Retaliation is ambiguous in the world of politics. Without any doubt, we all know that if Iran takes such an action (to which the US "retaliates"), they - Iran - will consider the first action an act of retaliation. Historically, it's very rare for someone to just go out and do something. Even Saddam had a semi-reasonable excuse to invade Kuwait (he believed it belonged to Iraq and was stolen). There's also the matter of "proportionality", which is obviously not a legal concept, but can usually give you an idea as to whether the objective is retaliation or retaliation+more. If Iran sends one rocket into Iraq and the US nukes Iran off the face of the earth, it will certainly be called retaliation but in reality, the use of the word is a total sham. I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with anyone here. Just saying that, in politics today, every action is a "retaliation". It has become the modus operandi to angle people's perceptions in that way in orderto legitimize their actions, whether those actions are fair or unfair, and whether that statement is true or not.
I think functionally, there is a very big difference between invading Kuwait and telling everyone after the fact that you were justified, and delineating beforehand just what actions each country would consider a casus belli and seeing if accommodation might be reached if that "line of last resort" for competing countries overlap. In fact, I would argue that it is a significant and important part of a healthy process for each individual national unit to articulate in the face of friction with other nations exactly what it will consider "over the line". That way, nobody will cross the line into war without intending to do so. The problem comes when Austria-Hungary is not quite sure if Russia will declare war on Germany if Austria-Hungary seeks retribution for Serbians killing the Archduke. It is, to me, important for every country to make it clear what actions would be considered worthy of a military response, rather than defer to politeness and end up fighting wars that nobody knew was coming. That way, war only occurs if both sides make an intentional determination that they can't live with the other side's ground rules. The idea that wars might happen because nations are too polite to tell each other that they would consider something a casus belli sounds perverse to me, and not too productive. Every meating of the UN would be a mine field - everybody afraid of saying anything on the off chance that you might cross someone else's invisible boundaries and send yourself over the line into an unintended war. In any case, there is to me a big difference between saying, "I'm going to do X to you." and "If you do X, I will respond with Y." For instance, the recent spat between Iran and the UAE, what would have happened if Iran had said nothing? Maybe the UAE thinks Iran won't mind if they invade Greater and Lesser Tunib, and so they do it? What happens to the UAE when Iran decides to wage full scale war in return? Would that have been a preferable outcome, instead of all sorts of nasty UAE and Iranian threats at each other?
I disagree, I think that's an artificial variable added to the equation. The "line" may be an unreasonable line and, more often than not, it usually is unreasonable depending on the political strength of the country drawing that line. In theory, you are right that those two are different things. But in reality, "I'm going to do X to you" doesn't really exist anymore. Everything is retaliation. Everyone has a history. Everyone has a reason. When has someone said "I'm going to do X to you" for no reason at all? Hitler believed the Jews wanted to choke Germany and allegedly drew a line, does that make the holocaust a retaliation? Again, in theory, yes those are different things. In reality, only the retaliatory situation is in use today, whether legitimate or not is another issue. You can draw lines as you please, but these lines may be drawn because the "drawer" needs the other side to cross a line in order to legitimize to an audience the impending attack. We can take, as an example, Iran's nuclear program. It is becoming abundantly clear that the problem with this program is not the irresponsible actions of the government, but rather the problem is Iran having any ability to produce nuclear weapons at all even under a brand new spotless government. Is that a fair line? Is that respecting a nation's right to defend itself, with American Iraq and American Afghanistan on its two sides and Nuclear Israel nearby? Just the action of drawing a line could be a declaration of war if done improperly/properly. I these words are used to shape perception. The right to defend yourself is one thing, but the right to defend yourself and then retaliating is not a legitimate action. They are two different things. Defending myself is dodging a punch. Retaliation is punching you back. If retaliation is a valid reason to do things, then we will punch each other over and over again till one of us dies. About the UAE-Iran spat, I'm not sure I understood your question. Are you saying Iran shoudl say "if you try to invade, I will attack you"? That would be worthless as the UAE considers Iran's presence on the islands to be an invasion and Iran completely denies that there is a conflict. So now, the UAE will attack in "retaliation" for Iran taking the islands, and Iran will attack in "retaliation" for the UAE taking the islands, and so on and so forth forever. It's not retaliation at all. It was an attack by Iran in 1971 and it would be an attack by the UAE and each one gets judged by its merits. If you want to say why you're attacking before you do, awesome. But if Iran says "if you try to take OUR islands, we will kill you" that would be a worthless statement. That's a false line and the retaliation is artificially generated. The other party doesn't recognize them as "Iran's islands" therefore this line is a joke. In fact, the lie was only drawn to legitimize an attack in the future. Maybe I'm missing something. Could you possibly show me an attack where it wasn't justified as retaliation?
When you are walking in the woods and come upon a rattlesnake, the rattling sound you heard warns you that if you keep going closer, the snake will attack. Wise animals understand this warning and stay away. The loud and clear threatening rattle noise, therefore, reduces the number of instances where the rattlesnake has to bite an animal who walks into the snake's territory unaware, and the total number of animals who die unnecessarily is greatly reduced. Hitler was never interested in achieving accommodation with the Jews. Saddam was never interested in negotiating with Kuwait. (In fact, with respect to Kuwait, one of the many causes sited for the war was the fact that Saddam hinted to US diplomats that he might invade, and the diplomats didn't make it clear that the US would frown on that. Saddam interpreted this wrongly as an indication that the USA would not respond if he invaded. If the US diplomats had made sufficently threatening responses, it is likely he never would have invaded Kuwait.) In both instances, the warnings were pretext. There was never warning before hand, nor was there any way for the people being threatened to get out of the way of the line that had been drawn in the sand. Certainly, there are plenty of instances of people using retaliation as a pretext to create an offensive war. But a handful of examples where it has happened doesn't mean that every instance in the history of the world is nothing but pretext. One example of military threat being used effectively to prevent war would be JFK's speech to the effect that: [rquoter] It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union. [/rquoter] By drawing a line in the sand at what the USA would consider "too much" and making it clear exactly where that line was, JFK gave the Soviet Union a chance to adjust and redirect their strategy. They said, "OK, we won't put these missiles in Cuba, if you remove those missiles from Turkey." No missiles were ever launched from Cuba, and no full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union ever happened, because JFK made it clear to the Soviet Union exactly how upset he was by those missiles. There were certainly plenty of US generals who would have preferred that the USA just let the Soviet Union build the weapons and then use that as a pretext to invade. But by making loud threatening noises, JFK avoided that. Assume that Iran believes the islands belong to them. When the UAE says, "These islands belong to us", imagine two outcomes. First, Iran says nothing out of fear of being seen as threatening to the UAE. UAE takes this silence as an indication that Iran won't really care if the UAE takes the islands by force. Iran may have been too polite to say mean things, but when the UAE invades islands that they think are theirs, Iran strikes back at the UAE. A war starts over the invasion. Many Iranians and Emerati die as a result. Second outcome, Iran loudly and belligerently says, "These Islands belong to Iran. Any attempt to take them would be seen as an act of war and we would strike back against the UAE if they decide to try and take them." After hearing this, and rationally calculating that UAE would get their @sses kicked by Iran in a war, the UAE doesn't invade the Islands, Iran doesn't attack the UAE in retaliation, and lots of Iranian and Emerati lives don't end prematurely. Just like the rattlesnake, by making a loud and threatening sound in response to what it viewed as threatening rhetoric towards Iranian territory, Iran has ensured that the UAE understands what will happen if they try and take the islands back by force.
Completely invalid comparison. A rattlesnake doesn't lie when it rattles. In fact, I don't even know that rattlesnakes rattle to help YOU out. Not bashing, but honestly this wasn't a good analogy. Also, your explanation of it implies that the driving force behind everything is the ability to kill, fairly or unfairly, and that wise people should always avoid being killed, regardless of whether an attack is just or unjust. I think maybe you need to read up more. Saddam has wanted to invade Kuwait since before we were born - every Arab in the world knows it. Is there any proof of him mentioning this to the US or them responding passively? I'm not sure we're seeing eye to eye. Clearly, Russia was helping Cuba to retaliate, and the USA would've attack the Soviet Union to retaliate. The point is >> everything is retaliation. I don't disagree that threatning retaliation has worked in a handful of cases in the past. I'm just saying that it is always retaliation and that your statement - which is that retaliation is different from outright attack - is true but irrelevant because outright attack does not happen. We are going into Iraq because. We are defending Kuwait because. We are attacking Afghanistan because. We are going to Vietnam because. We are placing missiles in Cuba because the US placed missiles in Turkey. It's obvious that threatning retaliation is just about the only threat to attack you can make. There are no other options. In that light, the US has threatened Iran in the only way people can threaten each other - in retaliation. But it is irrelevant. Just by assuming that the islands belong to Iran, the Iranians have essentially declared to the Emiratis that they have invaded the islands, which is a "you've gone too far" action for Emiratis that does not need to be spelt out in a threat. Clearly, if you invade someone, then you expect them to resist and wage war. This situation is lightly different to US-Iran because, the US is not saying that "we will wage war if someone attacks us" - no one has to say this. The U.S. have said that in the case of Iran and North Korea, they would not only retaliate but leave the option of nuclear attack open. Imagine 10 people in the room. Then there's you with a baseball bat. You tell everyone that if they punch you, you will punch them back but promise not to use the baseball bat. But you single out 2 of the 10 people, Mr Khamenei and Mr Kim Jong Il, and tell them that if they punch you, you will not rule out using the baseball bat. Now, in this room, there is a rule: you can't threaten a person with a baseballbat-beating without good reason. Given the rules of the game in this room, don't you think your earlier comments to Mr Il and Mr Khamenei constitute the most threatning statement you can possibly make within the rules of the game?
I disagree here, mainly because proportionality is part of international law governing armed conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law) I do agree with you on the usage of the term retaliation in the scenario you described. I would never consider such an act (nuking a country) as retaliation. I would consider it a reprisal: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/365-570056?OpenDocument
The rattlesnake rattles because any time it gets in a fight, it stands a chance of being injured or dying. It is what is known as enlightened self-interest. By helping you avoid forcing it into a fighting situation, it also helps itself to improve its chances of living. As far as I'm concerned, it is a perfect analogy. Another example would be a Monarch butterfly. It doesn't make noise but it uses bright colors to alert predators that it is poisons. One of your arguments seems to be that because sometimes people misuse legitimate warnings and other aggressive verbal diplomacy, that all of is is bunk and invalid. In fact the opposite is true. The Viceroy butterfly mimics the markings of the Monarch, but is not poisonous. But by mimicking the Monarch falsely, the Viceroy shows just exactly how powerful and important the bright color warnings of the Monarch are as an evolutionary strategy. My explanation implies that the driving force behind every human being or group of human beings in the history of the world is self-interest. My self interest is inherently much more obvious to me than yours, and I am much more well motivated to ensure my self-interest than in securing your self-interest. It is unreasonable for you to expect me to know your mind or predict what is important to you in any detail or to expect that I will go out of my way do what is in your self interest without peripheral reasons (i.e. something in exchange in my interests). You are outside my sphere of control, and so operate according to what you perceive to be your best interests. When our self interests intersect, we either sit down and cajole, scare, plead, and beg to reach accommodation with each other, or we decide that the superposition of our two sets of needs is unresolvable by compromise and then make effort to ensure that our needs are met, to the exclusion of yours in a zero-sum game. See, the problem here is the issue of believing that one side clearly owns the islands. Both sides legitimately believe they have rights of ownership. Essentially, whoever the "real" owner is in the hazy legal framework is irrelevant. Fundimentally the Iranians "own" those island because they have stuff on them. If all the Iranians leave and Emeratis take their place, then the Emarites "own" them. Ever heard the phrase, "Posession is 9/10ths of the law"? Another example would be Cyprus. The Greeks can protest all they want, but in practical terms, as long as there are Turks on the northern half of that Island, the Turks "own" it, no matter how much the UN and the Greeks protest. Along the same lines, check out the Falkland War. The Argentinians thought that the British would raise a little diplomatic fuss, but before they could do anything, the Argentine military would "own" the islands by their presence and the British would accede ownership to Argentina. If they had bothered to try and press the issue through words beforehand, they might have learned otherwise. Instead, the Argentinians invaded the Falklands thinking that the British would give up, and the British ended up kicking their @ss six ways from Sunday, but not before a whole bunch of Argentinian and British young men died needlessly. A little more back and forth threatening language before hand might have prevented that. Check out the South Ossettia war. In that instance, the words were said, but the Georgians seemed to think they were just bluffs. If the Georgians had bothered to pay attention to what the Russians were saying, there might be a whole lot more Georgian people alive right now. One example where the war of words seems to be working is the Senkaku Islands. The Japanese know the Chinese think they own them. The Chinese know the Japanese think they own them. Because of the war of words, both sides know that if they do anything around those islands, they should do so as if walking on eggshells. Neither side has, therefore, committed to full scale industrial invasion out of concern for the reaction of the other side. Both sides proceed in baby steps. So, you would then agree that on a near weekly basis, country of Iran is trying to push the countries of Israel and The United States into a full scale war? Personally, it would seem easier to just declare the war yourself. But that is the logical conclusion of your statements, given the volume of threats of retaliation that are issued by IRGC, the President, and the Supreme Leader on near weekly basis. But if that really is their goal, why don't they just declare the war themselves? It would seem to be a very circuitous way to start a war.
