Are the friends of my enemy’s other enemies friends of mine?
[ by Charles Cameron — a missile wrapped in a paradox inside a sandstorm — Syria ]
.
So. tell me, which? This?
And it works every time. EVERY. TIME. http://t.co/kHlplPR5cI pic.twitter.com/VwVWRnXVAS
— J.M. Berger (@intelwire) February 24, 2015
or this?
Non-US-backed rebels use American TOW missile captured from #ISIS, which captured it from US-backed rebels!! #Syria pic.twitter.com/u1Y16Z1vfc
— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) February 24, 2015
Or can you have it both ways?
**
Six minutes separates those two tweets.
the title of this post is very likely confused. As am I.
February 26th, 2015 at 6:23 am
“Are the friends of my enemy’s other enemies friends of mine?”
In basic social network theory this friend would be suggested to you as a new friend
What is perceived instable is e.g. the role of Turkey, which is your NATO partner ( friend ) but de facto an ally of ISIS ( enemy ) against the Kurds. In theory the US should be allied with the Kurds against ISIS and Turkey.
The model is only a toy but it might still be useful to spot some obvious problems graphically.
I wonder if there are strategic/war games which advance friendship networks along the time axis s.t. current alliances impact future friend/enemy relationships to ones benefit or loss? I’m not a game aficionado so someone else might help out.
February 26th, 2015 at 8:47 pm
Dreamtime:
Bravo.
February 28th, 2015 at 1:33 pm
In my view just as you have a moral responsibility for the way in which the money you give a bum on the street is used Americans have a moral responsibility for how the arms they give others are used. As your example suggests it’s likely to be a practical necessity as well.
.
I also believe that morality does not conflict with interest but I’ll acknowledge that’s a mystical belief, unprovable. Your example does provide supportive evidence.
.
The argument in favor of arming the moderate rebels in Syria relies on many dubious assumptions including there is an identifiable, monolithic group of “moderate rebels” which does not change over time, that with assistance in the form of materials and, possibly, logistics alone these moderates are capable of taking and holding territory, and the value of arming these imaginary moderates outweighs the harm that will be done by the weapons should they fall into the hands of DAESH (or other immoderate rebels).
.
The only practical way of mitigating the risks posed by arming these mythical creatures is by inserting actual American combat forces into the conflict. Some of those in favor of arming the fictive moderate rebels would actually prefer using American combat forces which should give us pause.
.
Our foreign policy decisions are being made to accomplish domestic political goals not moral or strategic ones.
February 28th, 2015 at 10:41 pm
Hi Dave:
.
I’m more convinced about the “moral responsibility for how the arms they give others are used” than of the equivalent wrt the bum — but that’s a minor point for me, since I seldom give charity in the form of funds.
.
I’m very afraid your last para is largely correct, ignorance filling parts it may not cover.