i also want to post a summary of my position on these interventionist bombing campaigns, so it can be referenced moving forward. i don't mind if people cite me - i have a large archive of writing at this point - but i would insist that they do so responsibly. when somebody has thousands of pages of writing on the internet, chances are they've been very precise at least a few times, and it really is your responsibility to do the research properly. there's a point where bad research makes you a bad researcher, and your motives come into question.

i am not a pacifist, and while i don't think the state should be operating on moral principles, i reject the premise that war is this uniformly immoral thing, no matter what. historically, that's a very conservative position. rather, i am an insurrectionary left-wing anarchist; i believe the class war is perpetual, and would usually, on principle, support the violent overthrow of most totalitarian states, if the alternative is something better approaching self-determinancy. what that means is that i'm very left-wing, not that i'm somewhere on the right.

so, the questions that i want to know the answer to before i make a decision to support an interventionist bombing campaign are not about something to do with morality but rather are the following:

1) do i support the opposition forces over the government?
2) if so, will this bombing campaign materially improve the position of the opposition forces on the ground? 

3) if so, are the opposition forces on the ground strong enough to defeat the government?
4) if not, is it reasonable to consider deploying troops?
5) if so, is it in the interests of the nato to actually do so?

these are the questions i want these issues framed in, not absurdities about morals and appeals to, like, gandhi or something.

even as i'm rejecting hippies and pacifists on an epistemological level, and refusing to organize with them, there are startlingly few examples of wars i've actually supported. the difference is that my line of thinking opens me up to the possibility of wars in certain rare scenarios, rather than rejecting all of them a priori, but that doesn't mean you'll see me support very many wars in real life.

let's try a few out.

1) syria.

a) do i support the opposition forces over the government? no. i would prefer to support a secular arab left over saudi-backed wahhabi extremists.

2) libya.

a) do i support the opposition over the government? no. see syria.

3) ukraine.

a) do i support the opposition over the government? no. i supported the maidan protesters, but i neither support the ukrainian nationalists nor do i support the russian separatists. the west should stay out of this.

4) iraq.

a) did i support the opposition over the government? i would have supported an imaginary opposition. for the sake of devil's advocate, let's keep going.

b) would a bombing campaign have improved the positions of this imaginary opposition? if it was targeted it might have, but it would have been naive to believe that.

c) were the forces on the ground strong enough? clearly not, no.

d) was it reasonable to consider deploying troops? definitely not, no.

there's a few where it's less obvious what the right answer is:

5) serbia.

a) did i support the opposition over the government? it was never clear to me if any side should have been supported. but, it is not clear that any side should have been opposed, either. let's go on.

b) would a bombing campaigned have improved their position? yes, clearly.

c) were the forces on the ground strong enough? no.

d) was it reasonable to deploy troops? in serbia, it actually kind of was reasonable to deploy.

e) was it in the interests of nato? i think there's an argument that it was, yeah.

6) iran.

a) would i support the opposition over the government? yes, absolutely, no question.

b) would a bombing campaign improve their position? if it is very small scale & very targeted, it might. no carpet-bombing...

c) are the forces on the ground strong enough? this is the question i'd like to see more discussion around. are they? i don't know. my decision will likely rest on that.

d) is it reasonable to deploy troops? probably not, which is why the strength of the opposition force on the ground is so important.

e) is it in the interests of nato? i think yes, clearly.

and there is only one scenario in the post-war world that i'm aware of where it has been clearly justified:

7) isis.

a) would i support the opposition on the ground over the islamic state? yes. adamantly.

b) would a bombing campaign improve their position? clearly.

c) are the forces on the ground strong enough? the kurds and iraqis could handle it amongst themselves, yes - and the syrians and russians and turks were there to help. ground strength was more than sufficient.

d) was it reasonable to deploy troops? they were already there.

e) was it in the interests of nato? i think it was in the interests of all of humanity.

we can disagree on this topic and no doubt will.

but, please make an attempt not to misquote or misrepresent me. i try to be honest; i expect the same in return.