Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Kill that guy. The force of his personality is what's holding his local power structure together, and if he's dead there's a good chance that the whole thing will collapse

This is true. But what happens next? A collapsed power structure is not a nice place to live. Someone has to deal with crime, resources, arbitration, and taking out the rubbish (qv http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/Luton-ISIS-recruit-Abu-Aziz... ). So another person steps up to fill that role. Unsurprisingly, he has to deal with the power structure of the region that he finds around him, so he makes deals; and he has to deal with bandits, so he makes a militia. Until he makes his way to the top of the US kill list, perhaps by phoning the wrong person.

"Local warlord" is a position, not a person. The replacement for warlordism is an accountable rights-respecting impartial justice system. Nothing less will do. You can't deal with injustice by committing more injustice. You can't eradicate violence with more violence. This isn't a Clint Eastwood movie, you can't just ride in, shoot some designated bad guys, and ride out again with everything fixed.

Also, would the US rather have an anti-US warlord who deals fairly with his own people or a pro-US one who is corrupt? The treatment of Latin America shows quite clearly that they'd prefer the latter.

Unfortunately as soon as you say, "So let's apply justice to the middle east", you trip face-first over the Palestinian question.

Iraq has a democratically elected government. Whether or not they are accountable, rights-respecting, impartial or even just is up for debate. But they can't govern without being able to impose the rule of law through a monopoly on force.

Warlords do serve a social purpose. But it's better for everyone if a stable government serves that purpose instead. The nature of being a warlord is such that they won't respond to reasoned arguments or give up the power they've risked their lives to build. The only way to get them to step aside to allow democratic governance is to kill them or convince them to surrender.

Killing a warlord has nothing to do with the concept of justice. The term "outlaw" originally applied to people who lived outside of the protection of the legal system, meaning that they could be robbed or killed by anyone. If a local leader wants the protection of justice, they should run for office or go through an official process to wield the sanctioned power of the state. Otherwise, they should be prepared to either get down or lay down when just democratic rule comes to their region.

(Another page on the subject: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/11/why-obamas-hopes-of-d... ; I don't really see what Obama is doing in the title, the policy would continue without him)

You're arguing "force first; justice later". In particular, you're arguing that state justice, and your particular version of it, is the only valid and legitimate kind of justice. This leaves no room for what's called "natural" justice.

But there's no point in trying to convince me. It's the neighbours of the people being bombed that you need to convince, that American death from the air with no trial or public evidence is "justice" and "the sanctioned power of the state". After all, is it how you deliver justice in your own country?

So long as America continues to kill unaccountably and without due process, people (especially those close to the bomb) will regard America as just another warlord, just another outlaw.

get down or lay down when just democratic rule

Get your face in the dirt and submit, citizen! Welcome to democracy! (You may want to work on your messaging here)

It is convenient to pretend that these missions are not being run from Europe, but they are and the battleground will be in Europe where it is much easier to attack.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com