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

[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. :-)