What Is the Virtue of a Proportional Response? | The West Wing 

Funny enough the UK civil service did the six options: 1) Do nothing; 2) Issue a deploring statement; 3) Lodge an official protest; 4) Cut off aid; 5) Break off diplomatic relations; 6) Declare war. Problem with this was, if they issued a statement the government looks silly, a protest would be ignored, you can't cut off aid you don't give, breaking off diplomatic relations looks like you're throwing a tantrum, and declaring war would be an overreaction. So this left you with the glorious nothing which the civil service wants done in four stages. Stage 1) Nothing is going to happen; Stage 2) Something may happen, but we should do nothing; Stage 3) Maybe we should do something, but there is nothing we can do; Stage 4) We could have actually done something, but too late now.

@@MadPuppy92 Sounds very Yes Minister

Trump short circuited it when they offered to kill Qasem Soleimani and he said “yeah! Do that!”

Where i come from there are also 3 options , two of which are, on close inspection, exactly the same. Plus a third which is totally unacceptable , like bombing Warsaw or invading France.

Those are the three options my real estate broker gave me when I was looking for a rental apartment. 1. Some five star hotel out of my budget, 2. A sewage pipe near the slums, and 3. the one owned by the landlord who gave him higher commission.

Yup.. And meanwhile, Charlie is wondering if he should work for him.

Yup. And meanwhile, Charlie is wondering if he should even work for him.

Fitz was a dunderhead. Not familiar with the law of armed conflict. Unable to define "proportionality" after 30+ years of military service. Deserved to be fired.

"We killed Yamamoto!"

@@SWOBIZ Bartlett wasn't asking for a definition of a proportional response. He clearly knew the definition. Bartlett was asking for the virtue of a proportional response. I.e. what was the benefit of it when it didn't deter these attacks from happening again? So Fitz laid out for him exactly what a disproportionate response would look like, what it would cost and how it would be perceived. Exactly what Bartlett needed to hear to clear his head. That was the opposite of a dunderhead.

@@danieldickson8591 And done in a calm, professional way that was not insubordinate to POTUS.

The act of attacking is an escalation

@@benblum1761 Kind of. When Iran attacked Israel couple weeks ago, Israel responded in kind with a proportional response. Each side however only really did what they did to not appear weak and not risk losing their power from those within their government. After Israel's response attack, there has been no ongoing hostilities as of late between the two countries or any escalation. So in the case of them the escalation was there but stopped. A sort of you slap a guy, he slaps you back, and then its done type scenario. Now this kind of thing though if done improperly can get seriously out of hand and spiral into a full blown war. Where each side continues to respond slightly higher in damage each occurrence instead of stopping, until it eventually becomes a war.

@@8888stealth This already got out of hand on October 7. Trying to not escalat resulted in thousands of deaths because they used their proxies to wage their wars for them. Proportinal response doesn't work

@@benblum1761 I know, your repeating what I just said...

Not just avoids escalation, but follows the principles of international law. Specifically: proportionality.

It also misses the following scenes where he comes to term with Leo and understanding that to be a superpower you have to show restraint, and that Leo would not support a zealous militaristic government (I would raise an army against you).

it has nothing to do with american life, but that you attack and kills thousands in revenge is not right.

Americans value life only in minimal ways, generally, so what is Bartlet doing other than screaming into the wind of the disgusting and violent culture he's part of?

"This cuts off President Bartlet's final line to the scene: "A 50-buck crime? I don't know what we're doing here anymore." He acknowledges that Fitzwallace is right but, with that closing line, admonishes him for placing so little value on an American life." That is complete hogwash. The theme of Fitzwallace's presentation is that far more American lives - not just lives abroad - will be risked by engaging in a campaign that could plausibly set off a World War...a nuclear World War...where the U.S. would find itself being ISOLATED from securing support from even its allies (at the time, Great Britain and Japan being the most prominent of those.) You clickbait artists are sociopaths. Or, in the alternative...you are the very American adversaries that would like nothing more than to see American society utterly decimated through embracing knee jerk, hedonistic, populist postures, both domestically and abroad.

As Bartlett would learn as he embarked on completing that first term in office...what he may not have understood early in his tenure...he became acutely aware of as he gained more on-the-job experience. We're not playing with bows and arrows, anymore, Chief.

Very good

One point you are forgetting and it is the most important one is that the escalation ladder only work between enemies of comparable size. Asymmetric conflicts, which has been the norm since the 90's, minus UKR/RUS ones, are characterized by one vastly superior enemy trying to minimize collateral damage against an enemy engaging all of their limited capacities in talking advantage of that. Future events are by definition impossible to know and certainty of proportional responses not escalading into unknown situations are mere conjectures based on their own-beliefs and wishful thinking. Only the strategy of deterrence can solve these situations but it needs to be credible for it to be successful and to be so, it needs to be shown periodically as the ability to undertake a particular course of action. Best example is right now, Israel Vs Hamas, the last real ground conflict between them was in 2008, even then it was not even the 1/3 of what's happening since 2023. Hamas renewing leadership over the years forgot what could really happen if they forced Israel into war without taking the normal 0 civilians causalities approach.

That is an utterly intellectually and morally bankrupt hypothetical. Our enemies have no compunction about proportionality, mercy, or judiciousness, and will high-five each other and dance in the street as they gleefully kill hundreds and thousands of people for *no sane reason*. And the way I know that's true is, I've seen it happen. This episode aired in 1999, just shy of 2 years before September 11th. There were people *literally* dancing in the streets of Gaza and Lebanon as the World Trade Center burned. I watched it live. Yes, nothing happens in a vacuum, but proportionality hinges on the assumption that your enemy is rational, that they treasure their lives, and the lives of their people, and wish to avoid severe consequences. When your adversaries are fanatics, proportionality loses much of its merit. So long as they can pretend that God is on their side, and He wants them to continue the fight regardless of the price, our mercy becomes a weapon in *their* arsenal. If you believe that Hamas or Hezbollah would use, say, a nuclear weapon, with judiciousness and restraint because we have endeavored to show the same to them, you are an absolute fool. The strategy of terrorism is one where outrages are perpetrated with the *EXPRESS PURPOSE* of provoking retaliation, and then hiding behind innocent people when the retaliation arrives, so that the perpetrators can pretend they are the victims.

"In June 1914 a young Serbian Nationalist assassinated an Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke ... one thing led to another ... and in august of 1945 the United States of America dropped two nuclear bombs on the sovereign nation of Japan."

@@Grubnar Or, put simply "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

@@AaronMichaelLong I was quoting a comedian, but yes!

Typical Hollywood propaganda--we're the good guys and no one ever asks what gives us the right. We condemn Russia for doing exactly what we have done ourselves. Even Bush #2 admitted it, when he forgot to lie while giving that speech. The USA was planning to overthrow the government of Syria ever since 9/11--google "7 countries in 5 years"

It's not just American lives, he personally knew one of the people killed because he asked for him to do his medical checkups.

The USA was planning to overthrow the government of Syria ever since 9/11--google "7 countries in 5 years"

It was a nice promotion for him.

Yea gets kind of repetitive...

@@derrickstorm6976 President Bartlet wasn’t originally supposed to be a main character on the show. He was only supposed to be in a few episodes but his Martin Sheen was so well received he became a recurring character. Sorkin based Bartlet off of his character Shepherd because he wanted a similar theme between The American President as The West Wing. Do what you know is right despite how the opposition will respond. Being President isn’t about being re-elected it’s about doing the most for the American people while you are in office. You see this in The American President during Shepherds speech to the press and you see it in TWW in Let Bartlet Be Bartlet (s1e16). Leo and Bartlet on in the Oval Office and Bartlet says “This is more important than re-election. I want to speak now.” That’s why there is similarities between the two scripts because he wanted the characters to be similar in background, motivation, and development.

Shepherd was a dumbass. His solution was the worst of both worlds. If you're going to murder other human beings for the choices their government made, it should mean something. He sits there wailing about the poor janitor who is going to die because of his decision, but he was the one who decided to hit the Intelligence HQ after hours to minimize the loss of life. Well, guess what, moron? The people who made the decision to attack the US personnel work the DAY shift! He decided it was better to murder a smaller number of innocent people, rather than a larger number which would have punished a significant number of GUILTY people! Even the secretaries and whatnot during the day, are aware they work for a spy agency and are facilitating its work. No one gets a job as a night janitor for the Syrian intelligence agency in hopes of striking a blow against the American dogs. Aaron Sorkin is a skillful writer with a good sense of humor, but he's a pompous ignoramus when he tries to deal with moral issues. He thinks he is showing how much Bartlett cares in scenes like this, but he's just making this supposed history expert look like a dumbass. Barlett whines about his inability to provide the safe level of safety a Roman citizen could expect in the Mediterranean world, but the reason for that was that everyone was terrified of the retaliation the Senate or Emperor would deal out. The Romans WOULD have trashed the airport, and the ensuing disaster and destruction and suffering would have been the object lesson. When you strike at the big dog you expect to get bit. These half-assed wussy measures Sorkin's idealized POTUSes take in retaliation have their Levantine adversaries feeling like they came out ahead, and their demagogues get to blame America for the damage that will upset their citizens without actually hurting the state.

You're not making it up. That's Chiaroscuro, a technique contrasting light and dark, not just to make details pop by having the light accentuating contours, but also to create the emotional quality of tension, sadness, and secrets. My interpretation is that since this is the first time we're meeting Fitz, he's a bit of an unknown quantity, so he's shrouded in shadows to make him look mysterious and sinister. Later on in the episode when he's in Leo's office talking about hiring Charlie, he's fully in the light and turns out to be a standup guy.

Immediacy, not finality. If anything, it reinforces the ‘cool down’ message. Once launched, there are always abort options

@@markkeir4489 Fair point

I really appreciate the answer it comes down on: proportional response isn't good, but it's the best there is.

The joint chiefs are appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate so Bartlet would have picked him. More likely however, Leo advised Bartlet to pick him since Bartlet lacked military experience or knowledge and relied on Leo’s veteran experience and time working for a defense contractor.

That officer was trying to get Bartlett to recognize the implication, and logical conclusion, of what he was proposing. Fitz understood that Bartlett would need it spelled out for him more logically and dispassionately.

its in there

@@uhhello173 The setup is in there, the punchline is not.

What’s the last line?

@@youtubeaccount6294 After the president gives the go ahead order, as he's walking out, Fitzwallace tells him "Well done Mr. President". Bartlet turns to him with a look somewhere between defeat, distain and disgust says "50 buck crime? I honestly don't know what the hell we're even doing here." It's a reference to 3:12, and what Fitz is calling the "50 buck crime" was a transport plane with 60 people heading to a teaching hospital being blown up. It really drives home how dehumanizing military conflicts can be when 60 people being murdered can be casually called a "50 buck crime", and continues to establish how frustrated Bartlett is about being the most powerful man in the world while still not really being able to substantively act. It also sets up a VERY powerful argument he has with Leo later in the episode continuing the "what the hell we're doing here" line of thought.

So we can dish out the more severe response for the more severe transgressions.

Because that would complicate the plot. The West Wong has a protagonist centric morality, the President can do no wrong, there is no moral conundrum. It doesn’t deal with 9-11 or the moral compromises that occurred during the war on terror.

@@jamessloven2204 I think America itself has a protagonist centric morality.

Fantastic point. They set up a false dichotomy that has to be their plan or attack a civilian airport. Were there no orphanages, hosptials, or mosques available?

What you're describing is essentially Pericles One, the plan the joint chiefs offered to Bartlett at the start. The proportional response. Bartlett in his frustration and outrage over the attack, demanded a disproportional response, something that would "teach them a lesson." They gave him what he asked for, and he saw that it would not be acceptable to him.

@@danieldickson8591 Pericles one was ammo depots, and abandoned railroad bridge, and an evacuated Syrian intelligence facility. Two are meaningless targets intended to threaten them with our capacity to destroy critical infrastructure while targeting completely expendable infrastructure. Pointless. Then there is the symbolic intelligence facility evacuated because it is exactly the kind of target they expected to be hit. In fact it was used in the show because we do retaliate by getting intelligence facilities. In other words it was indeed baked into their calculus. An inconsequential price they expected to pay. Intelligence personal are difficult to replace, but their facilities are not. We have many extremely expansive intelligence facilities in the US because we don’t expect to ever have to replace them. We do establish more expendable facilities overseas. Syria expected even their domestic facilities to be potentially expendable. National security pawns to be sacrificed. What is not expendable and cannot be evacuated?…any of more than a dozen airbases with expensive aircraft and expensive pilots and flight crew. Not to mention the utterly critical and not expendable air base infrastructure. No nation would be willing to sacrifice an airbase in a peacetime saber rattling exchange. Even in wartime the destruction of an airbase is a major setback. And an airbase so happens to be a perfect “symbolic” message for a Syrian attack on a US aircraft.

@@NoPastNoFate agreed, this scene is infuriating . The chiefs of staff are completely out of line, throwing a bossy fit because they are being questioned by their commander in chief. They deserve to be court martialed (not a military legal expert, not sure that is possible, but they should be disciplined regardless) There are plenty of levels of proportionate response. And this is not without precedent. El Dorado Canyon in Libya in ‘86 is probably a perfect example of what Bartlett was looking for. That said, I am not sure it is unrealistic. Obama mentioned a very similar thing in his memoir, where he said the military apparatus refused to give any other options in Iraq than the ones they preferred, despite him sending them back to the drawing board several times. The fact is, the military resents civilian oversight, and it takes a very strong willed president to override them.

@@danieldickson8591 That always bugged me too about this scene. They treated it as if there was nothing in between the "proportional response" and what was proposed. Fitzwallace referred to it as a "$5000 punishment for a $50 crime". There is huge area in between those two. Why not do a "$200 punishment" for instance?

It’s a one hour show

@@neilkurzman4907 so why didn't he grab the president by the shoulders and shake him demand he hurry up, because it's a one hour show?

@@Ellifiknow Because the writers weren’t idiots.

@@neilkurzman4907 Unlike some of the viewers. I'm thinking of one specifically.

@@Ellifiknow In the end, it’s a TV show. It’s not a documentary. Yes in real life I would hope that these decisions are taken slowly and carefully. But in the end that answered the question why do we do proportional responses? The answer is to avoid escalation. that’s how world war start. Israel and Ukraine, having simmer down yet. They both have the risk of escalating into World War III. Or possibly World War V

You can do the same thing and expect the same result if that result is the best possible outcome at least for the time being.

Yeah, I imagine it’s like this scene, but the airport is the first option given, and the PM is asking if the strike can be even bigger.

tbf his argument for security through worldwide intimidation is historically correct, however modern threats are usually fanaticals that wouldn't be deterred by having their entire home country pillaged

Yeah the one thing that always confused me is how the Presidents principal advisors seem to be his speech writing team (and Fitz). Because that is literally the job of Toby, Sam and CJ. Communications department and Press secretary. They even had them talk down to cabinet secretaries on multiple occasions when it's the cabinet secretaries that are supposed to be the Presidents advisors in those departments.

@@joec9693 Josh and CJ don't write speeches, and Sam's never in high-level meetings.

I think the emphasis on the show is the communication and idea exchange, and writing staff and press secretary and the chiefs of staff are the highlights to that end, and its still unrealistic in how much they involve them, sure, but at least the stories show them as trusted members of his staff and when not directly doing their job they are valued input if that makes sense.

I wish josh felt more like he was the superior to cj and toby and sam, because he was. But he did funny enough try to pull that card on CJ and he was frightened as hell and regreted that lol!

Dramatic reasons. Like if one doc tells another that if the patient runs out of blood he'll die. Its not meant to tell the audience that doc 1 is a condescending jerk. Its telling the audience what's going on.

Well, one of them did destroy ISIS while getting us involved in zero new wars

They already gave him an operation plan that was proportional and limited civilian and friendly casualties. He said that wasn't enough and demanded "total disaster". That's a pretty broad and hyperbolic demand so they gave him the extreme of what "total disaster" would be in this context. You can't fire your advisors when you make an unreasonable demand and they deliver unreasonable results.

@@323guiltyspark I agree Bartlett's rant was unhinged. Perhaps he should have resigned. But his staff didn't have a good answer to an easy question, other than indulge their boss's inner war-criminal.

@@SWOBIZ lol what? Do you resign from your job every time you lose your temper? It’s not like Bartlett upset about how salted the nuts in the break room was, he was upset because people entrusted to his care were murdered.

@@323guiltyspark it was clear what he wanted was a total destruction of their military, not a war crime. They should have offered more extreme military targets, and this is not without precedent in US military history, where heavy military force has been used against enemies without escalation to war (El Dorado Canyon which was only 13 years prior to this incident would have been probably what Bartlett was after)

Because America doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has allies, trading partners, and neutral parties who could potentially become enemies, all waiting to see if the United States can be trusted to follow international law and the accepted norms of conduct. Because if it can't they may have to review their relations with it.

Talk is cheap, and in the end it didn't matter what he said. He _decided_ otherwise. If all you want is cheap and ill-considered talk, then the GOP is the right party for you--at least these days. It was once a decent party made up of decent people. _Indecency_ is now the party's platform and badge of honor. MTG, DJT, and their fellow travelers are gross and disgusting people who would have made even Richard Nixon sick to his stomach.

I think that’s the point of the scene though, to show that Bartlet was in the wrong. Which is why Fitzwallace was essentially saying “Here is the next best option, but that option has ethical, domestic, and geopolitical ramifications.”

of course it is, it is an ideolized Clinton presidency in general, BUT it is still a good show because (unlike shows today, which are pure propaganda) there is AT LEAST a little space for different point of views, for Republican stance ect. Sure, Democrats are almost always here right, all knowing ect., but there is a place for a different voice. This is what makes this show good.

@@Sig509 I should temper my comment a little better. The West Wing is an excellent show that gives me all the patriotic feels. Nevertheless, I’ve come to see it as idealized, and perhaps not how Washington really works; this is greatly disappointing as I dearly wish POTUS to be like the man in the show.

Seriously worth considering? Fitz was using an appropriately phrased analogy to illustrate how monumentally inappropriate such a response would be. Do you think for one second Fitz (were he a real person) would regard the lives of the people on the plane (NOT just Tolliver) as being of only "fifty buck" value? It's about communicating relative values. Thousands of civilian casualties and all the collateral damage in exchange for one aircraft would look to the world like the reaction of a callow madman (or a Trump). The C-in-C has to command with legitimate authority, not fly off the handle and inflict maximum damage willy-nilly. If he doesn't then there will always be concerns among his military staff about the need for a "grownup" to be in the room.

$50 crime is a good comparison. To a typical person, $1000000 is a lot of money. What is the equivalent of a million dollars here? Total Thermonuclear War. So what is this incident relative to nuclear war? Probably about $50. The fact is, when you are president, you have a different scale. I suspect fewer people died in this incident than were murdered in the US that day. That is the burden of the presidency, to do your job well, you need to be very cold and calculating.

@@ianboyle1026 While I disagree that the "disproportionate response" should have been taken there was a giant gap between that and the "proportionate" response plan. Fitzwallace called the disproportionate response a $5000 punishment for a $50 crime. Why are the only 2 punishments either $50 or $5000? There are a wide range of possible responses that go beyond being "proportional" while also not being absurdly disproportional like the airport strike.

Why would that be Boomer. Obama was a smoker Even as president.