= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on 9/11 as mindkiller - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (111)
I'm not very sure about whether the wars as such were wrong, but I do think the evidence suggests that people wildly underestimate the costs of war.
Right and wrong are difficult concepts here; are we looking at the stated goals, the (hidden) real intentions, the outcomes... to what extent do tactical mistakes influence this. I mean, suppose things had stabilized after major combat; I bet many more people would consider it a 'just war' then, without such outrages like Abu Graib or the helicopter shooting video.
It's interesting to see how some of the problems on the tactical level seem to have influenced the Libian approach, where western powers are pushing their agendas and determine the outcome of the conflict, but keep their hands relatively clean.
Finally, I'm impressed how well most LW'ers handle such a 'mind killer' topic.
How does Abu Graib qualify as an outrage compared to the kinds of things that are typically done by all sides, even in wars you'd probably consider just? For that matter compare Abu Graib with how our enemies in this routinely treat captives.
I was referring to Abu Graib because of the big public reaction to that - not because it was the worst thing ever per se, but because of the scandal it caused due to these photos. That damaged the war effort quite a bit, I think.
I don't think "the other side does it too, and worse" is a valid justification. Even putting the ethics aside, it is very bad PR, makes you loose support and makes reaching your goals so much harder.
So you agree that the media reaction to Abu Graib cannot be justified as a rational reaction to those photos. The question thus arises why the media reaction was what it was? I believe the answer is because a lot of people in the media were already opposed to the war and thus were looking for any excuse to show it in a negative light.
Sure, media have their biases - one way or the other; the biggest one is probably that focus primarily on what their readers find noteworthy -- so they pay more attention to some celebrity's new dress rather than to a thousand deaths in Africa.
One reason that excesses on "our side" are more noteworthy is because we tend to believe that we have higher standards than the enemy. Thus, it is more noteworthy when some on our team do not live up them. Also, having incriminating photos did not really help...
In any case, I'd say that any politically-motivated selection bias is the least of the problems, compared with the fate of those that were severely abused or worse.
Also, there's good reason to believe that torture degrades the intelligence apparatus that uses it. Torture seems easier than rational methods, and also feeds false information into the system.
It was gratuitous. This is unlike other situations with worse consequences like death, such as when an explosive goes off-course or a target is misidentified.
The examples I had in mind were also gratuitous. This is an example of what I was referring to.
Or to use an example from the Iraq war, consider that at the time standard operating procedure from the insurgents was to behead captives on camera.
I'm pleased, too.
I don't have the exact quote, but "War is letting terrified 19 year olds with heavy weapons make your foreign policy".
That's a solid outside view reference class.