“Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception. ... The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.-- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
For the last six years, our president and his administration have operated on the principle of that the ends justify the means. The "end" is always said to be the welfare of the American people. The "means" have included making promises with no intent to keep them, or knowing they will be broken when convenient. For just one example, watch Professor Jonathan Gruber: youtube.com/watch?v=Adrdmmh7bMo
But what happens in the area of foreign negotiations when enemies such as Russia, Iran or the Islamic State employ the same tactic? What if during the course of negotiations, they make promises with no intent to keep them, or with intent to renege as soon as it suits their convenience? What if the Russians lie to us about what the are doing in Ukraine? What if the Iranians lie to us about their uranium enrichment sites?
Both Russia and Iran have "ends" in mind. If the ends justify the means in Washington, why not in Moscow or Teheran? And if your opponent signs an agreement with no intent to observe it, or with intent to disregard it when convenient, what is the value of the written and signed agreement?
You can say, "How can you be sure they will lie or make promises they don't intent to keep?" In truth, I can't be sure. But deceit for them is small change compared to the other more lethal acts they have undertaken to achieve their ends.
Putin, for example, shamelessly invaded and occupies portions of Georgia, seizes Crimea, and makes war on the Ukraine, using Russian arms, Russian special forces and Ukrainian proxies -- all in flagrant violation of International Law.
Iran, while claiming peaceful intentions, sends arms to Hezzbollah, Hamas and the Houthi in Yemen, after supplying IEDs that killed and maimed American troops for more than a decade, while moving on a daily basis to acquire ICBMs and a nuclear bomb.
If I am willing to kill you to achieve my end, will I scruple at intentionally deceiving you to achieve that same end at a lower cost?
In his book, "Rules for Radicals," Saul Alinsky devotes his second chapter to a discussion of means and ends.
“The second rule of the ethics of 'means and ends' is that the judgment of the ethics of 'means' is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. If you actively opposed the Nazi occupation and joined the underground Resistance, then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazis. Those who opposed the Nazi conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists, courageous beyond expectation and willing to sacrifice their lives to their moral convictions.To the occupation authorities, however, these people were lawless terrorists, murderers, saboteurs, assassins, who believed that the end justified the means, and were utterly unethical according to the mystical rules of war. ... However, in such conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory. It is life or death.
“Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The 'end' is what you want, and the 'means' is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work."
Of course Alinsky was not the first to argue the ends justify the means. Around 1513, Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in which states:
"Everyone admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless … those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and ... in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word.
"If men were entirely good, this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to excuse this non-observance.
"It is necessary [for the prince] to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.
"Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them ... -- to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright ...
"A prince ... cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity, friendship, humanity, and religion.”
So, is it possible to negotiate with the likes of Putin and Iran's Ali Khamenei? Yes. Neville Chamberlain was even able to get Adolf Hitler to put his signature to a written agreement? Hitler then tore up the agreement when convenient.
Without foolproof verification only a blithering idiot would believe Khamenei and the Iranian regime after they've promised the annihilation of Israel and developed ICBMs -- while claiming their centrifuges are only for "peaceful purposes.
Posted Online: May 8, 2015 at 11:10 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2015
John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment