An Objectivist Retrospective

[Dennis Hardin]

Barbara,

Thank you for taking the time to evaluate this controversy. You can see the full contrast between the two positions by reading two articles:

“The Justice of War,” by Patrick Stephens of TOC (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--353-...ustice_War.aspx) and “Just War Theory vs. American Self-defense” by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...pring/index.asp).

In his article, Stephens defends “Just War” principles which mandate that we not only minimize civilian casualties but the enemy’s military casualties as well. Here is what I regard as a clearly altruistic comment from Stephens’ article:

“…ecause terrorists use hostages and hide themselves among civilians, discrimination of innocents from combatants will be exceedingly difficult—both for ground troops and for air support. It is reasonable to expect that the war will result in innocent civilian casualties, but we should be careful to remember that those deaths, as tragic and horrible as they are, are the responsibility of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not the United States.

“America has been conducting the war with a great deal of integrity—heroic efforts are being made to minimize innocent casualties…”

In advocating such “discrimination,” Stephens effectively means that we cannot use weapons that will kill Osama bin laden if they will also kill the people who are protecting him. That explains why he is still at large and continuing to plot the deaths of thousands of Americans. It is the reason that our present war effort is so miserably inept, and it is going to get us all killed. Those so-called “heroic efforts,” in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, translate to American body bags. In my opinion, the sacrifice of a single American soldier in the name of such “Just War” principles is altruistic and an unspeakable obscenity.

Dennis

[Charles R. Anderson]

Barbara,

I thought that I was arguing for a rational effort to avoid civilian casualties and nothing more all along. I agree that we should try hard to avoid the loss of American lives. There will inevitably be cases in which civilians will suffer because we have to protect American lives. Nonetheless, Americans themselves will choose to take some risks to avoid the killing of too many women and children. It is our nature and that is not simply due to a misbegotten altruism. It is natural for those who have a high regard for the value of human life to wish not to kill other humans. Most of us are willing to distinguish among those who may be responsible for the aggressive acts to which we must respond and those who are playing no active role in the aggression. At the least, killing children is an awful business. The soldier who has done so and seen the result, pays a price for it. It may be an accident of war and it may have been necessary, but it is emotionally very unpleasant.

It is also frequently counterproductive to the very goals for which the war is being fought. A rational evaluation of how it affects those goals for a given war is required. Sometimes saving the life of an American soldier today comes at the expense of the lives of two soldiers tomorrow. Making the decisions on how a war should be fought is always a gruesome business. More and more in America, it is a thankless business.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Dennis,

I do not see that Stephen's quote reveals altruism. In fact, the following part of the quote suggests that his motivation is not altruistic.

It is reasonable to expect that the war will result in innocent civilian casualties, but we should be careful to remember that those deaths, as tragic and horrible as they are, are the responsibility of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not the United States.

Integrity is being consistent in attempting to achieve one's values and goals. If one of the goals of the war is to hold to a minimum innocent casualtites, then one has integrity when doing so.

There is no simple trade-off in war between the number of American casualties and the number of civilian casualties. Suppose we had taken the attitude that no American would be put at risk so that 25 Iraqi schoolchildren might be saved. Would the Kurds and the Shia be as cooperative now? Would we have as many Sunnis providing intelligence against the Sunni insurgents as we have now? If we were willing to appear as bloodthirsty invaders and cared not the least for the children, you can be sure the war would be going much worse than it is now. There would be no hope for Iraq becoming a responsible country in the near future.

[Dennis Hardin]

Charles,

The one sentence you quoted is irrelevant to the issue of altruism vs. self-interest. The altruistic implication is to be found in the suggestion that we must only use tactics which “discriminate’ between combatants and noncombatants, even though those tactics put American soldiers at greater risk. Frankly, I do not care if Iraq ever becomes a “responsible” country—I care that they have no ability to harm us.

Of course any statements issued by TOC would avoid explicit altruism. Objectivists would immediately reject any such arguments. So their position is dressed up to look like rational self-interest, in much the same way that our political leaders defend the welfare state on the grounds that it will benefit everyone “in the long run” by reducing violence and crime. Approaching war as a public relations campaign is supposed to accomplish a similar result on a global scale by making savages believe we have “good (i.e., altruistic) intentions.” We are led to believe that this is the only way to stop them from blowing us up, because we lack the moral self-confidence to wage war in a way that will destroy their ability to blow us up.

The following quotations from the article by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein address the issues you raise:

Observe what it took for the United States and the Allies to defeat Germany and Japan and thus win World War II. Before the Germans and Japanese surrendered, the Allies had firebombed every major Japanese city and bombed most German cities—killing hundreds of thousands. Explaining the rationale for the German bombings, Churchill wrote, “. . . the severe, the ruthless bombing of Germany on an ever-increasing scale will not only cripple her war effort . . . but will create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population.” And as we well know, what ended the war—and the Nazi and Japanese Imperialist threat to this day—was America’s dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.

In both World War II and the Civil War, once massive defeats were handed to the enemy, the causes that drove the military threats were thoroughly defeated as political forces.

Given that a nation’s civilian population is a crucial, physically and spiritually indispensable part of its initiation of force—of its violation of the rights of a victim nation—it is a morally legitimate target of the retaliation of a victim nation. Any alleged imperative to spare noncombatants as such is unjust and deadly.

That said, if it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one’s rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent….

Doing whatever is necessary in war means doing whatever is necessary. Once the facts are rationally evaluated, if it is found that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities or flattening Fallujah to end the Iraqi insurgency will save American lives, then these actions are morally mandatory, and to refrain from taking them is morally evil.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Dennis,

Focusing on one part of the quote you gave:

That said, if it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one’s rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent….

WWII was a very desperate war, which for a very long while seemed very uncertain of outcome to many. We did not have precision bombing capabiities. The Norden bomb sight was pretty much the state of the art and it was nothing compared to our guided weaponry of today. The Germans were the ones with at least some guided weapon capability. We turned to whole city bombing largely in desperation and the effects according to military analysis after the war were not good. Attempts to target critical factories, to stop the rolling traffic, particularly the trains, and to hit tanks and troops when they moved with air power were much more effective.

I fully support the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. It saved many American lives. One can even argue for it simply on the basis that many fewer Japanese died because they were used.

Now, we have much more accurate weapons and we are fighting a disaffected bunch of thugs and some fanatical terrorists. We have the superior weapons by far. I would support using them somewhat more aggressively than we do, but apparently not nearly as aggressively as you would with respect to civilian casualties.

I do not believe that the best way to provide for the security of Americans and for our quality of life is to terrorize the rest of the world. The best path is to earn their respect as a proud, industrious, benevolent people. Despite the fact that much of the world loves to carp about us, we have done wonders to set the right atmosphere for a blossoming of world trade, the opening of much of the world to American ideas, the improved production of science, food, clothing, and many goods around the world that are improving the standard of living of many people in those countries where the political systems will allow it. The countries benefiting the most are those with systems somewhat similar to ours, with something of an exception to be made for China. Compared to earlier world history, the world has been safer since WWII thanks to our policies. I think they have generally been pretty effective, though I would have eliminated most of the foreign aid and the support of numerous dictators. I think most people around the world do have a high level of respect for the USA and that is substantially why we have had to fight relatively little. We have had a great deal of cooperation in the War on Terror.

Well, clearly you and I are not going to agree on how America should fight its wars. Of course, neither you nor I are making these decisions. Mostly, the American military is making them. So, lets put ourselves in their shoes a bit more. I will use the example of Vietnam. Suppose I enter a Vietnamese village during the day. We know the North Vietnamese were there the night before and forced the people to give them rice. My platoon commander tells me to shoot the women and children because they aided the enemy. I say no. He says he will shoot me if I do not shoot them. My response is to shoot my platoon leader before he shoots me. Guess what? I would be far from the only guy in Vietnam who would make that choice.

Are you then going to execute all of the soldiers who make the the same decision I did? To effectively carry out the policy you want, you will have to. The rubber meets the road. Theory has to operate on concretes and the particular. The American, whether a soldier or not, is a thinking, independent-minded, ornery man. He is also pretty wonderfully benevolent-minded. Some may be altruistic, some simply love and respect life. In the end, we have to have government policies that can deal with the nature of the American man. Few of us want to behave like the Huns.

[Dennis Hardin]

Charles,

There is simply no way to reconcile support of our use of massive bombing raids or the atomic bomb in WWII with TOC’s statement that "the military campaign should make every reasonable effort to avoid [civilian casualties]." To defend use of the atomic bomb on the basis that it spared Japanese civilian casualties is to display a total disregard for the meaning of words. As Churchill said, the goal of the German bombing campaign was “to create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population.” We did not engage in such tactics because we lacked more accurate weapons.

It is simply not true that we are fighting “a disaffected bunch of thugs and some fanatical terrorists.” The primary perpetrators may be relatively few, but the extent of their support throughout the nations of the Islamic world is enormous. Because irrational religious fervor is behind it, one could argue that support for the terrorists is more pervasive than was the nationalist support for Germany and Japan. It will not end because we convince such savages that the “crusaders” are warm-hearted and benevolent.

Another quote from the Brook-Epstein article:

What specific military actions would have been required post-9/11 to end state support of Islamic Totalitarianism is a question for specialists in military strategy, but even a cursory look at history can tell us one thing for sure: It would have required the willingness to take devastating military action against enemy regimes—to oust their leaders and prominent supporters, to make examples of certain regimes or cities in order to win the surrender of others, and to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations, who enable terrorist-supporting regimes to remain in power.

Here is the example you cite:

Suppose I enter a Vietnamese village during the day. We know the North Vietnamese were there the night before and forced the people to give them rice. My platoon commander tells me to shoot the women and children because they aided the enemy. I say no. He says he will shoot me if I do not shoot them. My response is to shoot my platoon leader before he shoots me.

To inflict suffering on complicit civilians through the bombing of infrastructure is obviously very different from deliberately massacring people (including children) who were “forced” to help the enemy. The platoon leader in the example you describe should obviously be court marshaled. If you have to shoot him in self-defense, you would be justified in doing so. The fact that you think this situation reflects anything relevant to the arguments I have been making proves the utter futility of this discussion.

Dennis

[Charles R. Anderson]

Dennis,

I do not think that massive attacks on cities in Muslim countries will have any beneficial effect on ending terrorist support. I am sure it will increase support for the religious fanatics who become terrorists. Clearly we have such different views of human nature and war that we will not likely resolve them in these discussions. In that I agree with you. I am sure we can both use our efforts to do something of greater value to each of us.

This very hard-edged view of Objectivism that you and Brook-Epstein hold proves to be a major impediment to the general acceptance of Objectivism by Americans. We are by nature a benevolent people and malevolent perspectives will not gain much traction among us. It turns out that this long aside from your original post has been very enlightening in answering a significant part of why Objectivism has not been accepted. Valuing family, friends, associates, and most human life, understanding the purpose of war, and the need for cooperation are critical to civilized living. A benevolent outlook, which Ayn Rand largely understood, is necessary to facilitate the many benefits that come from living in a society, rather than alone in a cave.

[Dennis Hardin]

Charles,

The “benevolent” (i.e., self-sacrificial) approach to war adopted by the Bush administration—an approach which (in the case of Iraq) has cost the lives of 2445 American soldiers and maimed thousands more—has earned Bush the highest disapproval rating of any American president since the end of Jimmy Carter’s term in 1981—and most of that is attributed to his handling of the Iraq war. Are you sure you want to argue that TOC’s tacit endorsement of such “benevolent” policies are the way to win the hearts and minds of the American people over to the Objectivist point-of-view?

No one has been more critical of ARI’s dogmatic policy of labeling dissenters as immoral than I have. In contrast, Kelley's Unrugged Individualism was an important contribution to the Objectivist canon. With respect to America's self-defense, however, TOC has promulgated a watered down perversion of the Objectivist ethics, and I consider that to be every bit as destructive as anything ARI has done. So you believe Ayn Rand would have supported your approach. Oh, really? Here are the words she used in addressing the graduating class of West Point in 1974:

There is a special reason why you, the future leaders of the United States Army, need to be philosophically armed today…Today’s mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy…A battle of this kind requires special weapons. It has to be fought with a full understanding of your cause, a full confidence in yourself, and the fullest certainty of the moral rightness of both. Only philosophy can provide you with these weapons….

In the crucial matter of equipping America’s leaders with the moral self-confidence required for genuine victory in this war, TOC has sadly dropped the ball.

[Dennis Hardin]

In case there are further doubts as to where Ayn Rand would have stood on the issue of “Just War Theory”:

…The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war? And once you can establish that it is a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights. (Ford Hall Forum 1972)

…Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life. (Ford Hall Forum 1976)

[Charles R. Anderson]

Dennis,

First to return to an older issue, I was delighted that you would not yourself advocate shooting the Vietnamese villagers. The case was set in a rather extreme way because your favorable citing of the Brook/Epstein article left me in doubt. Their own suggestion that nuclear weapons might be used in the Middle East certainly leaves me uncertain about whether they have any regard for the lives of women, children, and non-combatants at all in the Middle East and perhaps in the down-wind areas such as northern India.

I suppose you put benevolent in quotation marks because you do not quite, but maybe come close to, equating it with self-sacrificial. Of course, when we refer to a benevolent universe, we do not mean a self-sacrificial universe. Or maybe you put it in quotes because you think that I mean that we should adopt self-sacrificial methods to fight war. No, I do not. I advocate rational and effective methods to fight war, though I understand that you disagree with me on what is effective.

Americans are upset for many, often conflicting reasons, about the Iraq War. A change of policy that resulting in the killing of many more non-violent Iraqis is not likely to bring on higher approval ratings. Part of the disapproval is because the American people are badly misinformed by the media about how effective the war and occupation have been in terms of the likely long-range impact on the Middle East.

I whole-heartedly agree with all three of the quotes you gave by Ayn Rand. Of course we have a need for our soldiers to understand their cause, to have confidence in themselves, and to have certainty that they are right in their cause. Of course, we have every right to fight those who have used aggressive force against us. Of course we do not surrender our right of self-defense for fear of hurting someone else, guilty or innocent.

I have the right to divorce my wife. However, that is a right that I choose not to exercise. It would be stupid of me to do so. So, in the exercise of our right to defend ourselves, we may exercise our right in ways that in varying degrees kill innocent people. In war, innocents will be killed. The rational man still places a value on the lives of innocent people and given a reasonable alternative in how he operates a war he will chose to minimize the deaths of innocent people. He does this because he values life and he does this because it may serve best to achieve the purposes of the war. In this case, we want to eliminate the yellowjackets and wasps, but we would rather not turn the honeybees into yellowjackets and wasps. There are something like 1.5 billion Muslims. It is simply wiser not to convince all of them that they wish to become suicide bombers. There are enough of those now, though they number maybe a couple of tens of thousands. We also know that there are large numbers of Muslims cheering the terrorists on. In Iraq, many people who once cheered the terrorists are now fighting the terrorists. The fact that the terrorist clearly do not put a value even on Iraqi lives has had a lot to do with this. Many of them see that the Americans value Iraqi lives much more than the terrorists do.

I understand that you are furious that 2,450 American troops have died in Iraq. I am furious also. Somehow, you seem to be convinced that they died because the government has been too benevolent or too willing to suffer deaths in order not to kill innocent Iraqis. So, consistent with this belief, what exactly are the ways in which you would change the prosecution of the war? What fraction of the American lives lost would not have been lost had the government used your war-fighting methods? What would you have achieved and what would be the lasting consequences of fighting the war by Dennis Hardin methods?

[L W HALL]

…The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war? And once you can establish that it is a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights. (Ford Hall Forum 1972

I find this quote by Rand to be somewhat vaque in nature unless there is more to it when taken within the entire context of the speech..

When she speaks of a "given country" and the forfeiture of it's rights when initiating violence does she include every man, woman, and child in the equation, or is she referring to the government, the people running it and the military?

If she is grouping every person whether child or adult, whether responsible or not, and whether aggressor or not within the meaning then for me that has a ring of illogic to it especially coming from a woman whose families business was forcibly taken by a government she was not in agreement with.

Would we hold every person within a totalitarian regime such as N. Korea -which brooks no dissent from it's citizens- equally responsible and just as open to retaliation as we do the perpetrators within the regime?

L W

[Charles R. Anderson]

LW,

I do not remember the context of that talk well enough to answer your question about what Ayn Rand thought. My approach on these things is to figure out what I think as a rational man. What Ayn Rand thought is of secondary interest. Generally, she agrees with me when I look carefully into a given topic, but not always.

Please forgive me if I seem a bit irritated. Sometimes, ofttimes, I think we worry too much about what Ayn Rand thought and do too little independent thinking. We should try not to be imitation Ayn Rands, but rational people taking full advantage of our own minds and our own experiences.

It is strange that she tried so hard to design a philosophy to promote the use of the independent and creative mind, but gave rise to a sizeable cult of the Ayn Rand personality.

I see that you seem to have an independent assessment, but you also seemed a bit tentative. Go for it and use the mind in your head fully. That is what we are supposed to respect in other people, as we respected Ayn Rand for it.

[Dennis Hardin]

Charles,

I certainly agree that a quote from Ayn Rand is not a substitute for an argument. When I read Ayn Rand Answers, I often found myself disagreeing with her on specific issues. But your prior post suggested she might support TOC’s compassionate approach to war, and I think those quotes make clear she would not. She obviously believed that the sanctity of the individual’s life justified prosecuting war in a way that would wipe out the threat posed by the enemy with a minimum of risk to the soldiers of the country acting in self-defense. And that may well mean breaking the enemy’s will to fight by forcing them to suffer major civilian loss of life, as it did in WWII.

I am not a military strategist. In a general way, I would say that we should use the weapons at our disposal to make it impossible for the aggressor nation to continue their aggression. And I oppose using our foot soldiers as cannon fodder to minimize collateral damage or set up a “democracy” that will soon collapse into another Islamic sewage dump and breeding ground for terrorism. It is obvious to me that, given the proper ethical principle of rational self-interest, our military leaders could eliminate any threat Iraq might present with a fraction of the American casualties we have witnessed. Most of those 2445 deaths are directly attributable to the explicitly altruistic motives of the Bush administration. If self-defense entails bombing terrorist nations back into the Stone Age every time they raise their ugly, savage, maniacal heads, I have no problem with that. Of course I am sorry if that means women and children have to die. I am incalculably sorrier if one American soldier loses his life to protect them.

I put the word “benevolence” in quotation marks because, in my opinion, you are using it in a way that amounts to self-sacrifice. I consider genuine benevolence (which is a rational virtue) and self-sacrifice to be utterly incompatible. Benevolence is only possible between rational men who deal with each other by reason rather than violence. If we can safely afford to spare the truly innocent, as in the Vietnamese village you described, terrific. Of course we should not kill senselessly. But a general policy of kindness toward the civilians of an enemy nation which poses a threat to your survival is suicide, not benevolence—and anything but rational.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Dennis,

Ayn Rand's statements make it clear that we have the right to defend ourselves and that we should defend ourselves. They do not specify a policy on how we do that. She generally seemed to handle war a bit as she handled science. She was not too eager to get into the details. I do not know whether she would agree with TOC or not, but I actually find it hard to understand why any rational person would not agree with TOC. They speak of reasonable efforts to prevent the casualties of innocents. I thought we all agreed that Objectivists are supposed to be reasonable.

Clearly, you and I disagree on the extent of what effort is reasonable. You suggest that if it would save one American life we should bomb Iraq into the Stone Age. Or did you say that? If I were managing the war, I think we would have many fewer casualties than we have had, but we would still have many more than one. In fact, if you took the approach of bombing Iraq into submission, you would have many more than one. Flying is itself hazardous and it is more so under combat conditions. In addition, there are still a number of Stinger missiles available on the market and many people unfriendly to us who would be eager to see them get into the hands of the Sunni Iraqis. Without troops on the ground, they would have a field day shooting at US aircraft. Would casualties be lighter than those we have had? Probably. But what would you have accomplished?

Now, let us suppose that your policy of bombing Iraq into the Stone Age is followed. We kill tens of thousands of children and women. We totally write off getting any oil from Iraq and indeed none is available to anyone. World oil prices go up more. Muslims in other countries demand war on the US as their religious fanaticism increases. Many of their countries do not go to war, while some may. Tens of thousands of young Muslims decide to make it their life mission to act as suicide bombers. The US closes its borders to all Muslims. All Muslim nations refuse to sell oil to the US. Chavas, who hates us, joins them. Americans can no longer go abroad on business, since Muslims lie in wait for them everywhere. World trade plummets, much worse than anything the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did to start the Great Depression. I am sure that Bush and his advisors have given some thought to such things. Have you? How would you handle these itsy-bitsy little nuisances?

Maybe, in your theoretical world, you think you have some answers. But, please try to remember that most people do not share your theoretical premises and principles. How are you going to deal with that? Remember that the people who do not share your approach are both Americans and foreigners.

[L W HALL]

Charles,

Thanks for the answer and I have thick skin so any irritation which may have crept into your post is no problem on my end. I have long since learned that by their nature discussions of these types can have emotional overtones at times.

As I become more knowledgeable of AR and her writings I will have a better understanding of how they relate to my own beliefs and how much I am willing to accept as part of my personal philosophy.

L W

[Dennis Hardin]

Charles,

My, oh my. You do have a tendency to regurgitate my words in a rather unflattering way. In the interest of clarity and ”reasonableness,” I would like to ask that you make a fair effort to actually understand my arguments before you begin attacking them.

You suggest that if it would save one American life we should bomb Iraq into the Stone Age. Or did you say that?

Here is what I said:

If self-defense entails bombing terrorist nations back into the Stone Age every time they raise their ugly, savage, maniacal heads, I have no problem with that. Of course I am sorry if that means women and children have to die. I am incalculably sorrier if one American soldier loses his life to protect them.

Now let me break that down for you, my friend:

(a) The word “if” means that the suggested action should be taken when necessary for self-defense. I did not say that it was necessary for self-defense. To repeat, I am not a military strategist. I said that if it is deemed necessary, I would not have a problem with it.

(b) The next two sentences compare two alternative negative consequences of war in general—the deaths of women and children in an enemy nation, and the loss of a single American soldier’s life. I consider that the sacrifice of the American soldier for the women and children of the enemy nation is wrong. In fact, I think it is monstrous.

Please tell me how that translates to “bombing Iraq into the Stone Age if it would save one American life.” Do you really think that is a fair assessment?

You follow that with:

Now, let us suppose that your policy of bombing Iraq into the Stone Age is followed. We kill tens of thousands of children and women.

Once again, I said that this should be done if deemed appropriate by military strategists for self-defense. It is not “my policy” unless that precondition obtains. If it does, then I contend that we have the right to do it for self-defense. Would it necessarily kill tens of thousands of women and children? No. Destroying infrastructure would obviously entail some civilian deaths. I seriously doubt it would amount to “tens of thousands,” but if that is what is necessary for America to be safe, then so be it. We did not start this, but our security demands that we finish it.

We totally write off getting any oil from Iraq and indeed none is available to anyone.

It would be profoundly stupid for us to bomb oil wells. In fact, since those oil wells were stolen from us, I would recommend sparing them and giving them back to the Western oil companies who built them in the first place. This would have the opposite effect on oil prices that you predict.

Muslims in other countries demand war on the US as their religious fanaticism increases. Many of their countries do not go to war, while some may.

Sure they would. They would be eager to suffer Iraq’s fate, wouldn’t they? I’m sure none of them would react the way Muammar Khaddiffi and Libya reacted to our takeover of Iraq.

Tens of thousands of young Muslims decide to make it their life mission to act as suicide bombers. The US closes its borders to all Muslims…Americans can no longer go abroad on business, since Muslims lie in wait for them everywhere. World trade plummets

Thousands of young Muslims have already made it their life mission to act as suicide bombers, but they can only do so because of our ineptitude at destroying Al Quaida. Once their training camps are destroyed—along with Al Quaida’s leadership--the threat of suicide bombers would be largely nonexistent.

All Muslim nations refuse to sell oil to the US.

This indeed could happen. They would likely be giving it to us for free.

[Charles R. Anderson]

LW,

Thanks. Your approach seems balanced and wise.

[Barbara Branden]

Dennis, I started to say this in an email to you, but since I said on this thread that I wanted to comment on your article -- which I consider an important one and with which I largely agree -- I decided to explain here why I'm not yet ready to comment.

I began writing a response to "An Objectivist Perspective," but I soon realized -- apart from the fact that at the rate my response was going, it seemed likely to run to four volumes -- that I was not ready to do so in any manner satisfactory to me. There is a great deal I want to say about what is stopping Objectivism from achieving greater recognition -- some of it having to do with what I see as mistakes within Objectivism itself, mistakes in both content and tone, and some of it having to do with severe problems within the Objectivist movement -- and although the issues you raised have been increasingly on my mind for some years, there is also a great deal I still need to think long and hard about. I intend to write on these issues, and on my own relationship to Objectivism today, but I am not yet able to say when or where -- except that I'll keep all of you on Objectivist Living up to date on my plans.

In the meantime, Dennis, thank you for a thoughtful and thought-provoking article.

Barbara

[Charles R. Anderson]

Dennis,

Because you seem to want to be the critic but you do not actually want to offer any alternative, I am trying to draw you out as to what you really want done. Since you have opposed American deaths to try to minimize the deaths of Iraqi women and children, but will not tell us how many Americans died due to too much concern or how you propose to have American soldiers act differently and because of references to bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age, one naturally wonders if bombing is your solution to save American lives. In fact, you have referred to bombing quite a few times in this series of posts. If massive and intense bombing is not your solution, I am very puzzled about what might be.

If our self-defense requires bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age, then I also favor it. It seems, however, that you believe we disagree and I am trying to figure out what it is that you actually want in terms of policy, other than a wish. If wishes were horses, the streets would be full of ....

Now, I do not think that our interest is served by bombing Iraq into the Stone Age.

I thought maybe you intended to destroy whole cities if a few terrorists were holed up in them. Apparently, you now think that destroying the infrastructure will destroy the terrorists. This is an interesting and very puzzling thought.

On the oil wells we are getting somewhere. I was figuring they would stay in Iraqi hands, but turning them over to the oil companies might be interesting. How will they protect them? Will they call on the US Army and Marines or will they hire mercenary armies? Do the oil companies want them if they have to operate company armies?

You seem to suppose that I said that Muslim countries will go to war with us. You get to make conditional statements and ignore my question about whether you really were trying to say something with some logic behind it in the context of your positions, but I do not get to say "may". Come on now. There you go again! #-o This "may" is based on the idea that a country is at war with us if they fund and train terrorists, as Syria and Iran are now doing. Are you sure that a tougher policy in Iraq will cause them to stop doing that? Can you be so sure of religious fanatics like those in Iran?

Thousands of young Muslims have already made it their life mission to act as suicide bombers,

Tens of thousands are an order of magnitude greater than thousands. By the way, would you close our borders to all Muslims and what will you do about Americans going abroad?

So, should we demand ransom from the Muslim countries in the form of oil? Is that how you think we will get it free. Kind of an inversion of the Barbary Pirates! You are such an interesting guy, Dennis. I wonder why Dick Cheney never thought of that one.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

Your post reminded me of some perplexities I have regarding Objectivism, specifically why it has not taken off and why so many nasty people are attracted to it (in addition to good people, of course).

I think Rand herself touched on the root of the problem in her analysis of the metaphysical versus the man-made - or the whole deriving ought from is thing.

People throughout history have wanted to impose their own opinion of "what reality should be" on "what reality is." Many Objectivists do this and I observe that this is emotionally encouraged in Rand's writings by her constant negative outbursts. (Her cognitive part, however, is usually spot on and extremely valuable.) When their "ought reality" is contradicted by the "is reality," they become attacked at the core of their beliefs, so they seek a manner of dealing with this.

Rand taught them by example that harsh condemnation is the proper path. The problem with harsh condemnation is that it allows negative emotions to grow, become comfortable, and cloud objective identification and analysis. A person can literally brainwash himself into not seeing something correctly because he allows emotional blasts to blind him when he gets close to seeing.

This is a trap and I believe there are many innocent people who fall into it but don't see it. Others (especially the prominent bashers) are more interested in power and fame, so they use it knowingly. It certainly is a great tool for crowd manipulation.

I, for one, am interested in building on the cognitive part of Objectivism and leaving all that wallowing in contempt and hatred in the dust. I seek to look up and admire achievements and great thinking, not look down on others.

(Well... I do admit to liking lampoons at times...)

Michael

[Charles R. Anderson]

Michael,

I agree with your comments. Because Objectivists are focused upon their ideals in a way most people are not, they have a tendency to damn the good people who are less than perfect. They do this despite being surrounded by many people who are not nearly as good as those they condemn. In fact, it is as though they think it an affront that someone who can be rather good has not chosen to be perfect.

There is also a great resistance to dealing with events and situations which are the results of irrational actions in a constructive manner. Rather than identify a way to improve the situation by enlisting the support of those who are better than many, but not perfect, they simply stand back and condemn. If we want to improve our nation and advance civilization, we must learn to work with others in a constructive way. This earns their respect and with their respect will come a greater willingness to listen to our ideals and our reasons for them. Our example in leading others to make the world better for thinking, creative men and in securing more and more the rights of the individual, is critical to gaining the influence we wish Objectivism to have. We also have to demonstrate that we care about widely and deeply held values with respect to family life, friendships, and loyalty to good causes and friends.

In contrast, we too often appear disconnected from the real events of our society, uninterested in many of their values, including some good ones, and disinclined to give others any respect, even when they may be good people and productive. We damn the merely good along with the bad, rather than encouraging the good to be better. We refuse to compromise our ideals, which is good, but we confuse a compromise for combined action with others with a compromise of our ideals. We need to realize that we can hold our ideals securely in our minds and constantly strive to realize them in the real world, while we incrementally work with others to simply make the world a better place.

Fundamentally, the greatest problem of Objectivists is their unwillingness to be anything but critics. We have to create, lead by example, and be willing to work with those who do not agree with us entirely, but will join us in a project to make society better for the individual's use of his mind and to increase his freedom to make the choices to manage his own life.

[Dennis Hardin]

Barbara,

Once upon a time, there was this young man from Tennessee who was desperate to find the motivation to make something of his life. To say that he was bewildered by the world of the Bible Belt and the “god-fearing” people around him would have been a phenomenal understatement. He looked and looked for answers, but only found more and more confusing questions. Then one day a girlfriend suggested he read an interview with a Russian-born novelist in PLAYBOY. From that day forward, his life was transformed. He read ATLAS SHRUGGED and THE FOUNTAINHEAD and wondered: Could people such as this really exist? He read about the Nathaniel Branden Institute and took a bus trip with some friends to New York City. He had tickets to see the hottest show on Broadway—“HELLO DOLLY”—but instead decided to attend a lecture at NBI. (The friend who had ordered those tickets months in advance never forgave him.) It was the first of several trips to NBI. On a subsequent trip to New York City, he attended a lecture on “Romantic Love” at the Roosevelt Hotel. He sat in the audience--a few rows behind Ayn Rand and her husband—and when the lecture was over, he sat still as everyone else got up to leave. He was transfixed by the sight of you as you stepped onto the podium and talked with the lecturer—your husband, Nathaniel Branden. That was long before he learned of all the turmoil that had already started to brew within the Objectivist hierarchy. He was utterly captivated by the image of the two of you together and what that meant about the joyous possibilities life had to offer. As long as he lives, he will never forget how radiant you looked and how much he wanted to make that romantic vision a reality in his own life.

Well, as Paul Harvey would say, I am sure you know “the rest of the story.” That young man was me, of course. And I thought this little snapshot from my past might give you some hint of how much it means to me, now, all these years later, to read your words of appreciation for my article.

Dennis

[Dennis Hardin]

Charles,

Imagine you were Donald Rumsfeld and Bush told him, "Okay, Rummy, from now on we'll do it your way."

That's what I would do.

I feel that I have been as clear as I can be from a nonexpert's viewpoint, but I don't mind spelling out what I think might be the appropriate military strategy to follow here.

In essence, speaking only in very general terms, I would favor using technology (i.e., bombing) over ground forces in any situation where it was feasible to do so. Knocking out infrastructure means destroying their capability for striking back with anything other than bows and arrows and forcing the general population to focus on survival rather than supporting aggression. I would reduce any area identified as a terrorist stronghold to rubble. If we have clear evidence that an Al Quaida leader is hiding in a certain location, we erase it from the map. Without leaders or training camps, there would be no more suicide bombers.

Once a nation has been reduced to that level of subsistence, it is unlikely they will be able to inflict significant damage on the troops assigned to protecting oil wells. If the insurgency rises up, bombing should be used in whatever degree is required to silence it.

If we demonstrated the will to prosecute the war in this manner, the other Arab nations would capitulate with the utmost deference, and would give us their oil (at least temporarily) dirt cheap in the hopes of being spared a similar fate.

And those gutless, bleeding-heart reporters would never be able to wipe the grin off of Rummy's face.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Dennis,

OK, we probably will continue to have some degree of difference on when we would choose to wipe a city or town off the map, though who really knows, since we both would do so in some hypothetical case and we have not been able to establish where the boundary is. Maybe you just like talking tough, but you are no Hun. Who can tell? In other contexts you are quite sensitive and sentimental. The tough talk may just be to convince people not to mess with you, much as the refusal at the government level to rule out using nuclear weapons is mostly to create a healthy uncertainty in the mind of any country's leaders who are thinking about attacking us. I will leave this war discussion off now, since it has come as close to reaching a conclusion as I expect it will ever, unless the war enters a very new stage.

We do probably agree that the management of the war should be done by Sec. Rumsfeld, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the generals in theater. Actually, I expect that the interference from the President is probably quite minimal. Concerns about critics in Congress and the press are likely having a greater negative impact.

I would be reluctant to have soldiers going house to house myself. I prefer using missiles and guided ordnance whenever possible. Surrounding an area and simply waiting for terrorists to starve or surrender may work in some cases. I would favor cutting the hotspots off from the rest of the country and letting them stew in their own juices. There may be cases where much of the communications, electricity, and water infrastructure is to be found in the Sunni areas which are uncooperative, and these may have to be built up elsewhere. The Kurds and the Shia can pay for this with their oil. We should probably be concentrating on doing what we can to see that the oil will get to the market again and be likely to continue to do so.

[Barbara Branden]

Jody, Dennis, Paul, Michael, Kat, and many others here on Objectivist Living (and even on Solo, SoloPassion, and Rebirth of Reason) -- I am so moved, so warmed by the wonderful things you have said about me and about my biography of Rand, that for once I truly am at a loss for words. I am more grateful than I know how to say. Perhaps it will say it all if I tell you that it almost makes it worthwhile to have been the subject of thousands of denunciations.

Thank you, my friends.

Barbara