War, Morality, and Sending In the Drones

[donquixote99]

Most all English speakers know Clausewitz's famous dictim on war as "War is politics continued by other means." Sometimes the translation is rendered even more bland by making it "War is policy continued by other means." Nuance is hard to get right in translation. But I think both of the above can be made more to the point. I think what Clausewitz knew, but perhaps didn't quite say, is 'War is political rivalry continued by other means.'

So, I assert, war mostly is about political rivalry. And political rivalry is the struggle of political elites (overt and hidden) for money and power, to in fact protect and improve their ego satisfaction. To be fair, some people in this class get ego satisfaction from struggling for the 'common good,' but I fear that is a minority interest, often very small indeed.

Now, with that in mind, go read the Leonard Pitts column of April 5: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/o...e70160937.html

I generally like Pitts a lot, but this I feel is one of the great columns of all time.

[MrPots]

It is my contention that there is no more "morality", only smug self righteousness.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Most all English speakers know Clausewitz's famous dictim on war as "War is politics continued by other means." Sometimes the translation is rendered even more bland by making it "War is policy continued by other means." Nuance is hard to get right in translation. But I think both of the above can be made more to the point. I think what Clausewitz knew, but perhaps didn't quite say, is 'War is political rivalry continued by other means.'

So, I assert, war mostly is about political rivalry. And political rivalry is the struggle of political elites (overt and hidden) for money and power, to in fact protect and improve their ego satisfaction. To be fair, some people in this class get ego satisfaction from struggling for the 'common good,' but I fear that is a minority interest, often very small indeed.

Now, with that in mind, go read the Leonard Pitts column of April 5: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/o...e70160937.html

I generally like Pitts a lot, but this I feel is one of the great columns of all time.

Pitts is trying to focus on a dilemma facing warriors using drones.
Warriors just have to realize that war is terrible business and once in they have to be very tough decision makers.

One should not be involved if one cannot accept or live with collateral damage.

There are some jobs which require the meanest and the very cold; the faint of heart should stay away or they are likely to cause more damage.

Pitts' article is an academic rumination.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Pitts is trying to focus on a dilemma facing warriors using drones.
Warriors just have to realize that war is terrible business and once in they have to be very tough decision makers.

One should not be involved if one cannot accept or live with collateral damage.

There are some jobs which require the meanest and the very cold; the faint of heart should stay away or they are likely to cause more damage.

Pitts' article is an academic rumination.

'Academic' is a way of saying 'doesn't really apply.' I disagree, and also disagree with the implication that people who don't like war are inferior in the necessary toughness and so, again, may be disregarded. The "once in" clause in the argument avoids the real decision, the decision to get in. That should not be made by amoral 'tough guys' who don't mind killing.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Pitts is trying to focus on a dilemma facing warriors using drones.
Warriors just have to realize that war is terrible business and once in they have to be very tough decision makers.

One should not be involved if one cannot accept or live with collateral damage.

There are some jobs which require the meanest and the very cold; the faint of heart should stay away or they are likely to cause more damage.

Pitts' article is an academic rumination.

A system which favors a willingness to live with or accept collateral damage puts a premium on attracting to itself people who are willing and even eager to perpetrate acts of barbarism and savagery.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

A system which favors a willingness to live with or accept collateral damage puts a premium on attracting to itself people who are willing and even eager to perpetrate acts of barbarism and savagery.

There's never been a shortage of folks willing to commit collateral damage.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

There's never been a shortage of folks willing to commit collateral damage.

The point is that thinking like Dandelion's puts a premium on people like that. So do professional armies and drones. They are both attracted to and doomed desirable in system like that.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

'Academic' is a way of saying 'doesn't really apply.' I disagree, and also disagree with the implication that people who don't like war are inferior in the necessary toughness and so, again, may be disregarded. The "once in" clause in the argument avoids the real decision, the decision to get in. That should not be made by amoral 'tough guys' who don't mind killing.

Pitts is burdening us with his "What to do ?" argument. The answer to "What to do?" has to be left to tough people.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Pitts is burdening us with his "What do ?" argument. The answer to "What to ?" has to be left to tough people.

Yes, Psychopaths.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The point is that thinking like Dandelion's puts a premium on people like that. So do professional armies and drones. They are both attracted to and doomed desirable in system like that.

Whose this flower you're referencing?

FWIW your point is pointless. The gaming industry is training an unlimited supply of attack drone operators.