our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos,

and,
3. Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other.

[BigBallinStalin]

What is the technical meaning of terrorist that the US government goes by? Does anyone know. The reason I ask is cause terrorism is thrown around so much.

Terrorism is a tactic within the insurgent's arsenal. Terrorism is also used by governments and even the US, but people like to arbitrarily distinguish between these two kinds of terrorism. Essentially, terrorism is the killing of innocents by a political organization seeking to attain some goal (e.g. political change, usually). The FBI's definition is used more loosely. For the FBI, if you commit a crime and damage some property for a political goal (e.g. being a militant environmentalist), then the FBI calls that "ecoterrorism." It's BS, but that's how it goes. Every drone strike that involves the deaths of "innocents" is also a terrorist attack.

With terrorism, there's a murky distinction between "innocent civilian" and "combatant."

[BigBallinStalin]

Right. But we aren't in any costly wars with nuclear powers.

We are, but they've been cold--and not as scary as the Cold War. It depends on how you wish to define "war."

[DoomYoshi]

Why Nations Fail is one of the worst books ever written. This conversation is over.

EDIT: sorry, I confused Why Nations Fail for Collapse, which actually is the worst book ever written.

Yeah, I was gonna say, google acemoglu and email that to his face.

In any case, it's not my assumption. It's based on a statement by Meir Dagan. So, you are saying that you disagree with Dagan? If you disagree with Dagan, that means that Israel should invade Iran.

The following is what you said, and it's what I disagree with:
1. the reason the Islamists can't enter a successful war with Israel is that they are too scattered and face "internal problems"
2. So, our freedom and peace comes at a cost of Islamists living in chaos,

and,
3. Why do Americans have a right to stay out of war when the cost of that staying out is that the Islamists are at war with each other.
('Americans', i.e. the US government, has been in several wars and conflicts with many "Islamists" for the past 10-15 years.)


But that's different from Meir's position:
Meir: a strike on Iran (from Israel) "would lead to a regional war and solve the internal problems of the Islamic Republic,".

It depends on what assumptions he's rolling with. I agree with Meir that striking Iran may likely exacerbate the situation because the civilian casualties would be high (try bombing nuclear facilities that are buried under cities), and/or it may involve some prolonged hostage situation (e.g. if Israel sends in commandos), or maybe "striking Iran" involves moving in the armed forces. The last assumption would most likely lead to a regional war. Iran has tried air strikes with great success and little repercussions in the past, so there's that to consider.

The other part is most likely to occur. A war against foreigners can be effective in mobilizing the population (e.g. Iranian Revolution 1979 and then its subsequent war with Iraq). But again, it depends on what he means by "striking Iran."

As for your position, I'm not seeing much of a similarity with Meir's.

Ok, I understand the problem. I interpret the quote as saying

(3)if: strike on Iran
then:regional war and: solve internal problems
with regional war and solved internal problems being an unwanted outcome

I also assumed that the two were inexorably linked. (1)If: regional war then:solve internal problems but also (2)if:solve internal problems then: regional war.

So, BBS, you are saying that statement (3) is correct but not statements (1) or (2)?

You have also claimed that (1) is correct by the blue highlight. So what evidence is there that (2) is not correct? Or are you just saying that (2) is not correct because there is no evidence for it, meaning it doesn't matter if there is evidence against it?

[BigBallinStalin]

Oi yoi yoi!

All Meir is saying is this, "if Israel attacks Iran, the attack could (a) spark a regional (Middle East) war, and (b) consolidate the power of Iranian Islamic Republic/Theocratic Whatever Asshole Government."

The benefits and costs of a regional war are different for individuals, and so are the BnC's of "solving internal problems" for different individuals (i.e. consolidating the Iranian government's power over its own people), so A and B, and your #1 and #2 aren't linked in the sense, which you seem to think. The regional war introduces more 'players' to the scene; whereas, the "solving internal problems" strengthens the Iranian government--domestically. They're generally separate events--but it depends...

So, BBS, you are saying that statement (3) is correct but not statements (1) or (2)?

You have also claimed that (1) is correct by the blue highlight. So what evidence is there that (2) is not correct? Or are you just saying that (2) is not correct because there is no evidence for it, meaning it doesn't matter if there is evidence against it?

Basically, "(1) If: regional war then:solve internal problems" is not the primary sequence of causes here because if Israel strikes Iran, there may be a chance that Iran will kick in the nationalist furor, thus consolidating power. No regional war is necessary here.

Now, "(2)if:solve internal problems then: regional war" is the lesser likely event because Israel has struck against nearby nations, and no regional war has broken out. However, if Iran can consolidate its domestic power sufficiently, then it can divert more resources to foreign interventionist policies (e.g. funding Hezbollah and others). Meir didn't explicitly state this, but I'm sure he would agree. That could be one avenue of "regional" war.

Another avenue is where the Arab nations rise up because they've had enough of Israel's shite (e.g. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which in my opinion presumes too much). I'm not sure what Meir thinks about this possibility.


Evidence...
This is just guesswork based on my small knowledge of history. If you were paying me, I'd write a more detailed, convincing report. However, all analysts are constrained by the inadequacy of theory in this realm of social behavior, and there's that annoying problem of The Slippery Slope, where we can imagine scenarios where things get worse--but we have no way of proving its soundness. That's just how it is in foreign policy. You stick with a certain theoretical framework and roll with it (e.g. Realism, International Liberalism, and Idealism/that one about ideas--hearts and minds, soft power, that stuff).

If I had access to classified information, then (1) I wouldn't be willing to share it with you, but (2) I could provide more evidence for my take on the situation. Governments are simply unwilling to share such information with the public. At times, the outcome is the "Noble Lie" or plain, outright lies, or no lies at all--just incompetence, or perhaps the right thing was done. The public, the hoi polloi, will never know--until the freedom of information act kicks in, but that's still a maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

Meir Dagan said: that a strike on Iran (from Israel) "would lead to a regional war and solve the internal problems of the Islamic Republic,".

Basically, what he is saying is that the peace between Israel and Iran is dependent upon non-peace between different Islamic factions.

Is peace based on conflict actually peace? Is this political selfishness something that should be supported or dissuaded by the UN?

Arguably, I would say that if our goal is "World Peace", then an internal power struggle between Islamic tribes is just as damaging as a war between Israel and Iran. Ideally, for peace to occur in the region, Israel should be forced to go to war, so that the Islamists can organize.

We have to reach a place of tolerance, but that is anathema to the extremists, by definition.

Extremism is really about power. It really doesn't matter if the fight is over ideas or land or soem person's individual vision. Its ultimately one person or a group of people wanting to control others.. its about power.

Getting around extremism means convincing most people that they have more to gain from not following, not fighting. Than requires information, access to the things people need and want.

[DoomYoshi]

Another avenue is where the Arab nations rise up because they've had enough of Israel's shite (e.g. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which in my opinion presumes too much). I'm not sure what Meir thinks about this possibility.

This is the possibility I want you to consider. If the Islamists could finally work together in a concentrated attack on Israel, then there would be a regional war which would drag in the United States.

My claim is that no such regional war can happen because the various Islamist government are too busy infighting (e.g.Rebels as in Syria/Egypt) or they are too standoffish with each other. If this claim is correct, then the peace of America is guaranteed by this infighting, no?

[PLAYER57832]

Another avenue is where the Arab nations rise up because they've had enough of Israel's shite (e.g. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which in my opinion presumes too much). I'm not sure what Meir thinks about this possibility.

This is the possibility I want you to consider. If the Islamists could finally work together in a concentrated attack on Israel, then there would be a regional war which would drag in the United States.

My claim is that no such regional war can happen because the various Islamist government are too busy infighting (e.g.Rebels as in Syria/Egypt) or they are too standoffish with each other. If this claim is correct, then the peace of America is guaranteed by this infighting, no?

No. All it takes to unite the Islamists is to have an external enemy. It has worked before.

[DoomYoshi]

So Israel/America/France/wherever aren't external enemies? I don't understand

[BigBallinStalin]

Another avenue is where the Arab nations rise up because they've had enough of Israel's shite (e.g. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which in my opinion presumes too much). I'm not sure what Meir thinks about this possibility.

This is the possibility I want you to consider. If the Islamists could finally work together in a concentrated attack on Israel, then there would be a regional war which would drag in the United States.

My claim is that no such regional war can happen because the various Islamist government are too busy infighting (e.g.Rebels as in Syria/Egypt) or they are too standoffish with each other. If this claim is correct, then the peace of America is guaranteed by this infighting, no?

Well... it's not just Islamist governments. It's pretty much any Middle Eastern (ME) government, so we have to consider more than the Islamic ones--however defined. Each ME government plays according to US-mandated rules, and each one is rewarded for doing so. In other word, what is the price at which these countries (and their various groups of people) are willing to pay in order to become involved in a regional war? And through what means?
Depending on that answer, you could (somehow) determine the likelihood of these various countries joining a certain side. I don't see how "the Islamists" would all unify... that position needs to be explained.

Keep in mind. In the past the Arabs had a more or less unified war against a common enemy (the Crusades), but we forget that their governments/principalities have been at war with each other as often enough as the infighting of Western/Central Europe states around that time as well.

That being said, re: underlined. With foreign policy, "never" is too strong a word, but a regional war which (somehow) unifies enough Middle Easterners against a common enemy (Israel? The US? NATO?) is almost ...

...because the various Islamist government are too busy infighting (e.g.Rebels as in Syria/Egypt) or they are too standoffish with each other. If this claim is correct, then the peace of America is guaranteed by this infighting, no?

Let's narrow "the Islamists" to "all those international fighters who operate under various organizations which may or may not use terrorism, and their general goal is to promote fundamentalist Islamic values through violent means."

The path to a unified war is already being taken and is beyond regional--it's international. Fortunately, that path is not being taken by many--even in the Middle East. Note the resistance to such a path. It's not just the US/NATO and foreign powers instigating this 'infighting'. It's also normal citizens engaging in civil disobedience changing their governments (Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco). You might be hyping up the 'infighting' in the ME too much, thus overlooking some details, so the "Eastern Infighting, Peace in the West" conclusion seems incorrect.

[DoomYoshi]

You might be hyping up the 'infighting' in the ME too much, thus overlooking some details, so the "Eastern Infighting, Peace in the West" conclusion seems incorrect.

This is the most likely problem, and the biggest one I worried about. Let's add Russia to the list though, since they are supporting the Syrian government.