This article caught my eye:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was rebuked by lawmakers from across the political spectrum after calling for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Is there a Brutus in Russia?” asked Graham via Twitter Thursday evening. “Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military? The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country — and the world — a great service.”
I understand why governments traditionally refrain from trying to assassinate the leaders of enemy nations—they fear retaliation. Is that a good reason? I’ve never given the issue much thought. I suppose it’s what Tyler Cowen would call a “game theory problem”. Interestingly, Graham is not suggesting that the West try to assassinate Putin, rather he wants the Russian people to do so. (And then there is this. Ouch!!)
David Henderson recently did a post expressing concern about the way that war can hurt the innocent:
An old saying goes “Truth is the first casualty in war.” I’m not so sure. I think I’ve got a contender for the first casualty that’s either ahead of truth or tied with truth: rule of law. A basic rule of law principle is that governments don’t violate the rights of innocent people. But various governments around the world, including the U.S. government, seem to be relishing the chance to go after people in Russia who are thought to support Putin, even if they have violated no law.
My views on war are probably not all that different from David’s view, but I don’t get there using the concept of “innocence”. (After all, I’m a utilitarian.) For instance, I wouldn’t object to characterizing the Japanese-Americans who placed in concentration camps as “innocent”. But I’d say the same about 18-year old Japanese boys drafted into their army to fight the US. And what do we make of ordinary German citizens who voted for Hitler, or Russians who voted for Putin? How about those who did so enthusiastically, specifically supporting their militarist rhetoric? I think it’s possible to view them as not being completely “innocent”, and yet also not deserving of being killed just because they exercised poor judgment in the voting booth. I’ve exercised poor judgment in the voting booth. Overall, I view an 18-year old draftee that is ignorant of politics as being more innocent than a 40-year old mother of three who voted for Hitler. But that’s just me.
The US policy during wartime is to kill lots of young soldiers drafted into the enemy army, but we don’t generally try to kill the leaders who made the decision to murder thousands or even millions of people. And make no mistake; decisions such as the Japanese invasion of China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine clearly amount to mass murder. (Some US actions might also amount to mass murder, but the situations have generally been somewhat more ambiguous.)
So where does that leave me? My utilitarian framework leads me to reject “innocence” as a useful tool for making decisions in wartime. But war is so complex that I don’t know exactly what the correct (utilitarian) policy would be.
Criminal justice analogies only go so far. We can all agree that it’s wrong to take away someone’s freedom. But we also agree that if a person murders someone else, it is appropriate to take away their freedom, placing them in prison.
Similarly, we can all agree that one country should not invade and annex its peaceful neighbor. But if it does, how do we react? Put the enemy leader in prison? We cannot capture the foreign leader unless we win the war—which means killing lots of innocent people (with bombs) and economically hurting many other innocent people (with sanctions). Unfortunately, war is so complex that even if we could agree that utilitarianism is the right criterion for making foreign policy decisions, we have little ability to predict the results of our actions. So I have a great deal of sympathy for those who throw up their hands and advocate strict moral rules. Indeed, I’ve previously endorsed “rules utilitarian” approaches such as our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
War is so evil that we should do almost everything possible to prevent it from occurring. This is why I’m such a strong supporter of NATO. A mutual defense pact encompassing most of the developed world, including the world’s most powerful military, is a very tough nut to crack. Deterring war is better than fighting it. We should do whatever we can to prevent war from occurring in the first place–and mutual defense pacts are one way of doing so. When war does break out, the victims won’t be the mass murderers; it will be the average people that suffer.
To summarize, I’d love to avoid punishing the innocent; I just don’t see how the good guys can win a war without doing so. At the same time, let’s not lose sight of the fact that people in enemy countries are just as human as we are. The people that died at Hiroshima back in 1945 were just as deserving of life as an equal number of Americans. Unfortunately, most people don’t look at things that way. They find it easier to demonize the “other”. Indeed, that’s a major reason why we have wars.
PS. Some people say, “I don’t care about Ukraine”. That reminds me of Trotsky’s remark:
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
READER COMMENTS
Jens
Mar 5 2022 at 2:12pm
Very good.
E. Harding
Mar 5 2022 at 2:13pm
“This is why I’m such a strong supporter of NATO.”
Which caused the Ukraine war, the Georgian war, the Syrian war, the Cypriot war, and created the current condition in Libya.
Joseph
Mar 5 2022 at 3:23pm
Great post (apart from the Twitter link)
TMC
Mar 7 2022 at 2:27pm
Agreed, good post. And the twitter link really just highlights how I’d love to have a few mean tweets and a competent foreign policy back rather than what we have now.
Henri Hein
Mar 5 2022 at 3:55pm
I was a little confused at first. It might be helpful to distinguish between aggressive wars vs. defensive wars (incl. wars on behalf of beleaguered allies). I think the utilitarian calculus for aggressive wars is obvious: just don’t do it. Given the enormous costs of war, in both human life and materiel, it’s near impossible to gain back benefits to surpass its cost.
Monte
Mar 5 2022 at 10:52pm
On balance, I would agree that it’s next to impossible for any benefits of war to outweigh their costs. But the post-war benefits of certain conflicts throughout history (the French Revolution, the American Civil war, and both world wars) were tremendous in terms of social progress.
However, the consequences of 21st- century conventional warfare are disastrous enough for all belligerents. Beyond that, MAD.
Alan Goldhammer
Mar 5 2022 at 5:02pm
Time to re-read von Clausewitz. You can get it for free at Project Gutenberg.
Toby
Mar 7 2022 at 10:28pm
Agreed, Alan.
It’s also a good time to review Thomas Schelling’s reflections in the Strategy of Conflict and Arms and Influence too. Nuclear taboos, salami tactics, and mutual alarm dynamics remain as relevant as ever. Scott, as you’ve noted, credible commitments and deterrence can never be cost-free. The West knows this. Putin knows this. And they know that each other knows this, and so on. Hence, the dilemmas that ensue.
BC
Mar 5 2022 at 7:06pm
I think the US actually benefits in a world where assassinating leaders is fair game. I wouldn’t want anyone to assassinate our president, even ones I strongly dislike. However, our institutions are pretty strong so that who our president is probably makes less difference than who our adversaries’ leaders are. Our adversaries tend to be strongmen so their assassination, whether carried out by us or their own people, will tend to make things either better or the same (e.g., replacing with another strongman about equally bad).
Aren’t we pretty open now about targeting terrorist leaders with drone strikes? One might argue that heads of state are different because attacking them is also attacking the state itself. One is not only killing a specific person but also interfering with that country’s internal political processes. That’s true. But, during wartime, I’m not sure why attacking soldiers is ok, but not the commander(s). Terrorists are like armies without a state. They have some civilian characteristics and some military characteristics. Killing their leaders without a trial or due process seems more like a military action than a civilian police action. That would seem to suggest that killing foreign leaders during war would be analogous. Also, when our adversaries are strongmen, it’s not clear how much they actually represent their people anyways. Diplomatic legitimacy is not the same as moral legitimacy.
Phil H
Mar 6 2022 at 8:47am
The resilience of US institutions is a really important point. Russia also seems pretty resilient, of course – even after a disastrous few decades like it’s had, it’s still able to flex its muscles pretty effectively in states all around it. But I think the USA’s are stronger.
J Mann
Mar 7 2022 at 12:10pm
I think that’s a great point, but I’d point out that if the US President were assassinated, we would almost certainly launch a hot war against the offending party, so if we want to limit wars, we should probably also limit assassinations. (WWI is also a pretty relevant example).
Bill Conerly
Mar 5 2022 at 8:39pm
Scott, very thought provoking,
BC, you too,
Armies have used snipers to kill enemy commanders. There’s probably a formula: one general killed is same as X privates. One colonel is same as Y privates, One Putin is worth ???
Philo
Mar 5 2022 at 9:18pm
What is your difficulty with the concept of innocence? The crimes one has committed are those of which he is guilty. Crimes one did not commit are those of which he is innocent.
You write: “My utilitarian framework leads me to reject ‘innocence’ as a useful tool for making decisions in wartime.” Should you not omit ‘in wartime’; do you admit to using the concept of innocence ever? But let’s take an example: Suppose the enemy will deeply resent your killing their citizens who are innocent of war crimes, but not their guilty ones. Then you *might* want not to make them deeply resentful, in which case you might try to avoid killing their innocents. This would be using the concept to make decisions.
A utilitarian does not have to work with a radically impoverished set of concepts—limiting himself to happiness (and, perhaps, causation; of course, mathematical concepts are always available). He can use, e.g., contract, parent, health, death, wealth, freedom, innocent, etc., etc. They do not figure in his basic theory, but they may play a subsidiary role.
Jens
Mar 6 2022 at 8:36am
All analogies to criminal justice also somehow rely on law enforcement having superior firepower (Sumner touches the problem). That is not necessarily the case in war. International courts do not have troops. When the war is over, things look different again (sometimes).
Scott Sumner
Mar 6 2022 at 1:25pm
“Should you not omit ‘in wartime’; do you admit to using the concept of innocence ever?”
I’d say that if a jury finds a suspect to be not guilty, then they should not be put in prison. But wartime? I just don’t get it.
John hare
Mar 6 2022 at 3:46pm
The distressing thing in wartime, as you pointed out, is that many of the troops on the sharp end are innocent to a large degree. Leaders behind their protection and immunities often are not. There are normally bad actors in the front lines of armies at war, but their crimes are normally tiny compared to the guy in the suit ordering the invasion/bombing/genocide. I have no answers.
Phil H
Mar 6 2022 at 9:30am
I think the answer to the original question, about the response to Lindsay Graham, is straightforward: the US government should not be encouraging murder anywhere (or any lawbreaking other than responsible protesting).
From a utilitarian point of view, this is a vexed question because of the whole “do you kill baby Hitler” thing, but “do not kill” is such an excellent rule that it’s still worth pursuing at the highest political levels.
One day, the world will actually succeed in getting there. One day.
Scott Sumner
Mar 6 2022 at 1:28pm
“From a utilitarian point of view, this is a vexed question because of the whole “do you kill baby Hitler” thing”
That’s where rules utilitarianism comes in. We don’t know which babies will be mass murderers, so don’t kill any of them.
Jon Murphy
Mar 6 2022 at 10:41am
I agree that it is a reason, but is it the reason? It seems to me norms of international law and relations are a bigger reason here. Political actors (leaders, diplomats, etc) are a generally protected class. For example, diplomatic immunity. There are some things one just doesn’t do: kill an ambassador, wave a flag of surrender to lure the enemy to a trap, etc. It seems to me that if a nation were to break these norms, then the fear of retaliation from the enemy is small. Rather, it is the fear of the rest of the international community. The nation would become a persona non grata.
David S
Mar 6 2022 at 12:17pm
A good foreign policy move would be for the U.S. to double outreach to China and get rid of all the stupid tariffs. I’m annoyed that Biden isn’t moving in this direction, but I suppose he’s enthralled by advisors who claim that we need to protect the “American Heartland” or some such nonsense.
I don’t think that collective punishment is a good thing, but Putin has created an exceptional circumstance. I hope he finds it hard to transform modern Russia into a North Korea.
Scott Sumner
Mar 6 2022 at 1:29pm
I agree about the China tariffs, but I also think they should reach out to us by speaking out against the Russian invasion.
Mark Z
Mar 6 2022 at 3:28pm
I think the concept of innocence is still useful in utilitarianism. Inasmuch as the purpose of punishment is to deter bad behavior, punishment incurred on people innocent of that behavior is basically deadweight loss. Some such loss is inevitable in punishing those who misbehave, but minimizing harm to those that don’t should still be part of the equation. We should aim for precision in punishment, and be wary of people using vulgar utilitarianism to rationalize unnecessarily indiscriminate punishment really motivated by hatred.
Matthias
Mar 7 2022 at 12:59am
Scott, you point out the difficulty of winning a war even for the good guys without hurting many innocent people.
In principle you are right, but there’s plenty of things we can do to minimise casualties.
Bryan Caplan (I think?) suggested offering Russian deserters piles of money, amnesty and a EU citizenship.
That’s an action that doesn’t hurt anyone, but weakens the enemy’s ability to fight.
(If you want to argue that the taxes you need to pay the bounty are hurting tax payers, then just stick to amnesty and citizenship, and pay any bounty out of voluntary donations.)
Scott Sumner
Mar 7 2022 at 12:27pm
Yes, I’d certainly support that idea.
zeke5123
Mar 7 2022 at 9:35am
The sole problem with NATO in a MAD world is that it suppresses the frequency of war, but increases the likely carnage of war. So it is a trade-off. Of course, this is the same calculus undergirding MAD in the first instance. Perhaps by pre-announcing situations where MAD occurs, you reduce the likelihood of MAD? So that NATO both reduces the frequency of war and the odds of MAD?
Scott Sumner
Mar 7 2022 at 12:28pm
I hope that in the long run Russia can join NATO, which would reduce both risks.
TMC
Mar 7 2022 at 2:45pm
Once we get to the point where Russia would join NATO, its usefulness is over. NATO would just disband.
alvincente
Mar 7 2022 at 12:02pm
He wasn’t exactly the leader of his country, but I’m a bit surprised that no one in the discussions I’ve read of this assassination issue has mentioned Yamamoto.
V. L Elliott
Mar 7 2022 at 5:27pm
I suggest that this post with responses points toward subject matter that modern economics has compartmentalized (“the economics of defense”) and beyond those bounds, evolved away from. For the most part economics deals with production and related constructive activities. War is about destruction.
Economic efficiency involves dynamic actions while military efficiency can be represented by a unit in which all equipment is serviced, equipped and ready for use when called on. Material resources are sitting in place because there is no call as yet. Certainly there are material and fiscal/financial concerns but when the direct activities of war take place, factors can come into play that have very little to do with economic subject matter or reasoning. For example, on the first day of the Battle of the Bulge for about 20 hours an 18 man recon unit held off attacks by numerically superior enemy forces along Lanzerath Ridge in Belgium. During that time other US and Allied forces moved into place and, eventually, stopped the attack. It may be useful to note that a key part of the final Allied success was the destruction of a bridge. The recon platoon and the engineers who destroyed the bridge were very well led and displayed great courage; neither of which economics deals with effectively and yet are basic to war, wars and warfare. The recon platoon had been ordered to hold its position at all cost and they did their duty as did the combined 101st Airborne Division and elements of the 10th and 9th Armored divisions in the days that followed.
A part of the problem dealing with the relationship/interplay between economics and war is often the lack of familiarity of those addressing the issues with disciplines and methods other than their own. Sometimes this can be seen in the words used. For example:
“The US policy during wartime is to kill lots of young soldiers drafted into the enemy army…”
Descriptors aside, killing the enemy can and often is critically important but, even in the case of the US, it is not always so. The Cold War (and I limit myself here to the US and the Former Soviet Union) did not have such a US policy although the threat of such killing was ever present although employed to reduce the likelihood of having to carry it out. I emphasize here the difference between the actual killing and the threat. Beyond the US, the strategist Sun-Tsu argued that the best victory was one which required no war.
There are questions of context, assumptions and beliefs within this subject matter that our predecessors may have been able to discuss thoughtfully. In my experience modern economics alone does not prepare economists for that discussion very well. The discussion might benefit from a return to some of the roots of economics in moral philosophy.
Monte
Mar 8 2022 at 12:31pm
V. L Elliott,
Nice summation of the limitations of economics in applications of war and a very interesting anecdote re: the Battle of the Bulge. I do, however, think we can be well informed by economics in the way of a game-theoretic approach to military strategy. See this excellent piece by Jack Hirshleifer (circa 1989) on the subject of conflict and settlement.
V. L Elliott
Mar 9 2022 at 11:49am
Monte: Agreed. Game theory is especially useful in terms of strategy and can be applied across a significant range of conflict-related situations. I suggest though that game theory’s applications benefit from studies of other subject matter such as those of the military art. Jack Hirshleifer’s work on conflict and war/defense along with that of Gordon Tullock’s, Todd Sandler’s and Herschel Grossman’s are essential. Hirshleifer and Tullock were veterans of WW II and did considerable work in conflict/defense economics subject matter and I believe Sandler’s outstanding scholarship in terrorism, defense economics and international public goods has assisted his insights. No way to list the many people who have contributed to this subject matter here so I will just say there are more than a few and point to the work of Sir Paul Collier, Thomas Anderton and David Henderson as starting points. But I also urge researchers in this area to reach across disciplinary lines and consider some readings in military history and strategy. We need better understanding of definitions across disciplines for example.
Thomas Strenge
Mar 8 2022 at 12:42pm
I hate to say it, but I believe the US government deliberately goaded Putin into war with Russia. They knew NATO expansion would ha e that effect. Russia is declining demographically, and every dead Russian soldier is irreplaceable. To sacrifice Ukrainians to further American policy goals is quite utilitarian, but it is morally wrong.
Michael S Rulle
Mar 11 2022 at 10:29am
I have tried to answer this question of innocence. It is clearly difficult. One of my ideas (I am not committed to it—but am attracted to it) is that in war the population is often as guilty as the leaders. In fact–in most cases— when there is a clear instigator. But did the Treaty of Versailles lock in the future? The instigator of the war seems self evidently wrong. Like Russia. But once a war is in full mode, we are all involved. I expect to be killed —or expect the enemy to try and kill me. I do not have the luxury of claiming innocence, just because I am not a soldier. The same goes in reverse.
But even within this framework—which is really just a thought experiment of sorts—does not mean all is permitted. Vonnegut made me question the Dresden bombing. On the other hand, I had no problem (in the context of war) with bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nor would I have thought I should have been exempt from danger had the opposite occurred.
War is a strange phenomenon—but I lean toward universal guilt.
Comments are closed.