September 06, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Eugene Volokh's reply to Robert
Eugene Volokh's reply to Robert Wright invokes Game Theory using evolution's terminology:
Finally, I think that Wright, who has written a good deal about evolution, is missing a basic evolutionary analogy. He talks about how "the attitude of the world's Muslims toward America matters," and that this should influence what we do with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but why doesn't he ask about "the attitude of the world's Jews"? Why doesn't he worry that alienating some Jews, who might hate us for condemning what they see as their rightful attempts to settle Judea and Samaria, will lead them to commit terrorist acts against us?Well, it's because Jews these days don't do such things. Too bad for them, then; since we're not afraid of them, we don't have to worry as much about their views. More broadly, too bad under Wright's scheme for all those who are generally less violent; we won't much adjust our policies to take their desires into account. But good for those who are more violent.
So the brutes end up having a competitive advantage over the nice guys (or, to be precise, more of one than they had before). Either the nice guys will turn brutish, or the nice guys will be overrun by the brutes, and it is the brutes, not the nice guys, who will reproduce their brutal culture of terrorist threat. Evolution will help the fittest survive -- except in the policy structure that Wright recommends, the fittest (the ones whose interests we'll treat with the most concern) are the ones who are the most likely spawning grounds of terrorists.
Of course, critics would argue that Israel commits all kinds of terrorist violence (Exhibit A), and they have shown the willingness to use military force preemptively in the territories, Iraq (thank God they did) and Lebanon.
Terrorists understand, however, that Israel and all Western powers are reluctant to go to war, have little desire to conquer territories not currently under their control, and bend over backwards to avoid civilian deaths in retaliatory action. Which is why they endorse targeting Jewish and American civilians but scream bloody murder to the foreign press about accidental civilian deaths from operations against militants on their home turf.
What Volokh describes correctly is a threat power imbalance. Terrorists use our restraint and desire for self-preservation against us.
In the past when I pointed this out, readers assumed it was an argument for abandoning restraint, as if I implied that doing so was optimal. There is no ideal solution. It is simply a paradox that appeasement begets more violence.
UPDATE: Incidentally, it strikes me that a non-violent policy by Palestinians would be optimally effective in the singular goal offorcing an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, while an unconstrained willingness to use retaliatory force might work for Western powers in the singular goal of reducing terrorism against us. Interesting.
Of course, if they'd run a Gandhian campaign they would have won decades ago. But how long would they have to forego bombing bar mitzvahs and seders before that kind of approach would have credibility now?- Instapundit Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at September 6, 2002 06:31 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Wright's main problem is that he thinks kindness - rather than violence - is the answer to violence. The only thing that stopped Pakistanis from streaming over the border into Afghanistan was the display of US military might. It *wasn't* the concessions we made to Musharaff on textiles. Power talks in that part of the world.
That's not to say that there should be *no* carrot. But they need to see the stick.
Posted by: godlesscapitalist on September 8, 2002 05:56 PMVolokh would have a point except the world's Muslims happen to outnumber the world's Jews (over a third of which live in the U.S. anyway) by about 90 to 1. So the Muslims, despite the validity of their grievances or the manner in which they are conveyed to others, will always be of greater concern.
Posted by: robcla on September 9, 2002 05:03 AMMr. Dreck, you write, "Terrorists understand, however, that Israel and all Western powers are reluctant to go to war, have little desire to conquer territories not currently under their control, and bend over backwards to avoid civilian deaths in retaliatory action."
I would contend that terrorist believe the second part about avoiding civilian deaths, but do not believe the first part, about having little desire to conquer territories.
Many non-Americans believe that our actions in Afghanistan and our impending action in Iraq is indeed motivated by territorial conquest.
I disagree with regards to Afghanistan. I have my doubts with regards to Iraq.
Posted by: Jim on September 11, 2002 07:40 PMWhile I'm at it, many Arabs do not believe that Israel bends over backwards to avoid civilian deaths.
This is not to say they think Israel tries to *maximize* civilian deaths ... but rather that Israel tolerates a certain amount of death among Palestinian civilians. It is indifferent, to a point.
Posted by: Jim on September 11, 2002 07:43 PMJim - if we wanted the territory nobody could stop us. The fact that we haven't taken it, and haven't allowed Israel to essentially wipe out Palestine, which they are completely capable of doing, supports the point.
Refraining from naked territorialism doesn't make one a saint, but the fact remains that these countries have refrained from doing these things that are well within their power.
Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" on September 11, 2002 09:45 PMMr. H,
I've heard the argument before, and it has convincing elements (here comes the inevitable), but...
With regards to Israel in particular, my opening position is that the argument doesn't hold.
What I believe is that Israel's government may feel constrained with regards to its actions viz. the occupied territories. It may feel that it cannot get away with annexation in one fell swoop, but that a process of slow expropriation over a period of decades will work.
This "gradually boiling the frog" theory is pretty convincing to me.
Consider that the recent violence since Sept. 2000 is the worst it has been in a non-wartime situation. In the past, much less aggressive action by Israel was met with strong international condemnation. Today, Sharon has succeeded in expanding the category of allowable actions. Helped no doubt by increased Palestinian attacks against Israelis.
But my point is that Israel may perceive -- and there may be -- limits to what the international community, including the U.S., will allow it to do. And the only way to achieve the goal of territorial gain is gradually.
In this case, we are not seeing restraint on Israel's part. Terrorists and others may justifiably perceive Israel as seeking to acquire territory.
By justifiably I mean that, in the absence of certain knowledge one way or the other, a reasonable person could find evidence to support that conclusion. Doesn't mean the conclusion is right, just that it has enough support to be believable, and that the counter-arguments aren't so strong as to automatically demolish it.
With regards to the U.S. I'd say that the goal of the Clinton administration was not territorial acquisition. It may be the goal of elements within the Bush administration.
Well, territorial acquisition is actually a bit simplistic. Say "geopolitical gain unrelated to defensive/security concerns." There are lots of clear arguments for having a friendly government in Iraq. Puppet or ally, such a government could be useful to us.
Going to war to obtain benefits is not the same as going to war to avoid costs. Whether we are actually doing one or the other is not what concerns me here. I'm interested in whether others in the world might justifiably perceive us as engaging in an imperialist project.
Could a reasonable outsider see things this way, even if that answer is false? Is it so cut and dried that all will see our motives as defensive? I don't think so.
Even Americans debate our government's motives. Non-Americans would be even less likely to grant us the benefit of the doubbt, even if we are indeed acting for purely defensive reasons.
Posted by: Jim on October 10, 2002 03:13 PMComments are Closed.