Less Harmful Alternatives

Recent interaction with a supporter of the no-fly zone over Libya has me thinking about a broader issue.  He published a posting that claimed that the reason why people didn't support military action was that they didn't care about the people of Libya, or at least is seemed like that was the implication.  Perhaps I am being a bit hard on him.  It is possible that some people oppose the no-fly zone for this reason, and that that was what he was objecting to.

I responded by using his analogy between countries and households to suggest that more liberal immigration policies would be a better response.  I believe that if we are considering actions that could harm others, then we should always consider whether there might be less destructive alternatives to the action we are contemplating.  Obviously his concern for the wellbeing of the people of Libya and other oppressive countries is worthy of admiration.  I would say that to the extent that our elected officials show a similar concern for the wellbeing of people who are politically repressed, that concern is to be commended.

However, the course he is implementing is destructive.  He is supporting action that is certain to cause death.  It could motivate terrorists to attack the persons and property of Americans.  It will require the government to spend money which they will need to forcibly extract from U.S. citizens.  Furthermore the benefits of the action are uncertain.  We might change the government of Libya for the better, but we might just be prolonging a civil war in Libya and actually increasing the number of civilian casualties.

Given the deficiencies of the solution he is supporting, we should be looking for less destructive alternatives that will lead to results that are at least as likely or beneficial.  It seems to me that more liberal immigration policy fits the bill.  It would enable people to move to countries that they believed would be less likely to kill them.  It would do so at a lower cost for each life that was saved by this change in policy.  It would do less to put us in danger of terrorist attack.

But the larger issue concerns the ways in which we make arguments.  By blaming people, we are seeking to damage their reputations.  Many of the concerns that I have listed for the no-fly zone apply have analogs that apply to this situation.  The action might hurt someone's reputation.  There may be retaliation.  The time that I spend making an argument is costly.  I might not succeed in changing anyone's mind.  It seems to me that the damage done should be as little as possible to achieve the desired effect.  We should always be searching for less harmful alternatives.

This includes the timing of statements made against a war.  There is really little we can do now to stop the current policy.  It is already in place.  More liberal immigration policies might be a better solution, but the time to point that out was before we decided on one course or the other.  I had the opportunity to make my point before the policy was implemented and will have the opportunity to make it again no doubt.  This won't be the last time that our country contemplates humanitarian military intervention.