Idealism v Realpolitik (long post)
Reading the debates over the past year here about the repercussions of 9/11 and subsequent actions, even an idiot would notice that European posters and US posters sit - generally speaking - in two different camps. Fair enough, we come from very different cultures in a lot of ways and recent history has taught us different lessons. It's a fascinating discussions to watch, at any rate.
One thing that strikes me though, is how people on each side freely mix their ideals in with the realities driving events, and how often we seem to attack one another when we mistake the latter for the former. US posters generally feel that they are fully justified in their military actions (Afghanistan, Iraq?) from a moral viewpoint, and that it is only common sense to take protective measures like these - and if they also bring more stability/control to a key economic region, so much the better. European posters are generally morally warier of military responses, seeking diplomatic solutions and very specific definitions of who the enemy is, and what is justifiable in pursuing/eliminating them; at the same time, they know, often from recent historical experience, that real effort has to go into building relationships with other peoples (including recent foes) as an essential requirement to normalising and civilising relations.
My point, insofar as there is one, is that maybe it would take some of the heat out of discussions on these subjects if people were more distinct in making clear whether a point they are making arises from a moral or realpolitical opinion. Some of the more aggressive discussions here seem to arise from confusion on this point.
So, I'd like to use this thread to know where people stand on the whole War on Terror issue, but I want people to separate out what they think should happen morally, and what they think is likely/makes sense from a realpolitik point of view. This isn't a discussion on right or wrong in this issue, merely statements of opinion. I think it could be interesting.
Given that I've started this, I'd better kick off:
Moral Standpoint:
I don't like war. I think it's stupid, wasteful and often causes as many problems as it solves. However, in some cases it is the only solution, and this may well be one of them. Terrorism in any form is reprehensible, be it carried out by a small group of insurgents or by the military machine of a state. It is generally the last resort of an ideological minority attempting to impose its desires on the majority, which is wrong in any circumstances. No effort should be spared in making this form of "political expression" morally unacceptable - and I apply this to all forms of terrorism. I have no problem in applying ruthless military force to such movements, though it should be a scalpel and not a bludgeon. It should be made clear to terrorists that their behaviour will see them regarded as hostile military threats, and that they will be treated accordingly.
I also don't like the big Western powers wrapping agendas in the language of extremism and moral righteousness - that kind of talk makes me nervous.
Realpolitik Standpoint:
War is messy and generally never accomplishes exactly what you wanted it to if you win. It's impossible to be precise and clean when military options are used. The human element makes things to unpredictable. However, when you are dealing with people whose world-view is fundamentally different from yours, and you have no other real leverage over them, force is a legitimate tool.
Your economic interests are also paramount, particularly in the modern global economy where any threat to economic wellbeing can have dramatic long-term consequences, and you owe it to your citizens to maintain and improve their prosperity in relation to the rest of the world. If that means taking action to remove potential generators of instability, that makes sense.
However, the flip-side of the coin is that the global economy means that ultimately there's no sense in making implacable enemies if you can help it, because the more people are in the game the better it is for all of us, and if we all have an economic stake in the status quo we'll work that much harder to protect it from the destablising influences that arise from time to time. Look at Japan after WWII as a perfect example of how to do it right, and Germany after WWI as a perfect example of how not to. If this requires that you have to compromise in your beliefs, even if you feel you have been grievously wronged from a moral point of view, perhaps you can swallow that for the greater good.
An excellent recent example pertinent to the current situation would be the Peace Process in Ireland. In the past five years, almost every prisoner being held in UK and Irish prisons for terrorist offenses has been released - even people who were sentenced to 25 years in prison for murdering British civilians a few years previously. Morally, I don't like it - if you kill someone illegaly you should be punished. However, as a realist I know that releasing these people was an essential bargaining chip in allowing the terrorist movements to let go of the confrontational rhetoric, giving them room within their own communities to achieve some flexibility in their own responses. Could the same argument apply to Al Qaida and Taliban prioners held in Cuba? I don't know.
BTW, the people on this forum are generally the most civilised, articulate and informed that I've encountered on the 'net. We rock
Reply With Quote
