War in the middle east

Here is a useful device for anyone seeking to clear-headedly assess foreign policy matters: switch around the identities of the players so that one is not biased by the identities of the parties. On many occasions, one does not even need to look to hypotheticals, because history will provide minimal pair cases for you. But for this technique to work you don't need real facts, just a set of facts, true or not, that someone believes and wants to argue from.

Today we look at a situation with the following elements:

1. Country A and Country B are neighbors with a history. They are not peacefully inclined toward one another, but we start the scenario at a juncture of relative peace.

2. Country A is the home to a group of people who are utterly and violently opposed to the regime of Country B. Among these people are some who claim land within Country B for themselves, and others who are in solidarity with those aspirations.

3. These people in Country A do not run Country A but they hold seats in its highest legislative body and are a potent political force. Many people in Country A think they're crazy, but when you consider what it would take to neutralize them as a political force, few in government have the will to stand up to them, and it's not uncommon that the executive overtly favors them.

4. These people launch small attacks on Country B. Nothing huge, because they're not really a significant military force, but people in Country B can sometimes expect their territory to be violated, particularly from the air, and people in Country B have been killed as a result of these attacks. (The number of actual attackers is small, but their base of support is broad.)

5. Country A does almost nothing to stop it. It continues to provide safe haven, while people move through its streets with signs lauding the attackers, hold parades for their most violent leaders, even as they are denounced around the world as terrorists. (But in defense of Country A, it's frankly a disaster and its government has shown almost complete inability to help its own people in the event of a serious crisis.)

6. Country B practices restraint, lodges formal protests. It has taken defensive military action in the past over these violations, but it seems they will continue until the terrorists and their supporters that want to completely eliminate B's government are dealt with decisively. Country B has a legitimate right to defend itself, of course. How far may it legitimately go to eliminate the threat of the people sheltered by Country A?

Given what's in the news these days, one might guess that country A is Lebanon, Country B is Israel, and the people operating unmolested from Lebanese territory are Hizbollah. The mainstream press accounts the facts above, and generally asserts that Israel may pulverize South Lebanon until Hizbollah either surrenders or is obliterated.

An alternative scenario has A as the United States, B as Cuba, and violent anti-Castro groups operating mainly out of Miami, but also out of New Jersey and some other places, in the Hizbollah role. One should not forget that some of these exile groups were identified by the U.S. government as domestic terrorists (when they bombed and assassinated political opponents in Miami), that they are blamed for thousands of Cuban deaths, and that their bloodiest representatives, like Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carilles are given pardons or asylum by the federal govermnment and openly feted in Miami.

There are differences, but they do not generally favor the U.S. Unlike Lebanon, which was invaded, the U.S. has never been attacked by Cuba but itself launched an abortive invasion of Cuba, using its exile army. And the support for the Cuban exiles, including massive amounts of money, plus training, weapons, and intelligence, is tracable to the U.S. government, not some outside meddling state like Syria or Iran. These differences make average Americans more culpible in the deaths of innocent Cubans than average Lebanese are in the deaths of Israelis.

So by the logic of the media majority, Israel supporters and most of Congress, it should be legitimate for Cuba to seek to wipe out the terrorist exile groups and their supporters by mercilessly bombing Miami and Trenton. If Israel is right in all that it's doing, then Cuba should be free to destroy American bridges and hospitals first, target U.N. and Red Cross facilities, and, having rendered the civilian population incapable of medical aid or escape, rain down illegal phosphorous munitions. Once a few major U.S. cities have been turned into massive graveyards by the aerial assault, the ground troops would be expected to come in and round up the remaining anti-Castro terrorists and sympathizers.

There are two logical positions. Either:

(1) one determines that Cuba would be justified in committing massive violence to eliminate the bed of opposition it faces from its exiles in the U.S., or

(2) one determines that Israel has, at very least, gone to far in its effort to curb Hizbollah.

I choose the second.

The Beesting of Terrorism

Whereas terrorist attacks on the US get a lot of attention and a lot of rhetoric about changing the world forever, they have killed an average of something like 50 Americans per annum over the last 40-50 years, roughly comparable to the number of people killed by bee stings. Yet the attention paid to the bee sting epidemic is minimal. It has not promoted any secret wiretap programs, any massive government restructuring, or any $1.3 trillion foreign military adventures. The government is basically sitting on its hands as, insidiously, person by person, we are fallen by bees at the rate of 1 a week.

Where is our sense of perspective?

For that matter, bee stings are not even the leading cause of death in the U.S., which I know is surprising considering that they've killed more people here than international and domestic terrorism combined. Here are some other causes of death, given in BSEs (bee-sting equivalents):

Mauled by bears: 1/50
Poisoned by snakes: 1/10
Killed in deep sea diving accidents: 1/9
Electrocuted at work: 6
Plane crashes: 24
Gun accidents: 30
Killed while riding a bicycle: 48
Accidentally fall down and die: 100
Fatal asthma attack: 100
Atrial fibulation: 800
Murdered by a non-terrorist: 800 -- no, wait -- 799 (the other 1 is by a terrorist)
AIDS finally gets you: 800
Second-hand smoke: 1060 (conservative estimate)
Killing yourself intentionally (other than by smoking): 1100
Auto accidents: 1400 (not including the 48 hit while riding bikes)
Killed by doctors trying to help you: 2400
Killed by some kind of violent accident: 3000
Killed by your own dumb smoking: 7000
Got the "Big C": 12000 (overlaps the last one)

It's nice to see the government actually spening money on some of these things, even if it's chicken feed compared to the anti-terrorism investment. I mean, a trillion dollars would buy a lot of airbags and bicycle helmets, keep a few of those planes up in the air, even stop a few murders, doctors, or smokers from killing you.

Don't get me started on international comparisons, you know, all those kids that could get a cup of edible gruel and a malaria shot for 20 cents. You could really buy a lot of BSEs for a cool trillion if you could spend it anywhere in the world.

There's only one possible conclusion. It's not about lives to save. It's something else...