3 ms·
To zoom out slightly, consider the famous phrase war is politics with guns. Would it ever be the case that war is politics with cyber strikes? As the article
by resters 7y ago
To zoom out slightly, consider the famous phrase war is politics with guns.
Would it ever be the case that war is politics with cyber strikes?
As the article points out, the strikes were politically motivated (against Iran's regime), but were they an act of war?
Under what circumstances should the American people tolerate an act of war being carried out on their "behalf"?
In my view, the democratic process should be used to prevent the US from doing "warmaking" that is not broadly supported by the public.
In fact, as it is well known, the framers required congress to declare war.
So what is the purpose of the US conducting such a strike done without democratic consent?
My guess is that it was conducted to help nudge the American people into accepting acts of war by executive fiat against Iran, when the legal justification for them is at risk of being removed via the democratic process (1). The house passed a bill requiring congressional authorization, but the senate did not.
So we can view the cyber strike as the executive branch asserting its power to make war against Iran without the sort of missiles and bombs that make Americans easily think of it as war.
1. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/19/18691936/house-democrats-vote-repeal-9-11-aumf-war-iran https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/19/18691936/h...
- daveslash 7y ago>> In my view, the democratic process should be used to prevent the US from doing "warmaking" that is not broadly supported by the public. I would agree with you on principle. In practice, I'm not sure that the general public is capable of really understanding or digesting the concepts of cyber-warfare. At least, not in a way that would lend itself well to the democratic process. Unfortunately.
- rubidium 7y agoWe don't take away from the democratic process that which is hard to understand. Your concern has been raised by politicians for hundreds of years. All it would take (in the US) for the the representative congress to pass a new law which makes foreign cyber interference only permissible when passed by the the house and senate, similar to declarations of war.
- randomsearch 7y ago> war is politics with guns Never heard that phrase before, but I wouldn't agree with it. Politics is all about compromise: the art of the possible. It's negotiation. War often happens when politicians fail to negotiate.
- implements 7y agoThere's "War is the continuation of Diplomacy by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz (Military theorist)
- resters 7y agoI think the counterargument would be that politics is the orderly handling of coercive force and authority. When this orderly approach isn't sufficient, additional coercive force is added to the mix. At some point it starts to look like war. To people on the wrong side of the political hierarchy, every day looks like war as armed troops (police) occupy neighborhoods seeking to enforce an externally imposed code that criminalizes normal, consensual behavior, confiscates wealth and property, and destroys civil society. > when politicians fail to negotiate In a sense, yes. If one politician demands that a foreign leader step down or face a US invasion, one can interpret the foreign leader's failure to step down as a breakdown in negotiations, but I think that is quite a stretch.
- mccr8 7y agoI think the phrase you may be thinking of is the more poetic "War is the continuation of politics by other means" by Carl von Clausewitz.
- resters 7y agoYes, the phrase I used seems to be a common paraphrase.