The More You Know!: The Legitimacy Of A Casus Belli

[Lord Fingolfin]

Greetings, citizens of Planet Bob

Several weeks ago I published an essay regarding The Ex-Hegemony and the political arena at large in [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89326"]The More You Know!: The Myth Of The Ex-Hegemony[/url]. Originally I had no intention of making "The More You Know!" an ongoing publication, however, due to positive feedback and encouragement by many, it is making a return today. The More You Know will neither be a newsletter, nor a consistently occurring piece of propaganda, rather it will exist in more of an editorial form, with each edition addressing a specific issue relevant to Planet Bob. In regards to this edition, the issue at hand will be that of casus belli, and more specifically what meets the criteria of one. Without further ado, I present


[center][img]http://www.mybillq.com/blog/images/themoreyouknow.jpg[/img][/center]


[center][u][b]The Meaning Of A Casus Belli:[/b][/u][/center]



To start off this discussion, I'll provide you unwashed masses with the simple Webster definition of casus belli

[quote]casus belli

Main Entry: ca·sus bel·li
Pronunciation: \ˈkä-səs-ˈbe-ˌlē, ˈkā-səs-ˈbe-ˌlī\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ca·sus belli \ˈkä-ˌsüs-, ˈkā-ˌsüs-\
Etymology: New Latin, occasion of war
Date: circa 1841

: an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict
[/quote]

Short sweet and to the point. This latest conflict, coined by some as the Six Million Dollar War, has drawn the ire of some regarding it's CB, decrying it as unjust and "flimsy". I would contest, however, that it is just as justifiable as any other CB.

In real life politics, one sees wars waged for a variety of reasons, however, in the end they can largely be broken down into the below categories,

Wars fought for:

1. Security
2. Resources
3. Principles
- regime-type
- human rights
- peacekeeping

In the end it all boils down to the war being in the "national interest" of a nation, or in this case an alliance.

Obviously there are innumerable mechanical differences between CN and RL, however, parallels can be drawn. The Green Civil War or other sphere conflicts could be perceived as a war for resources, specifically senate seats. NpO's attack upon \m/ could be construed as a war of principles, particularly the human rights aspect. While TOP/IRON's pre-emptive strike upon C&G was a war of security. What makes any of these more valid than the other? I hold a certain fondness for the NSO, as I enjoyed the time I spent there, and it is with a tinge of sadness that I see them reduced to their current state, however, RoK isn't in the wrong here. For them to claim that they sought peace and wished to resolve the conflict without war, would be wrong and political grandstanding. However, NSO is a threat to their security. They've openly stated they wish to destroy SF/C&G. Only a bloody idiot would let them rest in peace. In order to survive you need to be ruthless, you don't let your enemies provoke you and then sit by idly.

One of the core tenets of CN power is being feared/respected. Your words need to mean something. There is a reason that when Archon does one of his wall of text announcements people stop and listen. He has gravitas. Appearance is half the battle, and if you appear to be weak and indecisive, you're doomed. When Van Hoo explicitely states that doing a certain action will lead to war, when that action is deliberately taken he must follow through with war, otherwise his words and his threats are meaningless. To not follow through on your own words is to be made to look weak, and only encourages future instances of people violating your word. This war is more about maintaining appearance and maintaining authority than anything else, and rightly so. [s]In the end, in my opinion, any war can be justified if its in the national/alliance interest. To these pseudo moralists who say that its "not just" or "not right", I answer you with this
[/s]
[quote]"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book IV, 108[/quote]

[s]Yes, in short, might makes right.[/s] It really does, and its the duty of any alliance to see to its own self interest and safety. [s]If its in the alliances interest to wage war against someone, its justified, simple.[/s] People need to stop haranguing about CB's so much. People blow hot air all day long. Man up and roll tanks or be quiet and stop complaining when someone brings the fight to your doorstep. Moralism and cries for the greater good are just transparent attempts to make the interests of the other party look parochial and unimportant, and make yours seem the greater and "more right". Be more dynamic, thats what this game needs, people like Sponge or Grub who both said "I don't like these people, I don't like what they stand for, I'm going to destroy them".


TLDR:

[s]No CB is inherantly better than another.[/s] In the end all actors on the political stage are acting in their self interest and every CB boils down to that. RoK had no obligation to seek to peacefully come to a resolution with an alliance that seeks to do them harm, and had to take action in order to maintain the authority of it's word.


-LF


EDIT: Crossed out portions have been redacted

Edited August 15, 2010 by Lord Fingolfin

[Sir Paul]

*sniff* My little MKCPS is all grown up. You heard it here second folks: Might makes Right.

[savethecheerleader]

[quote]No CB is inherantly better than another. In the end all actors on the political stage are acting in their self interest and every CB boils down to that.[/quote]

I think that a lot of people realize that. However, those same people will continue to argue over the legitimacy of CB's, because it is often in their best interest to convince others that the CB is valid/invalid/moral/whatever. There might not be any inherent value to a CB, but the arguing and campaigning for/against them is a big part of politics here on Planet Bob.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Sir Paul' timestamp='1281892374' post='2416759']
*sniff* My little MKCPS is all grown up. You heard it here second folks: Might makes Right.
[/quote]

I'm hardly the voice of the MKCPS, as stated in the description, this is more the deranged ramblings of an unimportant person than anything else. Feel free to mock anyone who waived the moralist banner high and proud when oppressed and then adopted the might makes right mentality, and I'll mock them right along side you. I, however, never ascribed to any other belief system than this one, hell I was on "your" side the last two wars, so painting me as a Karma moralist hypocrite is good spin, but doesn't stick in this case. This is simply how I view things, I've got no power to put it into place. In any case, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, no?

[Lord Rune]

People will continue to argue the rightness or wrongness of a CB in an attempt to persuade others. Not those with whom they are fighting so much, though they may persuade one or two to peace out or leave their respective alliances, but rather to persuade those who have yet to join in as to the merits of their cause.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='savethecheerleader' timestamp='1281892471' post='2416761']
I think that a lot of people realize that. However, those same people will continue to argue over the legitimacy of CB's, because it is often in their best interest to convince others that the CB is valid/invalid/moral/whatever. There might not be any inherent value to a CB, but the arguing and campaigning for/against them is a big part of politics here on Planet Bob.
[/quote]

True, and that's why it'll continue forever in all probability. I'll still lambast them though

[SiCkO]

/me tips his hat to his long time friend and former colleague

well written as always.

[Kzoppistan]

Well said.

You stated my thoughts on it exactly, as well. Only with clearer articulation and distinct succinctness.



How would you like a job saying everything I want said but better than I can say it? There's a shiny quarter and world renown fame in it for you. Eh?


*Edit: I want to see more of these.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Sulmar]

tl;dr - Every CB is both justified and unjustified, depending upon what side you are on.

[Vladimir]

There is a problem here, Lord Fingolfin, and it stems from the point that Comrade Sir Paul alluded to: you are viewing the matter from the perspective of power. Unfortunately this leads to an extremely narrow-minded and thus incorrect view.

If all CBs are equally legitimate, then why have one at all: what is its purpose? The short answer is that a CB is an attempt to convince others that your attack is legitimate -- that it had good reason. As this implies, what makes a CB legitimate is not your personal view that might makes right -- there is no objective right or wrong -- but global social opinion. That is to say, legitimacy is not something that can be set down in stone: it is a social construct that depends on hundreds of personal moralities, each subject to change at any time (though there are constants due to the constants inherent in global politic, such as an opposition to arbitrary attacks). The purpose of a CB is to harness these personal moralities and create a consensus (both among friends and enemies) that your attack was necessary and not simply a play for power (if such is believed then your CB has failed). In turn the purpose of this is to prevent the growth of ill-will towards you, and give your actions a certain predictability by demonstrating to others that they are not at risk from your roaming armies (something necessary for long-term security).

I thus reject your thesis in its entirety as the ramblings of power, completely detached from the realities of daily life outside the hegemonic bubble. Moreover, I contend that this very article argues for the [i]illegitimacy[/i] of the CB against NSO, since it rejects the line given and instead argues that the underlying goal was the removal of a competitor and the production of fear.

However, I will thank you for adding yet another proof for my 2009 thesis on the inevitable degeneration of Karma.

[Thorgrum]

The problem is that "might makes right" isnt the right phrase here. Whats more important for the larger political implication is, going forward when the Sith tell us to do something about it, they know we will. No matter if it blows up into a global war or if they go it alone. Thats the more important message, it was and will be a ROK/Sith matter what other people think of the CB is immaterial as its as good of one as your going to see. The squaking is PR, we get that and understand why certain actors have to portray it the way they are.

As long as the message is clear to the Sith that we will do something about it when they throw down the gauntlet of war, mission accomplished. I suspect the next time they will move on to someone less willing to do so. oh, you should send out some messages to Hal, Haflinger and the relic Brainimir this discussion sorely lacks their insight, all though Paul showed up which is a good thing.

[Schad]

Moreover, a [i]casus belli[/i] outside this world isn't a point of no return which necessitates war, it's the point at which one party feels that another has taken an action which renders war justifiable. Many CBs are implicit, obvious enough that they don't need stating...you assassinate the heir to my throne, or attempt to annex my territories, war becomes justifiable. Others are situationally-dependent, and thus made explicit: for a recent real-world example, Israel declared that the protection by Turkish naval vessels of aid ships attempting to enter their waters would constitute a [i]casus belli[/i], as would the presence of the Turkish PM on any such ship. Here, Hoo issued an explicit statement, the line was crossed, the basic threshold for a [i]casus belli[/i] was satisfied. Therefore, there really shouldn't be any argument that a CB existed, and that CB could be acted upon.

Thus, the issue here isn't the [i]casus belli[/i]...it's whether Hoo's statement preceding the [i]casus belli[/i] should have been issued, and whether RoK and company should have followed through on that issuance. On the first point, aiding a nation at war has long been considered an act of war (I can think of several mini-squabbles from the last couple months centering around this to suggest that it is a norm), so that condition would seem to be well-satisfied. On the second, one really needs to take into consideration the parties at play; it's no secret that there's little love between NSO and SF, and as it's also no secret that Hoo doesn't have a tonne of patience for what he considers aggressive acts toward RoK or its allies(see: his statement that he would have rolled GOONS in MA's shoes over the Soldiers of Legion kerfuffle), it shouldn't come as a surprise that this didn't end in a group hug behind closed doors.

So while one could easily argue that another alliance in another situation would not have followed through on the CB, that does not discredit RoK's action...it can, however, determine public perception of the conduct of the war itself. The circumstances were such that war was justifiable; whether they justified a long conflict or harsh terms thereafter is an entirely different matter.

[KingEd]

Like a good politician once said "The truth is what [i]we[/i] say it is." The same works for any CB; if those in the position of Power and Authority acknowledge it and deem it as legit, than nothing else matters. It will hold full weight.

[jeff barr]

good post LF

[snibbmaster]

And regardless of whether the CB was just or not, CN has been holding its collective breath for quite a while looking for a war. So in this case, I'm sure there were people on both sides looking for the diplomacy to fail, just so they could send in the troops.

[Hyperion321]

War in cybernations comes down to one simple truth - half of the world hates the other half, and vise versa. Both of those sides constantly build power and influence and occasionally play red rover with allies in order to take the central powers of the other sides down. If RoK actually liked NSO, and NSO actually liked RoK, there would not be a war right now. The fact is they both hate each other and I don't really think either of them are opposed to nuking each other. So...they're fighting. Does it matter why? I the grand scheme of things - no. If a group of allies hate someone, they are going to eventually attack them when they get pissed off enough and get a CB strong enough to keep the court of public opinion happy. Every power bloc EVER has done it, and every power bloc in the present and future will do it. The only time such a formula is disrupted is when a power bloc who hates someone makes a particularly dickish move and upsets their fringe supporters. That causes the fringe supporters to switch sides and the beaten down soon become the beaters.

CN is cyclical. It's not about morality and power corrupting people, it's about deciding which of the people you and your friends you hate most you can take out when they push you too far and do something stupid enough to warrant your aggression (case in point - NSO). If you choose wrong, you lose power. If you choose right, you keep power. And when I say power, I don't mean oppressing others, I mean being too powerful to be jerked around. There's a difference.

When people don't like each other, they go to war. Whether they admit it or use other reasons is irrelevant - people's hatred for one another is the only real reason for war in CN, and so it shall be for all time.

[Rebel Virginia]

[color="#0000FF"]Would you like to tell us where we've stated that it is our objective to destroy SF and CnG? Because this really is the first I've heard of that.[/color]

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1281901659' post='2416887']
[color="#0000FF"]Would you like to tell us where we've stated that it is our objective to destroy SF and CnG? Because this really is the first I've heard of that.[/color]
[/quote]
Are you referring to me or LF?

edit: nvm. re-read Lf's post.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Hyperion321

[leprecon]

[quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1281896090' post='2416813']
There is a problem here, Lord Fingolfin, and it stems from the point that Comrade Sir Paul alluded to: you are viewing the matter from the perspective of power. Unfortunately this leads to an extremely narrow-minded and thus incorrect view.

If all CBs are equally legitimate, then why have one at all: what is its purpose? The short answer is that a CB is an attempt to convince others that your attack is legitimate -- that it had good reason. As this implies, what makes a CB legitimate is not your personal view that might makes right -- there is no objective right or wrong -- but global social opinion. That is to say, legitimacy is not something that can be set down in stone: it is a social construct that depends on hundreds of personal moralities, each subject to change at any time (though there are constants due to the constants inherent in global politic, such as an opposition to arbitrary attacks). The purpose of a CB is to harness these personal moralities and create a consensus (both among friends and enemies) that your attack was necessary and not simply a play for power (if such is believed then your CB has failed). In turn the purpose of this is to prevent the growth of ill-will towards you, and give your actions a certain predictability by demonstrating to others that they are not at risk from your roaming armies (something necessary for long-term security).

I thus reject your thesis in its entirety as the ramblings of power, completely detached from the realities of daily life outside the hegemonic bubble. Moreover, I contend that this very article argues for the [i]illegitimacy[/i] of the CB against NSO, since it rejects the line given and instead argues that the underlying goal was the removal of a competitor and the production of fear.

However, I will thank you for adding yet another proof for my 2009 thesis on the inevitable degeneration of Karma.
[/quote]

As dirty as it might make me feel , I completely agree with this post. As someone who does believe that the CB is legitimate I don't think the OP is helpful.

I would classify this as a war of principle. Other alliances should not welcome rogues with open arms. NSO was not willing to take the simple but necessary steps needed to disarm a simple rogue problem and that is why there is a war now for one stupid rogue and 6 million.

Edited August 15, 2010 by leprecon

[New Frontier]

The same people who argue against the need for a "valid" CB in this situation are the ones who were so vocally against GGA in the No-CB War for not having a "valid" CB. This is because, the same as now, everyone who matters recognize that CBs are only as important as you make them.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1281896090' post='2416813']
There is a problem here, Lord Fingolfin, and it stems from the point that Comrade Sir Paul alluded to: you are viewing the matter from the perspective of power. Unfortunately this leads to an extremely narrow-minded and thus incorrect view.

If all CBs are equally legitimate, then why have one at all: what is its purpose? The short answer is that a CB is an attempt to convince others that your attack is legitimate -- that it had good reason. As this implies, what makes a CB legitimate is not your personal view that might makes right -- there is no objective right or wrong -- but global social opinion. That is to say, legitimacy is not something that can be set down in stone: it is a social construct that depends on hundreds of personal moralities, each subject to change at any time (though there are constants due to the constants inherent in global politic, such as an opposition to arbitrary attacks). The purpose of a CB is to harness these personal moralities and create a consensus (both among friends and enemies) that your attack was necessary and not simply a play for power (if such is believed then your CB has failed). In turn the purpose of this is to prevent the growth of ill-will towards you, and give your actions a certain predictability by demonstrating to others that they are not at risk from your roaming armies (something necessary for long-term security).

I thus reject your thesis in its entirety as the ramblings of power, completely detached from the realities of daily life outside the hegemonic bubble. Moreover, I contend that this very article argues for the [i]illegitimacy[/i] of the CB against NSO, since it rejects the line given and instead argues that the underlying goal was the removal of a competitor and the production of fear.

However, I will thank you for adding yet another proof for my 2009 thesis on the inevitable degeneration of Karma.
[/quote]

You know what Vlad, I'm going to buck the trend and concede a point here. My original thesis was going to specifically regard this latest NSO-RoK debacle and provide my reasoning for why I deemed the CB valid, as I drew to a close I got a rather whimsical idea to stray beyond my original mandate and touch upon CB's in general and rather hastily drew some rather broad conclusions and assumptions, all CB's are not equally legitimate, I'll concede that, there are cases of clearly trumped up CB's. However, I stand by my reasoning for why this war is justified. You need to back up your word or its meaningless. NPO couldn't just idly stand buy when Kingzog took a red senate seat, it directly violated the Moldavi/Revenge Doctrines, so you had to take action unless you wanted to appear weak and have others challenge your authority in different areas

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1281901659' post='2416887']
[color="#0000FF"]Would you like to tell us where we've stated that it is our objective to destroy SF and CnG? Because this really is the first I've heard of that.[/color]
[/quote]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1281643318' post='2413121']
Our allies are honoring our wishes. That and we all know that if they did jump in on this war it'd only lead to us all being beat down together, which would increase the amount of time it'd take us to grow strong enough in number and in political clout to destroy the SF/C&G hegemony. Which is our ultimate goal. Sorry for spilling the beans, guys.
[/quote]

There are other instances sure. Now, you can counter that Corinan is not the official voice of your government. Touche. However, you don't like SF, SF doesn't like you, you can't debate that fact. You might not be actively sitting in your private forums plotting how to undermine us (you weren't when I was in NSO, so I'm guessing you probably aren't now either), but in the end you'd rather we were gone and you were in power. You're a contender for power, a threat in simple terms. I hope you keep it up, you guys are still one of my favorite alliances out there, and having you as an adversary is certainly entertaining

Edited August 15, 2010 by Lord Fingolfin

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Thorgrum' timestamp='1281896239' post='2416816']
The problem is that "might makes right" isnt the right phrase here. Whats more important for the larger political implication is, going forward when the Sith tell us to do something about it, they know we will [i][b]call our allies because 1v1 is too even.[/b][/i][/quote]
Added what you forgot to mention.

[quote name='Thorgrum' timestamp='1281896239' post='2416816']
No matter if it blows up into a global war or if they go it alone. Thats the more important message, it was and will be a [s]ROK/Sith[/s] [i][b]ROK-TENE-GOD-VE-R&R/Sith[/b][/i] matter...[/quote]
Again, just fixing some phrases for ya.

[quote name='Thorgrum' timestamp='1281896239' post='2416816']
As long as the message is clear to the Sith that we will do something about it when they throw down the gauntlet of war, mission accomplished. I suspect the next time they will move on to someone less willing to do so. oh, you should send out some messages to Hal, Haflinger and the relic Brainimir this discussion sorely lacks their insight, all though Paul showed up which is a good thing.
[/quote]
The validity of CBs don't matter much to me. Its a waste of time arguing it. Might makes right is right. Any reason someone can use to smash an alliance will be legit for a long as that alliance is in a position of power. So what if people post well thought out arguments against the CB. Those walls of text don't make things change. ROK is in a position of power so they get to pursue this war with no consequences. When the day comes that ROK is no longer in such a position, the diplomacy will be different. They will wait and settle things with talks instead of quickly declaring war to settle the dispute.

Might makes right for so long as that might can back it up. Flimsy CB with Might behind you or Solidly Undisputed CB with nothing behind you? Which would you choose if you were about to go to war? Flimsy and Might.

[Tautology]

[quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1281896090' post='2416813']
...
If all CBs are equally legitimate, then why have one at all: what is its purpose? The short answer is that a CB is an attempt to convince others that your attack is [b]legitimate[/b] -- that it had good [b]reason[/b].[/quote]
You're putting together 2 very different ideas here and saying they're synonymous. [b]Legitimate[/b], as you say, refers to some rough consensus on what the conventions of CN, but [b]reason[/b] is whether it is a logical thing to do. For example, if an alliance was pretty certain that it was going to be hit by another alliance but there was no practical way to prove it, and it declared war pre-emptively on the other alliance, its actions would not be legitimate but they would be with good reason.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1281904419' post='2416928']
Added what you forgot to mention.
[/quote]

Wars aren't meant to be even. You can't expect them to handicap themselves for you.