Ayn Rand on supporting other countries war efforts

[SherryTX]

Tonight I had the opportunity to listen to Ayn Rand's "Apollo and Dionysus" Ford Hall Forum lecture at CRC in Dallas (thanks again Donovan for putting these on!)

Anyway, during the Q&A part, Ayn Rand was talking about how she believed that the US government should work more at fighting fascism and communism at home, and talked about how we had no business being in the Viet Nam war - but that if we are supporting other countries that it was moral to provide military equipment, but not to sacrifice US human lives for that effort.

I often wondered about this - because I know she has been called an isolationist, but wasn't really sure what she actually meant by it. This makes perfect sense to me, but I am wondering what other people's thoughts on this are? Should we be sending US military troops to other countries, or should we only be sending equipment, and perhaps advisors?

Thanks!

[sbeaulieu]

I agree to an extent. In so much as the threat to our homeland is a valid one, it will require our forces on foreign soil (hopefully). If an engagement is between other countries, then equipment, collaboration of minds, provisions, etc, should be offered to our allies.

Difference between Vietnam and present day is the asymmetrical battlefield. There are still some conventional conflicts which fall into the framework of Ayn's words. But terrorists and their tactics have added a new chapter in the evolution of warfare.

~ Shane

[SherryTX]

I agree to an extent. In so much as the threat to our homeland is a valid one, it will require our forces on foreign soil (hopefully). If an engagement is between other countries, then equipment, collaboration of minds, provisions, etc, should be offered to our allies.

Difference between Vietnam and present day is the asymmetrical battlefield. There are still some conventional conflicts which fall into the framework of Ayn's words. But terrorists and their tactics have added a new chapter in the evolution of warfare.

~ Shane

Shane, thanks. The aspect of terrorism is a good point, I wasn't thinking about that tonight. I have felt it was just to go into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden, but I am not sure that going into Iraq (despite the fact Sadam was a truly evil man) was the right thing. I just cannot understand how it really served protecting our country or interests.

[Brant Gaede]

I agree to an extent. In so much as the threat to our homeland is a valid one, it will require our forces on foreign soil (hopefully). If an engagement is between other countries, then equipment, collaboration of minds, provisions, etc, should be offered to our allies.

Difference between Vietnam and present day is the asymmetrical battlefield. There are still some conventional conflicts which fall into the framework of Ayn's words. But terrorists and their tactics have added a new chapter in the evolution of warfare.

~ Shane

Shane, thanks. The aspect of terrorism is a good point, I wasn't thinking about that tonight. I have felt it was just to go into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden, but I am not sure that going into Iraq (despite the fact Sadam was a truly evil man) was the right thing. I just cannot understand how it really served protecting our country or interests.

The United States in Afghanistan or Iraq is like Hannibal in Italy. The ultimate result of such activity may be the same. So far it has helped give us an idiot, destructive President and Democratic Congress. The dawn of fascism in American, foreseen by Ayn Rand over 65 years ago. President Bushes, the real legacy of Ronald Reagan: "Compassionate Conservatism" and all. What happened to that crap?

--Brant

Edited April 11, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Brant as much as I understand the connection you are trying to make, it is not that clear if it exists at all.

We can all see conspiracies and cabals and sometimes they exist. However, what I foresee and what I have seen is that we are in engaged and have been throughout our history (US) had a constant tug between expanding the scope of American power along economic, social and moral paths and pulling in and being protected in Fortress America.

Problem is that it does not work.

I explained to my friends in 2001 that by going into Afghanistan and Iraq, we are effectively surrounding the key enemy which is Iran. Additionally, Pakistan is a critical piece of the global power reach that China. India, Russia and Iran are playing for.

I have always believed that Iran was the principle target.

Sherry. have you ever played RISK - it is a great game for kids and parents as well as an excellent teaching tool.

Structurally, when you look a RISK board the game will almost always be resolved through the middle east. Yes, God if she is there, doth have a sense of humor.

sbeaulieu: Yes today's symmetrical "battlefield" for lack of a better world. is much harder to "shape". It is always about choosing a place and shaping the battlefield to your advantage.

Anyone who is interested in a great military writer - pick up anything by - John Keegan - The Mask of Command and The Face of Battle. Brilliant writer and he was a Senior Lecturer at the Royal Military Academy at Sandburg.

Sherry, these are excellent books on leadership and history and would give you a sense of how difficult it truly is to shape policy.

Adam

[SherryTX]

Brant as much as I understand the connection you are trying to make, it is not that clear if it exists at all.

We can all see conspiracies and cabals and sometimes they exist. However, what I foresee and what I have seen is that we are in engaged and have been throughout our history (US) had a constant tug between expanding the scope of American power along economic, social and moral paths and pulling in and being protected in Fortress America.

Problem is that it does not work.

I explained to my friends in 2001 that by going into Afghanistan and Iraq, we are effectively surrounding the key enemy which is Iran. Additionally, Pakistan is a critical piece of the global power reach that China. India, Russia and Iran are playing for.

I have always believed that Iran was the principle target.

Sherry. have you ever played RISK - it is a great game for kids and parents as well as an excellent teaching tool.

Structurally, when you look a RISK board the game will almost always be resolved through the middle east. Yes, God if she is there, doth have a sense of humor.

sbeaulieu: Yes today's symmetrical "battlefield" for lack of a better world. is much harder to "shape". It is always about choosing a place and shaping the battlefield to your advantage.

Anyone who is interested in a great military writer - pick up anything by - John Keegan - The Mask of Command and The Face of Battle. Brilliant writer and he was a Senior Lecturer at the Royal Military Academy at Sandburg.

Sherry, these are excellent books on leadership and history and would give you a sense of how difficult it truly is to shape policy.

Adam

RISK? Yes, years ago...we have discussed getting it for the kids but haven't yet. Though my husband does play Carcassonne - not exactly the same, but a strategy game set in the middle ages I believe.

Thanks for the book suggestions.

[syrakusos]

RISK? Yes, years ago...we have discussed getting it for the kids but haven't yet. Though my husband does play Carcassonne - not exactly the same, but a strategy game set in the middle ages I believe.

Strategy games are what they are, from checkers on up. Risk is a classic game. No air forces. However, what is compelling in an amusing sort of way is the imaginary world of Risk -- imagined in the 1960s -- looks a lot like the world today with all those independent republics in central Asia.

As for Iran and all that, you have to give up the idea that the USA is an independent actor. Watch those videos of Presidents Obama and Bush with the King of Saudi Arabia, the one bowing, the other holding his hand. It is he -- not we -- who feels threatened by Iran and Iraq and who knows who else. The USA is just the hired guns of the Saudis.

You cannot separate the moral from the practical. In terms of the symmetrical warfare of the previous age that Rand knew -- World Wars 1-2 ... 2.7 -- Sun Tzu's wisdom cautioned against being the guy with the long supply chains and inflation at home. Back in 1965, at a YAF Convention, we debated the VietNam war and one of the hawks warned that if we did fight the Reds in Vietnam, we'd be fighting them in San Francisco and someone shouted out "Bring 'em over! I know the streets of San Francisco!!"

I know that when it comes to warfare, the testosterone is yelling "Blitzkrieg!" but, I assure you that the bookkeeping proves that victory comes via "Sitzkrieg." Wait 'em out. People will suffer hell for the glory of their leaders, but no one likes to be pointlessly inconvenienced. Make 'em wait. Do nothing. Stall. Shrug. Cough politely. To imagine that a "powerful enemy" will endanger a capitalist society is to grant efficacy to muscle-mystics. Grant them nothing. They want war. They need war. So, why go to war?

[Selene]

Michael:

LOL. My two cousins and I at 16 elevated the RISK game. Since I worked at the Animal Medical Center in NY City for the summer at York and 62nd, I brought home the plastic caps from the IV drips and the plastic needle covers which became nuclear missiles and "nuclear SDI defenses". We also took the metal counters from other games which were planes on a little pedestal which became the SAC bombers.

Then we added Navies, subs and amphibian assault counters and of course paratroopers. We blended several Avalon Hill games into RISK. Particularly Tactics II.

You made me laugh because we thought the same way you did, we just added to the game.

Adam