Unforeseen Consequences

I think this is a topic worth mentioning and, if you want to get a legal view of it, go to any secondhand bookstore near a university and pick up one of the student guides to "torts".

Unforeseen is a little more than "gee, I didn't think that could happen." This gets into concepts of reasonableness and prudence. And when we are discussing decisions about whether or not to go to war, the reasonableness standard is not what is reasonable to the average schmuck on the street or even a commentator on Fox Noise. A reasonable person would consult experts on the issues at hand, rather than going with what some exile with an ax to grind says or what the decision-maker's gut feeling is.

For instance, the current clusterfuck in Iraq is not an unforeseen consequence. There was no shortage of expert analysis done before the war that predicted what has transpired since this event took place:


("Accomplished", hell, it hadn't barely begun, Chimpy, you ignorant putz. But I digress.)

Unforeseen consequences are those that even experts could not rationally be expected to foresee. For instance, no rational person could blame the rise of Adolph Hitler and fascism on Woodrow Wilson's decision to enter World War One. If Wilson had not brought America into that war, the British likely would have had to sue for peace, leaving the French out to dry. The Germans then might have forced an unfavorable peace on France and maybe then fascism would have risen in France. But it probably would not have arisen in Germany.

As much as some would like to blame Reagan for terrorism, and certainly the decision to arm the Mujahdeen in Afghanistan contributed greatly to the current situation, I think this one falls into the category of unforeseen consequences.