The old joke in Washington is that the State Department always gives three options: 1) global thermonuclear war; 2) humiliating boot-licking surrendering to our adversary; 3) State's preferred option. It's all in how you frame it. So I have to suspect that, in this scene, a bit of that gamesmanship with the volume turned down was going on. Bartlett didn't ask if there was any OTHER option, something in between Pericles One and killing thousands of civilians. He just accepts the dichotomy they're presenting. Sus.
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.
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.
What a great example of self-awareness, that The President knew he needed some time to cool off. He was hurt and pissed and had the world's largest arsenal do something about it... ADM Fitzwallace was, IMHO, one of the best characters on the show. A brilliant example of exactly the kind of sage-warrior I hope is in that real world role. Fitz knew exactly how to talk Jed down off the ledge, and not a single word from Leo was needed.
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.
@@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.
This scene displays brilliance on multiple levels. It reveals President Bartlet's deep indignation over the loss of American lives, his genuine concern for potential harm to Syrian civilians, and the careful consideration he gives to authorizing a military response. I concur with Fitzwallace that this showcases commendable leadership from a first-time commander in chief.
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"
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.
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).
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.
"...How does this work?" is something I can envision myself saying as a new President too 😂 Such a short line showing how out of depth he is in the beginning of his term. Thankfully he has Fitzwallace (I love him)
A. J. MacInerney: Sir, it's immediate, it's decisive, it's low-risk, and it's a proportional response. President Andrew Shepherd: Someday someone's going to have to explain to me the virtue of a proportional response. You can definitely tell an Aaron Sorkin script. Though I do like Martin Sheen as president rather than chief of staff.
@@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.
There's a concept in political science called the escalation ladder, thought up in the 60s as part of trying to understand why conflicts got larger than either party intended, and most importantly, how to avoid that resulting in global thermonuclear war. This is a good example of the importance of considering the repercussions of escalation. People get really frustrated by single events, but nothing happens in a vacuum, and one disproportionate strike here might mean a regional war 5 years later or some terror group offing 3000 Americans.
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."
I don’t know if im just making shit up here but the shadows across admiral fitzWallace’s face while briefing the president about proportionality vs President Bartlet standing in light thinking about the virtue of rome is such a cool contrast
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.
as lighting tech I can assure you: no lighting in any shot in any production is ever a coincidence, or left to chance. Theres always way more going on than people consciously pick up on.
@@markkeir4489 I think, both. an abort option, where possible and successful, is still an action that will have a lot of unstoppable ripples ..sometimes worse than what was aborted. This would be doubly so for a new president's first crisis.
What a fabulous scene! 3 absolute power house performers - Bartlett, Leo and Fitzwallace battling it out in this scene. I love the Fitzwallace cuts Leo and is not afraid to ask the president - well, you have a better idea? I have been doing this all my life and this is the best response. Sure, i can offer you something outrageous (disproportionate) but then no one will agree with you so you really want to question my intelligence on this?
@@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
Two great scenes. Bartlet is thinking more about revenge because he knew someone on that plane. I always wondered if Bartlet would act differently if the doctor wasn't on board.
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.
A very complicated thought provoking scene. I was at least happy that President Bartlett could have a smoke after he ate hie plate of Crow! The writing and acting in this series was delicious even in the most heartbreaking and intense scenes! Cheers To The West Wing Followers 👋
But... what responsibly do "civilians" have in the running of their country? None? But then... does a leader, beholden to those "civilians," hold responsibly? Is this a responsible thing to think?
@@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.
West wing isn't reality. Proportional response only works when the sides fighting are roughly equal in strength and capabilities. Proportional response doesn't work when it's a massive disparity in strength between the weak striking party and the strong attacked party. This is because zealotry rather than victory drives the event. When you are fighting an enemy that does not care what your response is, your job is to make everyone around them silence them for you. That requires a disproportionate response. Make the consequences of terrorism so heinous that they self-police.
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.
I would watch this. The sheer implication of a new more aggressive response would have any moles or spies tweaking the fuck out and that makes me laugh.
This was one of the dumbest exchanges in the entire series. If my national security advisors and joint chiefs came up with an obtuse and absurd scenario as attacking a civilian airport to “teach me a lesson” I would fire the chairman of the joint chiefs and tell them they have 60 minutes to come up with another one. There are countless response options that don’t include a civilian airport. Knocking out a military airbase and a few military aircraft on the ground would minimize civilian casualties and be seen by the American people as a justified response to an attack on a U.S. aircraft. This scene really pisses me off.
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 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 personnel are difficult to replace, but their facilities are not. We have many extremely expensive 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?
3:12 I like how even though he's calmed down and resolved to take the moderate response, You can see a hint of that same anger that made him ask for a Fire and Brimstone option when Fitzwallace refers to the deaths of several innocent Americans (including Capt Tolliver) as a "50 buck crime".
it always felt like this show bypassed secdef and had some weird focus on the joint chiefs, an advisory council. doesn’t the chain of command go from potus, to secdef, then the commanders of each unified combat commands?
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.
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.
I can imagine a similar discussion occurring in a certain place in the Middle Eastern region of the world about a “proportional response”. As Einstein once observed, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Thus, the lessons of history are repeated by those that choose to ignore them.
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
The deep unintended message of this episode is that there was a better response, but the president's hands were tied because they refused to give it to him, to get him to choose what they wanted. They basically offered him either nothing, or kill 100,000 people. This is an example of how professional rank can refuse to follow elected representatives policy directions by refusing to give information or options. President bartlet in general was pretty bad in foreign affairs, culminating by an absolutely brain-dead intervention in freaking Kazakhstan. As they put it in "yes, prime minister", they'll give you three options - the option they want, another one that's practically the same, and ww3. This episode is a letter to letter example of that.
So...in a briefing like this, Admiral Fitzwallace would not be giving the actual briefing, it would likely be a Captain (assuming the use of primarily Navy assets). I will say Fitzwallace (or Leo) would be expected to answer the President's question on virtue of proportional response. That all said, briefings like this USUALLY include the ability to scale up or scale down. We won't waste the POTUS's time with a "one size fits this only scenario". You walk in ready to give leaders at this level some options. The scene makes for good drama and makes President Bartlett look good, but unless he comes up with the "let's carpet bomb an entire city" request (and yes that would be unusual)...teams like this walk in ready to give the POTUS options. Leo (not Fitzwallace) would usually be the person worried about how the POTUS would look from this. And a simple nod from the POTUS doesn't cut it either. We need to hear the POTUS say it.
@@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 are missing something here. "Proportionality" is not an equal response to the original attack. What's would a "proportional response" to 9/11 be if that were the definition? Proportionality is about how much civillian collateral damage is acceptable compared to the target of the attack.
President Bartlett should have fired his entire national security team since they couldn't define "proportionality" as it relates to the law of armed conflict. It means balancing the military objective against the potential loss of civilian life and taking reasonable means to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. After their incompetence was revealed, they threw a collective hissy fit and recommended an attack on a civilian airport that would have caused a large number of civilian causalities, an obvious war crime. Pathetic!
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)
I'd have asked if the admiral liked having his job, then to give me a real option not one that passive aggressively forced me to do what he wanted. Tail wagging the dog shown here as something profound.
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.
The virtue of a proportional response is to ensure that future conflicts won't BEGIN with ICBMs flying. If foreign adversaries know that Americans will lose their shit anyway, they'll just wipe out America if push comes to shove. A surprising miss from Sorkin.
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.
The disproportionate response was something worth considering. Calling the shooting down of the plane a “50 buck crime” was deeply insulting to the memory of Maurice Tolliver. Never had much respect for Fitz after he said this.
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.
Something that Israel has been doing (Scorched Earth responses and establishing an apartheid style system for the Palestinians )for decades and has only emboldened their Palestinian adversaries and supporters that much further. No fan of the Palestinian actions and responses either; both sides are equally culpable. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. A long term resolution will be reached only when both sides make concessions they will not like but will benefit all parties for the foreseeable future.
Why are we making this "west wing " show ? #blackrock we can have a Asian and Spanish president if the " others " are too corrupted for diplomacy. #KamalaHarris pray for Universal Peace #Cuba 🙏 #Spain #Brics
The old joke in Washington is that the State Department always gives three options: 1) global thermonuclear war; 2) humiliating boot-licking surrendering to our adversary; 3) State's preferred option. It's all in how you frame it. So I have to suspect that, in this scene, a bit of that gamesmanship with the volume turned down was going on. Bartlett didn't ask if there was any OTHER option, something in between Pericles One and killing thousands of civilians. He just accepts the dichotomy they're presenting. Sus.
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.
Rest in peace John Amos, died in August of 2024 and was reported today
What a great example of self-awareness, that The President knew he needed some time to cool off. He was hurt and pissed and had the world's largest arsenal do something about it... ADM Fitzwallace was, IMHO, one of the best characters on the show. A brilliant example of exactly the kind of sage-warrior I hope is in that real world role. Fitz knew exactly how to talk Jed down off the ledge, and not a single word from Leo was needed.
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 best part of this episode is the fight between Leo and Bartlett afterwards. "Of course it's not good, there is no good. It's what there is."
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.
This scene displays brilliance on multiple levels. It reveals President Bartlet's deep indignation over the loss of American lives, his genuine concern for potential harm to Syrian civilians, and the careful consideration he gives to authorizing a military response. I concur with Fitzwallace that this showcases commendable leadership from a first-time commander in chief.
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"
Lives*
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.
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.
"...How does this work?" is something I can envision myself saying as a new President too 😂
Such a short line showing how out of depth he is in the beginning of his term. Thankfully he has Fitzwallace (I love him)
A. J. MacInerney: Sir, it's immediate, it's decisive, it's low-risk, and it's a proportional response.
President Andrew Shepherd: Someday someone's going to have to explain to me the virtue of a proportional response.
You can definitely tell an Aaron Sorkin script. Though I do like Martin Sheen as president rather than chief of staff.
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.
There's a concept in political science called the escalation ladder, thought up in the 60s as part of trying to understand why conflicts got larger than either party intended, and most importantly, how to avoid that resulting in global thermonuclear war. This is a good example of the importance of considering the repercussions of escalation. People get really frustrated by single events, but nothing happens in a vacuum, and one disproportionate strike here might mean a regional war 5 years later or some terror group offing 3000 Americans.
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!
Damn dude, look how tame the Illusive Man was back then compared how he was after the First Contact War
Very good
Cerberus was a different place, then. Much mellower.
I don’t know if im just making shit up here but the shadows across admiral fitzWallace’s face while briefing the president about proportionality vs President Bartlet standing in light thinking about the virtue of rome is such a cool contrast
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.
as lighting tech I can assure you: no lighting in any shot in any production is ever a coincidence, or left to chance. Theres always way more going on than people consciously pick up on.
This is arguably my favorite episode of the entire series.
The shot of the officer going and placing his hand on the phone has a touch of finality to it.
Immediacy, not finality. If anything, it reinforces the ‘cool down’ message. Once launched, there are always abort options
@@markkeir4489 Fair point
@@markkeir4489 I think, both. an abort option, where possible and successful, is still an action that will have a lot of unstoppable ripples ..sometimes worse than what was aborted. This would be doubly so for a new president's first crisis.
Thank God for this scene I have always wondered what is the virtue of proportional response. Now I am crystal clear.
What a fabulous scene! 3 absolute power house performers - Bartlett, Leo and Fitzwallace battling it out in this scene. I love the Fitzwallace cuts Leo and is not afraid to ask the president - well, you have a better idea? I have been doing this all my life and this is the best response. Sure, i can offer you something outrageous (disproportionate) but then no one will agree with you so you really want to question my intelligence on this?
The virtue of a proportional response: avoids escalation
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.
Very well put, he shown exactly how things are done.
The thing I like about this clip is how deftly it demonstrates the question that Bartlet asks: the value of a proportional response.
I really appreciate the answer it comes down on: proportional response isn't good, but it's the best there is.
Two great scenes. Bartlet is thinking more about revenge because he knew someone on that plane. I always wondered if Bartlet would act differently if the doctor wasn't on board.
"are you suggesting we carpet bomb Damascus?"
Who the hell let that guy in the room
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.
A very complicated thought provoking scene. I was at least happy that President Bartlett could have a smoke after he ate hie plate of Crow! The writing and acting in this series was delicious even in the most heartbreaking and intense scenes! Cheers To The West Wing Followers 👋
But... what responsibly do "civilians" have in the running of their country? None? But then... does a leader, beholden to those "civilians," hold responsibly?
Is this a responsible thing to think?
aw, you cut out the best part “50 buck crime? I swear sometimes I don’t even know what we’re doing here.”
its in there
@@uhhello173 The setup is in there, the punchline is not.
Fitzwallace was such a good character.
The last line of this scene, which you cut out, is one of the most important parts of it... Really a shame it was cut.
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.
@@youtubeaccount6294 “50 buck crime? I swear sometimes I don’t even know what we’re doing here.”
The value of a proportional response is, primarily, to avoid escalation of a conflict. Glad they got there in the end.
West wing isn't reality.
Proportional response only works when the sides fighting are roughly equal in strength and capabilities. Proportional response doesn't work when it's a massive disparity in strength between the weak striking party and the strong attacked party. This is because zealotry rather than victory drives the event.
When you are fighting an enemy that does not care what your response is, your job is to make everyone around them silence them for you. That requires a disproportionate response. Make the consequences of terrorism so heinous that they self-police.
Why not give a disproportionate response that hits a significant number of non-civilian targets?
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.
@@BicycleFunk Hollywood sure as hell does. ..and its very formative of public attitudes.
@@jv-lk7bc I think this was long before hollywood. Though I agree that film has for a long time perpetuated toxic American idealisms.
I sometimes remind myself that Sheen also played President Greg Stillson, the absolute polar opposite ofJed Bartlet in every possible way.
Love how he asks a room full of military brass if anyone has a cigarette 😂
This kind of president only exists in fiction 😅
Yes. Because in what world does syria have the ability to escalate against the US...
@@rdmtask you miss the point.
I would watch this. The sheer implication of a new more aggressive response would have any moles or spies tweaking the fuck out and that makes me laugh.
"What is the virtue of a proportional response?"
"So we don't look like assholes."
So we can dish out the more severe response for the more severe transgressions.
This was one of the dumbest exchanges in the entire series.
If my national security advisors and joint chiefs came up with an obtuse and absurd scenario as attacking a civilian airport to “teach me a lesson” I would fire the chairman of the joint chiefs and tell them they have 60 minutes to come up with another one.
There are countless response options that don’t include a civilian airport.
Knocking out a military airbase and a few military aircraft on the ground would minimize civilian casualties and be seen by the American people as a justified response to an attack on a U.S. aircraft.
This scene really pisses me off.
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 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 personnel are difficult to replace, but their facilities are not. We have many extremely expensive 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?
The virtue of a proportional response is avoiding object disaster
3:12 I like how even though he's calmed down and resolved to take the moderate response, You can see a hint of that same anger that made him ask for a Fire and Brimstone option when Fitzwallace refers to the deaths of several innocent Americans (including Capt Tolliver) as a "50 buck crime".
The West Wing was adorable in its deliberate naivety. Made for a great show though.
Because it reduces the chance of escalation?
Fitz straightens Bartlet up
it always felt like this show bypassed secdef and had some weird focus on the joint chiefs, an advisory council. doesn’t the chain of command go from potus, to secdef, then the commanders of each unified combat commands?
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.
Hell yeah.
I love Leo; he's no yes-man.
I can imagine a similar discussion occurring in a certain place in the Middle Eastern region of the world about a “proportional response”. As Einstein once observed, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Thus, the lessons of history are repeated by those that choose to ignore them.
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
A superpower should never respond proportionally
so good
The deep unintended message of this episode is that there was a better response, but the president's hands were tied because they refused to give it to him, to get him to choose what they wanted.
They basically offered him either nothing, or kill 100,000 people.
This is an example of how professional rank can refuse to follow elected representatives policy directions by refusing to give information or options.
President bartlet in general was pretty bad in foreign affairs, culminating by an absolutely brain-dead intervention in freaking Kazakhstan.
As they put it in "yes, prime minister", they'll give you three options - the option they want, another one that's practically the same, and ww3.
This episode is a letter to letter example of that.
So...in a briefing like this, Admiral Fitzwallace would not be giving the actual briefing, it would likely be a Captain (assuming the use of primarily Navy assets). I will say Fitzwallace (or Leo) would be expected to answer the President's question on virtue of proportional response. That all said, briefings like this USUALLY include the ability to scale up or scale down. We won't waste the POTUS's time with a "one size fits this only scenario". You walk in ready to give leaders at this level some options. The scene makes for good drama and makes President Bartlett look good, but unless he comes up with the "let's carpet bomb an entire city" request (and yes that would be unusual)...teams like this walk in ready to give the POTUS options. Leo (not Fitzwallace) would usually be the person worried about how the POTUS would look from this. And a simple nod from the POTUS doesn't cut it either. We need to hear the POTUS say it.
I have uaed this line several times
If you meet the Buddha on the road to Damnascus..
A general does not rush a president to make a decision in this scenario.
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
We need to use Reaper technology
Proportionally is just tit for tat escalation lol
You are missing something here. "Proportionality" is not an equal response to the original attack. What's would a "proportional response" to 9/11 be if that were the definition? Proportionality is about how much civillian collateral damage is acceptable compared to the target of the attack.
all the rizz, sir
President Bartlett should have fired his entire national security team since they couldn't define "proportionality" as it relates to the law of armed conflict. It means balancing the military objective against the potential loss of civilian life and taking reasonable means to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. After their incompetence was revealed, they threw a collective hissy fit and recommended an attack on a civilian airport that would have caused a large number of civilian causalities, an obvious war crime. Pathetic!
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)
Awaiting orders...
I'd have asked if the admiral liked having his job, then to give me a real option not one that passive aggressively forced me to do what he wanted. Tail wagging the dog shown here as something profound.
Gaza in 2024 is the alternate timeline where Jed doesnt go for the proportinate response
Why are they worried about any international reaction?
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.
Change the accent this would be the Netanyahu response.
Aaron borrowed from his American President script for this.
Pax Americana
I wish either candidate was even 1/10th this capable
Well, one of them did destroy ISIS while getting us involved in zero new wars
Its not a disproportionate response, its a detterant
Sorkin recycled this scene from THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT
Today they’d call him a “genocidal maniac!” for responding to the attack…
it's called economy of force. nice make it so nod from the 90's and the aughts
If real Democrats still talked like that I would still be a proud member of the Democratic Party.
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.
Oct 7
A proportional response has the purpose of not escalating the conflict, duh.
The virtue of a proportional response is to ensure that future conflicts won't BEGIN with ICBMs flying. If foreign adversaries know that Americans will lose their shit anyway, they'll just wipe out America if push comes to shove.
A surprising miss from Sorkin.
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.”
So dumb. Any general would be able to easily answer that question. The show is just trying to make it seem like it’s a deep question. Which it’s not.
This whole show is propaganda.
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.
Proportional responses are garbage
Proportional response is for peer adversaries. Disproportionate response is for people who don't care who dies.
The disproportionate response was something worth considering. Calling the shooting down of the plane a “50 buck crime” was deeply insulting to the memory of Maurice Tolliver. Never had much respect for Fitz after he said this.
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.
Something that Israel has been doing (Scorched Earth responses and establishing an apartheid style system for the Palestinians )for decades and has only emboldened their Palestinian adversaries and supporters that much further.
No fan of the Palestinian actions and responses either; both sides are equally culpable.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
A long term resolution will be reached only when both sides make concessions they will not like but will benefit all parties for the foreseeable future.
To be fair, they've been at war since before jesus was born. It's not like anything the jews do other than go away is going to end the war.
Listening college brats?
Why are we making this "west wing " show ? #blackrock we can have a Asian and Spanish president if the " others " are too corrupted for diplomacy. #KamalaHarris pray for Universal Peace #Cuba 🙏 #Spain #Brics
This is so Boomer. Cigarettes? Really?
Why would that be Boomer. Obama was a smoker Even as president.