I’ve read several articles over the past few weeks that talk about Israel’s rage at the attack on October 7th, each of them insisting that Israel must contain its rage, that the rage will not solve any problem, it will only make it worse. Israel’s actions are, either explicitly or implicitly labeled as unreasonable, as crazy. Israel, must dial it back, Israel must be reasonable.

Here’s a quick quiz:

Score the following: each gets from 1 to 10 points, 10 points being wildly irrational, 1 point being careful, clear, rational, analytical in their decision-making:

Kim Jong Un (North Korea)

Adolph Hitler (NAZI Germany)

Joseph Stalin (USSR)

Bill Clinton

George Bush

Barack Obama

If you attended the Naval War College and paid attention during the course on Rational Decision-Making, especially if you read some of the extra readings, or, if you have ever read G.K. Chesterton, you will understand that Kim, Hitler and Stalin each gets 1 point. As for the other three, while occasional low scorers, they were often dancing around the top of the score card.

And to go one step further, the most rational one of the bunch, hands down, is Kim Jong Un. He, and his father – Kim Il Song, can probably lay claim to being the most rational decision-makers anywhere on the planet for the last 4 decades.

The problem here is that this is not rational – not in the sense that western academicians use the word. I suspect that for more most people the word means something akin to: acting in a way I think conforms to my version of right behavior. But that, specifically, is not rational thought, or action. It may – or may not be moral thought and action. But that doesn’t make it rational.

The use of the word reasonable (or rational) is normally attached to your world view. But the word really means taking a “reasoned” approach, that is, starting with an understanding of “where you are,” a gathering of facts, and then using a logical process to arrive at a course of action that will lead to your desired results. Nothing in that process need be nice, or moral.

In fact, Hitler was rational. So was Stalin. And Mao. So are the Kims in North Korea.

Consider the Kims; they’ve had one overriding goal for most of the last 4 decades: survival of the Kim regime. Before that they may have harbored dreams of conquering the rest of the peninsula, and they may still have such dreams. But those dreams are now a distant second to the desire to simply survive and remain in power. Everything, every single thing, is decided based on its impact on that one goal. Nuclear weapons, cross-border provocations, killing a family member, or aiding Russia – each is done because the assessment in Pyongyang suggests it will help retain power. That is the only “value” that is considered. Right means anything that helps, wrong means anything that does not. Western moral values literally have no place in the decision-making.

Further, consider the Kim: a country of 25 million people with a GDP of perhaps $20 billion (probably less). They have no extra money, they cannot afford to make mistakes; every step must be planned.

The US, on the other hand, is perhaps the least rational decision-maker on the planet – because it can be. In January 2022 the US was looking to spend perhaps several hundred million – with an M – on Ukraine for that fiscal year. Then the war started. And the US stared spending tens of billions of dollars. The US can act with passion, quickly. No one else has that ability. To any other nation in the world it was unreasonable. It was welcomed, but it was unreasonable.

Rational simply means that you have exercised reason and logic to arrive at your decision. But logical outcomes also depend upon where you start and what you’re trying to achieve. It’s important to note that your values – your moral code, if you have one – is perhaps the critical element in determining what you can and can’t do, of setting your boundaries for action. If you remove moral codes, or if your moral code allows it, then murdering those who oppose you is, if you can get away with it, a rational approach…

In World War II the Axis Powers had a substantially different moral code in many respects from the Allied Powers. Hitler’s plan to wipe out the Jewish Race was evil, but from his perspective, rational. Sadly, that sort of rational behavior proliferated in the 20th Century – Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot are just three of the more infamous rational men.

So?

First, it means if you want to understand the “other guy,” and influence him to act in a certain way, you need to begin with understanding what he’s trying to achieve, and his value system. It doesn’t mean you agree with him. President Xi of China is a butcher. A long string of Chinese leaders have terrorized Tibet and are wiping out its people. They’re evil men. But they’re not stupid nor are they crazy. They want China to rule east Asia, then Asia, then the world. They have plans on how that will work. They’re cold and clear and methodical. They’re also enslaving millions and God alone knows how many have met an untimely death because of the Chinese government over the path 75 years. Including several hundred million forced abortions, the number probably reaches a half a billion (yes, one-half a billion). The same policies and authorities remain in place. We need to remember all that when we talk of dealing with China.

Hamas is not much different. They too wish to exterminate a people. The call “From the River to the Sea” is a call to erase Israel – and Israelis. They are not operating from the same moral standards as the Israelis. Reaching some sort of modus vivendi is unlikely. It has been unlikely for years, but there was a willful effort on the part of several Israeli governments, compounded by pressure on Israel from the US and Europe, to accept Hamas as an equal partner. But the fact is that Hamas – and Hizballah, and the Mullahs in Tehran – do not intend to give in to Israel, ever. Israel, they feel, like the Kingdom of Jerusalem 900 years ago, must not be allowed to survive. And their reasoning begins with what they perceive to be holy guidance.

So, Israel can “contain its rage,” be “prudent” and “reasonable,” but they must not expect such “reasoned responses” from Hamas nor Hizballah, nor the Mullahs in Tehran. Israeli planning needs to begin with that.

Copyright 2023 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com