Ultima Ratio Regum (Rafe's First Law of Diplomacy)

[digitaldiscipline]

It was no accident that medieval rulers often inscribed Ultima Ratio Regum ("The last argument of Kings") on their cannon; violence should only be pursued when diplomacy fails.

That said, I have had a minor epiphany while cogitating upon this morning's terrorist attacks (regardless of perpetrator, unless a truly tinfoil-hat scenario, such as the US being behind them in order to disrupt G8 because it was going to proceed in ways the administration is distasteful of, that sort of thing).

Rafe's First Law of Diplomacy
The speed at which violence is deemed the best course of action is inversely proportional to the true power of those deciding to pursue that course.

Terrorists, of whatever stripe, seem to have a penchant for shooting first, if they bother to ask questions at all. Historically, governments have not gone to war unless their leader(s) are asshats, or they were goaded or provoked by asshattery on the part of some lesser power. The current administration in the United States, I think, illustrates the former portion of this, and I think that many of us can agree that, as a consequence, our standing as THE pre-eminent world power has suffered because of the excessive and profligate use of "lead diplomacy," to coin a phrase.

I am an advocate of lex talionis ("An eye for an eye") when it comes to matters where the other guy hit you first. You get to hit back, and -then- the matter of whether or not a second volley is warranted comes up for discussion.

I personally feel that turning the other cheek is simply giving your opponent a fresh target, and much prefer responding with a sharp knee to the groin. Is this the most rational and constructive response? That's open for debate.

I suspect that the majority of the dozens of people killed this morning had nothing whatsoever to do with whatever agenda is being pushed, or whatever grievance was being aired. As such, while state-sized vengeance is not necessarily the appropriate response, excising those people responsible for planning and executing these acts from the collective known as "humanity" in a very public, very complete fashion should at least give future asshats pause.

The downside to, metaphorically speaking, beating the living fuck out of the guy who raped your sister, is that anyone who thinks it's okay to do something like that once probably hangs out with people who think it's okay to do it more than once, and they'll say, "Dude, they kicked his ass, let's go get 'im!"

As I've said previously elsewhere, these attacks have nothing behind them but blind hatred, and the wish to do evil, no matter the internal justifications (be it religion, oppression, ad infinitum).

Trying to be The Good Guy is a no-win situation in this case - either you ignore the offense, in which case it happens again, or you strike back, in which case it happens again. I do not know if there's a way to prevent it from happening again, other than eradicating every person who thinks it's the best way to operate, or find some way to communicate with them (in a way that they will understand), that this is not the type of behavior civilized people engage in.

The flaw in that argument, of course, is when "they" have no interest in being (or being considered) civilized, and simply wish to do evil against those they hate.

If these were suicide attacks, I think that the parties who organized and financed them should get to enjoy a trinitrotoluene vest experience, albeit in the middle of a very large, very vacant parking lot.

Comments

[netgoth.livejournal.com]

Well said. As always.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

In hindsight, it's also something of an outing of myself, because it exposes the fact that I don't wield a great deal of clout, what with espousing the lead diplomacy solution to so many of the bureaucratic ills in this country. *rueful chuckle*

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

The problem being...in *our* case...when you've already done so much damage to your credibility :::coughcoughgotnobusinessinIraqcoughcough:::, making any kind of volley *now* would seem like just more of the same. Us being bullies on the worlds playground. Not to mention the fact that we are *so* strained to the gills with all of our armed power dealing with the "last throes of the insurgency" (which could last 12 years...so someone please explain why the words "last throes" are being used???), that we don't have it to defend Aunt Beas honor, let alone our own soil or allies.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I did try to touch on the fact that the current administration, or at least the policymakers therein, wear two-lobed haberdashery, in my none-too-humble opinion. Perhaps that was too subtly rendered?

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

Didn't we already have this discussion?

If you want a point to get across to me, tie it to a brick and toss it squarely between my eyes. :)

[etcet.livejournal.com]

. The current administration in the United States, I think, illustrates the former portion of this, and I think that many of us can agree that, as a consequence, our standing as THE pre-eminent world power has suffered because of the excessive and profligate use of "lead diplomacy," to coin a phrase.

That wasn't -that- subtle, lady.

[selkiesiren.livejournal.com]

Maybe not...unless you understand one very potent thing about me. My mind is old, worn out, and I will only retain the greater message in a statement...the longer the statement, the higher the number of individual points, the less likely I will be to retain the smaller points.

In a nutshell...

Selkie head---->sieve.

[bynner.livejournal.com]

You're using dual-option theory, which usually-to-always applies vast oversimplification to complex systems, artificially limiting one's choices to two, thus severely limiting the candidates from which to select the best. Hence, the answer to your question, Is this the most rational and constructive response? is... No. Not the most rational, because you ignore data in favor of convenience... a staple of the non-reality-based community. Not the most constructive because you ignore all the options except those at the poles.

Navigation and Stabilization (be it physical or philosophical) is best accomplished by small, corrective adjustments. You don't swing your thrusters (so-to-speak) 180-degrees at full power each time you need to do that. Or to use a metaphor based on Construction... nothing is built if your options are only "do nothing on this lot" or "instantly produce edifice." There are incrementals.

Complexity intimidates and confuses most people, but that's a function of inadequate information design and critical thinking training in the first place. There are any number of options besides "Hit back" and "Turn the other cheek."

My personal favorite (which I'll admit I have the luxury to use on account of my ability to endure damage is much greater than most people's ability to inflict it) is: If someone hits me, I command them to stop, and quietly raise my defensive posture. If they do it again, I will dodge or block and reiterate my command, adding: "No further warnings will be given." If they again attempt violence against me, I retaliate with overwhelming force.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

I intentionally left that open-ended, because I didn't have the answer when I wrote it any more than I do know.

And I like your tactics; unfortunately for the world, the nature of the attacker makes it obscure who the culprit is. Who stepped on your foot in a mosh pit [1] is much harder to discern than, "Hey, asshole, step on my foot again," when you're standing outside, having a smoke.



[1] I can see your semantic sense tingling from here, Bynner, and I -know- you go into the pit with a certain expectation of violence; this is not to compare the expected vs. experienced behaviors, it's to note the challenge in discerning a discrete act of aggression in a chaotic environment. ;-)

[victorine.livejournal.com]

I was thinking to myself earlier, if these terrorist cells put as much planning and effort into fixing shit in their own countries as they do on these attacks, imagine the consequences.

I dunno...

[smaugchow.livejournal.com]

Considering they come from the cradle of civilization, they have had longer than ANYBODY to get their act together. With this extended development timeline they have accomplished a little bit of "Jack" and a fair amount of "Shit" since Alexander the Gay keeled over to the Mesopotamian Measles.

Destruction is always easier than creation and I don't think these "highly motivated individuals" could put one brick on top of another unless they could do it to spite the West.

[smaugchow.livejournal.com]

I find the semtex enema more satisfying to observe. More 'splody.

There are answers to this problem, just not ones that America will support. If Dubya just came out and told us the truth...

"Howdy, America! George 'Kick-ass' Bush here. Let's clear the air on thi sissue - we can stop the terrorists forever without firing a shot or taking a life, but y'all won't like it. See, we'd have to get out of the Middle East all together. We'd have to pull all troops and even civilians from the whole sandy shit-hole, we'd have to cut off the Jews in Israel and let them fend for themselves, and we'd have to quit fuckin' around with all those obnoxious little toy governments. We would also have to apologize like crazy for half a century of being jerks - financing wars, topling governments, economic byullying, etc - and we all know America doesn't apologize, ya get me? Savvy? Are we clear? Right, so aside from eating crow we'd also have to - now pay attention here - we'd have to pay $10 a gallon for gas, and 5 times as much for plastic shit like toys for our fat little uneducated kids. Look around you and think about how much plastic - which comes from oil - is in your life. Let that sink in. Ready? OK, so now you see why we have to kill and die for oil, right?"

You know, these terrorits acvtually DO have a list of demands, in general. They want us out of the middle east, they want Israel gone (or at least a good neighbor, and we shouldn't be fucking with that) and they probably want some apologies/restitution for some of the bad shit we've done over there. If we take care of that we will lower the applicant pool to don the octol overcoat and meet Allah at supersonic speed. The administration simply refuses to change long-standing policies for fear of looking weak or "letting them win."

We will never get rid of ALL the fuckwits - the numebr 2 most deadly terrorist attack against America was done by an American (OK City.)

[roaster.livejournal.com]

I think much of what has been said/posted smacks of wanting to hit out and someone or something to get soem form of closure on events like this. Its very hard to deal with an occurance like this when there is no actual bad guy to claim vengence on. The ephemeral 'terrorist threat', who do we punish, how do we, for want of a better phrase 'get even'. That aside I think you posture in response is actually, as clear cut as the intentions of the perpurtrators, they want to kill us. I think a measured response to such a threat (albeit actually a minor one, more people in London today died of drinking and smoking related illnesses than were blown up, like they do every day) will not achieve the results that we as a society want quickly enough. We could solve the problems fairly quickly, but at what cost? A free society is by definition an open society, closed borders, identity cards for everyone police spot checks on ever street corner, road blocks and security cameras every where well you get the idea. I think a free society comes at a price, and once we manage to get our fuckwit politicians and military under control, that cost will not be as high as the one we pay now. As we say in the UK we need to 'flash the cash' a little bit, as a nation you in the US especially have the resources to win over anyone you wanted without having to fire a single shot. I mean the direct costs of the first Gulf war was around 100 billion dollars. Now instead of fighting a war this could have been done:
With that amount of money you could (in the US or UK):

build 145,000 kindergartens (there is currently a shortage of 200,000 places for kids in Germany)
::secure health care coverage for all 11 million uninsured children in the US for 5 years
finance preschool Head Start for over 14 million children in the US
rebuild almost all schools in the US that need to be rebuilt
pay student fees for 400,000 US students for 123 years;
there are as many students from low income families who cannot afford to go to college
provide affordable housing for 1,430,000 families in the US
pay 1,900,000 elementary teachers in the US for 1 year
pay 2,100,000 physicians or teachers for 1 year;
by the way, in poor countries of this world 20 to 50 times as many people !
pay 3,300,000 nurses, geriatric care or social workers for 1 year
create 3,500,000 job training places for 3 years (or job creation schemes)
send 280,000 peace workers for nonviolent conflict resolution
for 10 years into former Yugoslavia or Israel & Palestine
give 50 years of the charity money for humanitarian causes in Germany
pay the whole German budget for health research for 66 years
increase 180-fold the total amount of federal funds spent so far in Germany on solar technology
fund peace research in Germany for 23,000 years
Alternatively, at WORLD level you could:

provide all children on earth with enough food, a basic medical care,
primary education and clean water for 3 1/4 years !, according to UNICEF
pay the entire UN budget (including peace enforcement and specialist organizations) for 13 years
or cover the costs of all UN peace-keeping missions (in 1996) for 80 years;
by the way, the USA hasn't paid its full dues to the United Nations for several years now
finance the budget of UNICEF (United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund) for 80 years
or the budget of the WHO (World Health Organization) for 250 years
fund the work of OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) for 540 years, or
finance the work of Greenpeace International for 700 years

Now obviously this is a blithley simple way of putting it, and its just not as simple as spending money, but can you imagine how hard it would be to be a terrorist if the 'enemy' just did good in the world?

I rambled a bit there and I'm sure I didn't make a lucid point, but hopefully you get the idea.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

aye, mate. :-)

[jmoriarty.livejournal.com]

Of course, the first thing I thought of was that scene from Snow Crash:

Fisheye is up on his knees now and has torn away the canopy and space blanket that have covered him until this point. In one hand he is holding a long device a couple of inches in diameter, which is the source of the whirring noise. It is a circular bundle of parallel tubes about pencil-sized and a couple of feet long, like a miniaturized Gatling gun. It whirs around so quickly that the individual tubes are difficult to make out; when it is operating, it is in fact ghostly and transparent because of this rapid motion, a glittering, translucent cloud jutting out of Fisheye's arm. The device is attached to a wrist-thick bundle of black tubes and cables that snake down into the large suitcase, which lies open on the bottom of the raft. The suitcase has a built-in color monitor screen with graphics giving information about the status of this weapons system: how much ammo is left, the status of various subsystems. Hiro just gets a quick glimpse at it before all of the ammunition on board Bruce Lee's ship begins to explode.
"See, I told you they’d listen to Reason," Fisheye says, shutting down the whirling gun.
Now Hiro sees a nameplate tacked onto the control panel.

[etcet.livejournal.com]

*grins*