Thanks for adding to my thought process. I agree, interacting peacefully after the war is a big factor that many leaders don't consider sufficiently.

I'd say most leaders over weight the immediate future to the distant future, and one of the major reasons is that they won't be in power in the distant future so screw the country then... now is all that matters to them. There are very serious downsides to electing new leaders frequently, term limits, etc, that few people have thought about. Like this near-term bias, and also that a nation can't keep its promises and is no longer trustable in negotiations.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

True, sadly.

But there are no true autocracies, leadership is always a complex group activity.

During WW2, Hitler reportedly floated the idea of denouncing the Geneva Conventions, as retaliation after Britain in '41 started (illegally) targeting German search-and-rescue craft and hospital ships.

Wehrmacht leadership reacted very strongly and negatively, so nothing came of it except (arguably) the notorious "Commissar Order".

If only Netanyahu had an officer corps no more immoral than the WW2 Wehrmacht...