Philosophy Discussion Forums

Someone asked me, How does dissent "embolden" the enemy? For those who adhere to an "us vs. them" mentality, what is your justification for believing as such?

I responded with the following.

Dissent doesn't embolden the enemy. Saying it does is just propaganda. It is a red herring used against dissenters.

In fact, it is that a country has dissenters that weakens the enemy by improving the countries reputation. For example, it would be easier for anti-US terrorists to recruit new people to their cause if the United States didn't have dissenters.

What do you think? Does dissent "embolden" the enemy?

Yes, I agree.

Usually the most harmful entity/person/group etc. is the one next-door, hence your own community or government. Very rarely do people die at the hands of other governments, or lose there freedoms as a result of another countries actions. Not that countries don't meddle in each other affairs, but usually it's the government or community that ends up hurting it's own people. Even in the case of crime, such as someone breaking into your house and stealing your private possessions, it's more likely to be someone you know.

So to ignore your own government or to become complacent to it's actions, is far more dangerous then condemning it in front of foreign aggressors. This is even more true in the case with the US government and it's aggressors being small religiously fanatical rebel groups in the Middle East.

President Bush used "embolden" in a speech. The enemy he was referring to was the terrorists. (Confusingly, he was trying to justify the Iraqui war by falsely inferring that it is a major part of the "war" on terrorism.) How on earth, I asked myself at the time, could the people that flew airplanes into skyscrapers get any bolder?

I don't for a minute doubt that an enemy that knows we are divided and uncertain will fight harder than if we are united and resolute. However that doesn't make "dissent" wrong. What if the fight is for improper ends, or by wrong methods, or is ill-timed or too costly or futile?

And, as has been mentioned, we are a democracy comitted to freedom of speech. Supressing dissension borders dangerously on preventing free speech. How better to please our terrorist enemy!