Friday, February 08, 2008

Berkeley vs. The USMC

Hmmm... looks like the People's Republic of Berkeley is taking on the Corp. Good thing this is just a war of words...

How the heck should we think about this?

My first reaction to such things is usually annoyance with the lefties. I don't know what it is, but even when I am generally sympathetic with their cause, these folks have a freakish ability to irritate me. So let me just get that little bit of psychology out on the table.

This reminds me, unsurprisingly, of the moves to chase the CIA off of campuses back in the day. I wasn't sure how to think about that, either.

Some relevant facts:

1. Yes, as Berkeley's (note: I am not making this up) Peace and Justice Commission notes, the U.S. has a history of launching "illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression." (Um, do we really need 'aggression' in there? Can anybody think of an illegal, immoral and unprovoked war that was not a war of aggression?). To deny this would be to betray a truly prodigious degree of historical ignorance.

2. Yes, the Iraq war is likely an immoral war, though the issue isn't entirely clear. At the very least, it seems to violate the last resort condition on just wars that, e.g., both Aquinas and Grotius agree on. It's not clearly illegal, however, given Saddam's violation of 1441. Though, as I understand it, 1441 did not authorize war without a further Security Council vote...so it may have been illegal, too. This is, of course, something I should know, or at least have the gumption to look up. But I don't.

Now, given 1 and 2, it seems clear that opposition to the Iraq invasion was at least permissible and probably obligatory. And this is not even to mention the overriding prudential reasons against invading. But, the pooch already having been screwed, these are not the questions that face us. The question that faces us is more like: now that we've replaced Saddam's mess with our own mess, what are our obligations?

We should be able to agree that we have a fairly strong obligation to fix a fair bit of the mess we made even though there was another, rather different kind of mess there to start with. Now, lefties of the Code Pink variety seem to think that violence is never justified, and this is, of course, as false as anything can be. But even if that's what they think, their actions might still be permissible on other grounds.

We can probably all agree that it is reasonable (though probably not maximally reasonable) to think that it would be best for us to leave right now. Now, if one can believe that without being epistemically irresponsible, the question then becomes: if one did believe that, would it be permissible to interfere with military recruiting efforts in order to achieve the goal?

I think it's clear that if we were engaged in a genuine war of aggression, then it would be permissible to so interfere. So it's at least sometimes permissible. But this war--mistaken though it may be--is not exactly a war of aggression. (So, um...I guess some illegal, immoral wars are not wars of aggression after all! Some are just mistakes. Interesting...)

So, one might think like so: it's sometimes permissible to interfere with recruiting in order to stop a war. This war ought to be stopped. So it's permissible to interfere with recruiting.

But this reasoning is at least not deductively valid (as you can tell by a quick inspection). It's not exactly abductively valid, either, as it stands. Anyway: just because it's permissible to do x in order to stop some wars doesn't mean that it's permissible to do x to stop any war that ought to be stopped. So the argument, as stated, fails.

(Sidebar: of course no one is suggesting that interference with recruiting should be illegal under the prevailing conditions. Everybody, including (and, to their great credit, perhaps especially) the USMC recognizes that it should be legal. We are asking whether it's morally right.)

Although one can reasonably think that we (and by 'we' I, of course, mean they) should get out right away, one can also reasonably think that we should stay, e.g. until there's some measure of political progress. So both positions are reasonable in this case. So we might ought to re-frame the question like so: when the government is pursuing a reasonable military policy, is it permissible to try to impede the policy by interfering with recruiting? If the policy were obviously in error, interference would be permissible. But when it is not obviously in error, I have some inclination to think that we ought to let the normal mechanisms (e.g. recruiting) function as they are supposed to. Though I don't know what principle--if any--is driving me there.

So having gotten this far, I think my tentative conclusion is: no, Berkeley should not be opposing the war in this way. Although I have sympathy with the conclusion that we need to start heading for the door in Iraq, I suppose I am inclined to think that action of this kind is only permissible when the military policy in question is fairly clearly wrong...and I don't think our current policy is clearly wrong.

(I suppose I'm also inclined to think that this sort of thing is as much a piece of street theater as it is a serious political statement. That, too, is annoying...but I could, of course, be wrong about it. Lefties seem to have a real weakness for street theater. Witness the various anti-globalization circuses. I've often thought that, if these folks were really interested in effecting change, they'd cut their hair, put down their puppets, and put on suits. Of course I don't have a suit...but then I'm not the one here trying to get people to take me seriously.)

Now, one might respond that any person who is convinced that the war is mistaken has a right--in fact, a duty--to try to stop people from signing up to engage in it. That's a reasonable point. So perhaps the real argument here is that the city of Berkeley should not be doing so. Or perhaps I'm just wrong.

More thought required.

10 Comments:

Blogger Jim Bales said...

WS presents a detailed analysis of the impotent folly of the resolution by the Berkeley City Council.

There is one element of the post, however, that I feel is mistaken.

[I]t seems clear that opposition to the Iraq invasion was at least permissible and probably obligatory. And this is not even to mention the overriding prudential reasons against invading. But, the pooch already having been screwed, these are not the questions that face us.

I grant that deciding what we are to do in Iraq is vital and timely. However, the need to make that decision does not diminish the importance of the question of the morality, legality, and wisdom of the invasion of Iraq.

In particular, given that a significant fraction of our citizens consider that:
* The invasion of Iraq was wise, legal, and moral, and that
* "[O]pposition to the Iraq invasion" is tantamount to treason,

the question of the wisdom, legality, and morality of invading Iraq is a question that we must face here and now, lest we commit another unwarranted invasion that will:
* Send thousands of our sons and daughters to their needless deaths,
* See the deaths of 100,000+ innocents in the next country we invade,
* Displace millions of innocents as refugees, and
* Destabilize another corner of the world.

These consequences are too grave to be dismissed with "the pooch already having been screwed".

7:14 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Fine piece of reasoning, WS, and I think it stands up fine even without some of the qualifiers. A philosophical modesty---fallibilism?---would allow that our moral judgment of any issue might be wrong.

I read your brief plugging in "abortion" wherever the Iraq War was. I do not think holding abortion is murder is an unreasonable view, but it's certainly not a self-evident truth. [Views on the Iraq War enjoy even less moral certainty.]

Can a case be made that blockading abortion clinics is defensible? Not legally---special laws were passed to forbid it! And I believe there's something called the Solomon amendment or something that applies to screwing with the military.

Morally defensible to blockade either or both, mebbe, perhaps even an imperative if one is bound by conscience, but it would be an act of civil disobedience, and one has to take her lumps for committing it.

To Mr. Bales' objection to another of your qualifiers, what is now a US peacekeeping presence in Iraq is fully endorsed by the UN. The pooch has been screwed, and is off the table except as a theoretical exercise.

Which is where I, for one, insist on leaving it these days, although please let me note I find your evaluation of it admirably fair-minded in that fallibilistic sort of way.

7:55 PM  
Blogger Random Michelle K said...

Not to be blunt, but I think the idiots in Berkley are jackasses.

Now that I got that out of the way...

If they really want to dissuade people from joining the Marines, there are far better ways to do so than offending the men and women who have served in the military.

As I said elsewhere, if they really wanted to make a point of dissuading people from joining the military, why not make a statement decrying the treatment of veterans and soldiers in the current military, making a point that the men and women who have served our country loyally are not receiving their due benefits.

That would do two things--give a concrete reason why someone might want to reconsider joining the military, and second, continue to shine a light on the embarrassing way our government treats those who have given their physical and mental health while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But just saying we don't want you here? That's simply offensive, solves nothing, and instead of leading a discussion about the morality of the war, causes the right to point and cackle about how "The Left" doesn't support the troops.

Sorry for sticking a rant into your logic, but I feel strongly about the way our soldiers are treated, and stupidity like that spouted in Berkley deeply offends me. If they can't couch their argument in a way that isn't offensive, then they shouldn't bother to try and make a point, because they're doing their argument more harm than good.

(/end rant)

11:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The people of Berkeley are right.
The war in Iraq is wrong.
Bush is wrong.
So are the military leaders who lie through their teeth.
Yes, protect our country, but don’t force your will on the people.
A tough military attitude is not wanted within our borders.
It is only needed in a real war.
Be a hero, not a war loving jerk.

George Vreeland Hill

1:13 AM  
Blogger Jim Bales said...

George Vreeland Hill posts much I agree with:
The war in Iraq is wrong.
Bush is wrong.
So are the military leaders who lie through their teeth.
Yes, protect our country, but don’t force your will on the people.
A tough military attitude is not wanted within our borders.
It is only needed in a real war.
Be a hero, not a war loving jerk.


However, impeding military recruiting does not address the core problem. The core problem is the Bush administration, the congress-critters supporting the war, the media support for the war, and the sizable fraction of our population who still hold delusions as to the morality/legality/wisdom of the invasion.

Impeding recruitment can only further endanger the men and women fighting now. It will not put any meaningful pressure on the Bush administration or Congress. Berkeley was wrong to advocate this.

10:29 AM  
Blogger The Mystic said...

This seems more complex than the fact that it's not solving the core problem, Jim.

This seems to me a lot like a country imposing sanctions on a country whose actions it does not support. Berkeley does not support the military's actions, therefore it sanctions the military by attempting to expunge their city of the military's presence.

If that is a good metaphor, it might help to think of this the way you thought of the Clinton administration placing sanctions on Iraq. Some have criticized the administration, saying that the sanctions did not solve the core problem (Saddam), but rather only ended up causing Saddam to kill his own people. I think both you and WS have pointed out that the deaths of Iraqis are not the Clinton administration's burden to bear, however, as it was an immoral reaction to the morally permissible sanctions on Saddam's behalf that lead to the deaths.

If that holds, it seems to me like any endangerment that arises from Berkeley's "sanctions" on the military is likewise the result of an immoral reaction to morally permissible sanctions on behalf of the Bush administration. Both behaviors entail social body A's attempt at removing support from social body B as a means to control social body B due to concerns with the behavior of social body B. But it seems that it has been concluded that this is a reasonable way to voice disapproval of social body B's actions if social body B's actions are, in fact, wrong. Further, it seems that it has been concluded that negative consequences of the sanctions caused by an improper reaction on the behalf of the sanctioned are the responsibility of the sanctioned, and not the sanctioners.

So, in conclusion, it seems as if Berkeley's sanctions cause an unsafe drop in troop levels and the administration pushes forward regardless, it's the fault of the administration if unnecessary casualties arise because of it.

Thoughts?

5:57 PM  
Blogger Jim Bales said...

First, a note: After a little digging, I found the text (.pdf) voted on by the council.

Second, two members of the Berkeley city council called for the council to:
1. ... publicly differentiate between the City’s documented opposition to the unjust and illegal war in
Iraq and our respect and support for those serving in the armed forces.

2. Rescind point 2 of Item 12, of the January 29, 2008 Berkeley City Council Agenda, “Marine Recruiting Office in Berkeley,” regarding communications with the Marine Recruiting Station in Berkeley.


This is on the agenda for Tuesday (2/12).

Mystic,

I am not ignoring your comment. I'm doing some digging (and sharing, above, some of the fruits of my labor). This is also the start of my term, and I am madly trying to keep 1 or 2 steps ahead of my students. I hope to respond in the next couple of days.

Best Wishes to all,
Jim

12:38 AM  
Blogger lovable liberal said...

Some people think war is always the wrong course. I'm not one of them, though I do think it's a last resort.

The Berkeleyites would be better off protesting the civilian government that has made the warlike decisions they object to. The Marines didn't decide to go to Iraq.

On the other hand, I hand my 17-year-old the Army's recruitment mail, and then I tell her she's not joining the Army.

6:16 PM  
Blogger lovable liberal said...

Morally defensible to blockade either or both, mebbe, perhaps even an imperative if one is bound by conscience, but it would be an act of civil disobedience, and one has to take her lumps for committing it.

Probably just as much a shock to TVD as it is to me, but I agree with this. When the Declaration of Independence reserves the right of the people to alter or abolish their government, it doesn't protect them from the punishments of the old regime.

6:22 PM  
Blogger Jim Bales said...

The Mystic summarizes the Berkeley stance by stating:
Berkeley does not support the military's actions, therefore it sanctions the military by attempting to expunge their city of the military's presence.

LL's response encapsulates my reaction as well (and it is far more eloquent than mine would be):
The Berkeleyites would be better off protesting the civilian government that has made the warlike decisions they object to. The Marines didn't decide to go to Iraq.

Mystic also proposes an analogy between Berkeley's resolution and the sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War. I suspect that the analogy is not strong enough to be of help.

The goal of the sanctions against Iraq were (IIRC) to prevent Iraq from recreating its nuclear weapons program. They succeeded. One can argue that the human cost was too great for what they accomplished, but they accomplished their stated goal.

The goals of the Berkeley resolution (.pdf) appear to be driven by three assertions.

1) [T]he United States has a history of launching illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression and the Bush Administration launched the most recent of those wars in Iraq and is threatening the possibility of war in Iran;

2) [T]he United States armed forces, including the Marine Corps, explicitly refuse to hire [or employ] openly non-heterosexual individuals”
[This violate the Berkeley Municipal Code. -jb]

3) Military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into Military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits.

LL's response addresses, I believe, the first concern of Berkeley -- the Marines are not responsible for the war. The only way that impeding Marine recruitment can deal with #1 is if a failure to meet recruiting goals would change the actions of the administration. I see no reason to believe that the Bush administration will change its actions if recruitment continues to drop.

The second two concerns, if true, can be addressed by the city supporting protests and making the recruiters unwelcome. They could also be addressed by educational initiatives, and ad campaigns intended to inform those of recruitment age that the USMC is, as an institution, homophobic and that recruiters make promises that will not be kept.

So, to the degree Berkeley's goal is #1 above, then the resolution does no good. To the degree that Berkeley's goal is #'s 2 & 3 above, then the resolution strikes me as having some merit, although I suspect that other approaches would be more fruitful.

11:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home