Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Brendan O'Neill suggests that the good in us may be bringing out the worst in our enemies in Iraq.
|12.9.05 @ 6:29PM|#
The link on the main page works, Ken.
I thought the article had an interesting thesis.
|12.9.05 @ 6:33PM|#
First, yes we should be showing these pictures, as long as it is
done in what I consider "proportion". We should be seeing Iraqis
killed by other Iraqis/foreign Jihadis, Iraqis killed intentionally
and unintentionally by Americans, and Americans/coalition troops
killed by the Jihadis - all in at least some relationship to the
actual number of deaths. Any other method results in a distorted
picture of the truth, with one type of killing emphasized over the
others.
We should then make the same demand of Al-Jaazera and its ilk. They
should start the day by talking about Muslims/Arabs slaughtered by
other Muslim. Then they should talk about all the non-muslims
slaughted by Muslims. They should finish the day by talking about
the reverse. People in the Middle East would quickly get the point
when Al-Jaz had to talk about Muslim-on-Muslim violence from 12:01
am to 6 pm, followed by Muslim-on-everyone-else violence until
11:50pm. Al-Jaz likes to claim it is just telling the truth. The
problem is that it turns 18 hours of info into 10 minutes and ten
minutes of info into 18 hours, badly and very deliberately
distorting the problem.
|12.9.05 @ 6:40PM|#
Chad, I've said many times before that Al-Jazeera is just the
mirror image of Fox News. Neither lie, but Fox focuses on the good
stuff that happens over there and Al-Jazeera focuses on the
bad.
Or, to see it another way, Fox takes the point of view of the
invading army, and Al-Jazeera takes the point of view of the
country that's been invaded.
|12.9.05 @ 6:42PM|#
Makes sense. We made it obvious we wanted a bloodless surgical war and the insurgents realize that by denying us our goal, we will be shamed into leaving and forced to declare ourselves defeated.
|12.9.05 @ 6:48PM|#
Of course, the easiest way to be rid of us would be to lay low,
let W declare victory and bring the troops home, then bring back
the guns and overthrow the US installed government.
The reason this hasn't been done is that the insurgents are not a
monolithic force. They are controlled by competing warlords
jockying for position to become the next dictator.
|12.9.05 @ 6:51PM|#
Nick, what about this article compelled you to include it in
Reason? It's about as insightful as the typical Time Magazine
fluff. It's almost as bad as O'Neill's previous super-lame article
on PETA, "Fur Flies in PETA Paroxysm". (By the way, the Search
engine on Reason.com fails to find the PETA article that I just
mentioned. In fact, it doesn't seem to work very well at all.
Trying to find all of the articles by Brendan O'Neill failed,
unless I wanted to just search for O'Neill.)
He makes general assertions about "our" negative sensitivity to
death and the imagery of deaths, but fails to note how often death
and the imagery of deaths manages to shore up support for the war
effort, especially when it features the brutality and inhumanity of
the insurgency. Hell, the carnage of 9/11 was largely responsible
for the critical mass of support that made this whole mess possible
in the first place. Supposedly, part of their motivation for 9/11
was to scare us into pulling all of our troops home and
hedgehogging in fear. You'd think that when the exact opposite
happened, it might have registered a little bit.
Sorry for all the bitching. O'Neill is a better writer than I am,
but his stuff isn't up to snuff with the rest of the Reason staff
and contributors, in my opinion.
|12.9.05 @ 6:51PM|#
Jennifer, I would disagree. The American media (Fox included)
does not show bloody pictures. However, "bad news" is talked about
constantly, usually to a far greater extent than good news. I am
currently not in the states at this time, but from what I remember
of last year, Fox was more likely to talk about positive news than
most of the other networks.
I invite you to look at a relatively "neutral" news site such as
CNN. You should note that in the headlines bad news is usually
stated as fact
(ie, "18 killed in bombing") while good news is almost qualified
with "Bush/Cheney/Rice/etc claims..."
As westerners, we are flooded with numerous angles and a relatively
broad picture of the problem (if we pay attention). The same is not
true in the Middle East. When their "moderate" information hubs are
like Al-Jaz, which is about a thousand times more biased than Fox,
there is a tremendous problem.
|12.9.05 @ 6:55PM|#
As interesting as this thesis is, I'm not sure if I agree, for
the simple reason that it seems so. . . "solipsistic," isn't the
right word, but something like that. I don't know--the idea that
all these insurgents have such exquisite psychological insight and
know exactly which Western buttons to press? I'd more readily buy
that if we WERE fighting a monolithic organization getting orders
from a single (insightful) leader.
I always figured that the insurgents did things like cut off
people's heads for the same reason ancient Britons used to paint
themselves blue before fighting battles--to scare the enemy into
having thoughts like, "My God! These people we're fighting are
freaking insane"!
|12.9.05 @ 6:57PM|#
You should note that in the headlines bad news is usually
stated as fact (ie, "18 killed in bombing") while good news is
almost qualified with "Bush/Cheney/Rice/etc
claims..."
Serious, non-snarky observation: Bush/Cheney/Rice have been caught
in so many lies already that taking their statements at face value
would be irresponsible journalism.
|12.9.05 @ 7:01PM|#
Damn it, I hit "post" before I was finished typing! Chad, what I
also wanted to say was that our news stations generally focus on
AMERICANS in Iraq--how many soldiers killed today? What do the
soldiers do in their off-time? What are the soldiers' living
conditions like? How is that injured soldier learning to adjust to
life without a leg? And so forth. Whereas al-Jazeera focuses on
Iraqis.
How many times have you seen CNN or any other American news outlet
have a story about the number of Iraqis killed by Americans at
checkpoints? Or killed in bombings? (Not trying to start an
argument, yes I already know the war-is-hell arguments to explain
these happenings.) That is what al-Jazeera focuses on.
Really, is it surprising that a news channel for Arabs would be
more interested in what happens to Arabs, than what happens to the
people occupying them? It's no different from the way here, in
American news, an earthquake that causes one skinned knee in
California will get more attention than an earthquake killing
thousands in China.
|12.9.05 @ 7:13PM|#
Of course, "body-bag syndrome"--where people tire of the
sacrifices being made by their friends or fellow countrymen--is a
side-effect of many wars, especially unpopular ones.
...in other times, our leaders have willing to send young men
to die if it is for something they truly believe in, but here they
promised few deaths from the very outset.
This is a function, at least in part, of the Iraq War not being a
war of self defense--in spite of what you may have heard from your
friendly neighborhood reverse domino theorist. From the onset,
there was cold, calculated pragmatism in the bottom of that
barrel.
Out of one side of their mouths, the Administration has to defend
the meager benefits of the Iraq War, in spite of all the dead
Americans (and civilians), even as they claim it was all done in
self-defense. ...the proverbial rock and a hard place, no?
...FDR didn't have to promise there wouldn't be many casualties
after Pearl Harbor. He didn't send anyone to Congress to assure us
that the war would pay for itself either.
I have a small mountain of moral objections to the Iraq War--add to
that my pragmatic objections too.
|12.9.05 @ 7:23PM|#
This is a function, at least in part, of the Iraq War not
being a war of self defense--in spite of what you may have heard
from your friendly neighborhood reverse domino theorist. From the
onset, there was cold, calculated pragmatism in the bottom of that
barrel....FDR didn't have to promise there wouldn't be many
casualties after Pearl Harbor. He didn't send anyone to Congress to
assure us that the war would pay for itself either.
Worth repeating. I have nothing to add.
|12.9.05 @ 7:25PM|#
Jennifer, if Al-Jaz focuses on dead Arabs and the American media
focuses on dead Americans, that is natural. However, Al-Jaz focuses
on dead Arabs killed by westerners.
It is natural to worry about those that have a connection to you
than those who do not. I can tolerate this bias, even though it
remains one. However, Al-Jaz has a far worse bias of hiding
anything that Muslims do wrong and blowing anything Americans do
wrong far out of proportion - and Al-Jaz is among the
"least-biased" of the bunch over there. This is not true in the
American media. Abu Ghraib was less bad than numerous individual
terrorist bombings, yet look at the responses. Our media blows our
own sins far out of proportion. Al-Jaz does the
reverse.
That is dangerous.
While of course all media have biases, trying to compare ours and
theirs is downright silly. Yes, there is no black and white.
However, not all shades of grey are equal.
|12.9.05 @ 7:29PM|#
Ken Shultz-
As a follow-up point/rhetorical question, would the public aversion
to casualties apply if you substituted Afghanistan for Iraq?
Also on your FDR/WWII point, Stephen Ambrose once wondered out-loud
if the US would have sought peace with Germany during the Battle of
the Bulge had there been the same sort of televion coverage as
Vietnam or Iraq. Perhaps a lot of people would have said why endure
the sacrifice against Germany when it never attacked us.
|12.9.05 @ 7:36PM|#
if Al-Jaz focuses on dead Arabs and the American media
focuses on dead Americans, that is natural. However, Al-Jaz focuses
on dead Arabs killed by westerners. . . . . hiding anything that
Muslims do wrong
Their English Website discusses and condemns Arab-on-Arab violence.
Are you sure their Arab channel doesn't? Where are you getting this
information?
Even if they focus more on the American-inspired violence than the
Arab-inspired, that too is to be expected, given that Americans are
the authority figures there. It's the same way that in America,
stories about uniformed cops raping or murdering people are
considered far more newsworthy than stories about regular people
raping or murdering people.
|12.9.05 @ 7:46PM|#
As a follow-up point/rhetorical question, would the public
aversion to casualties apply if you substituted Afghanistan for
Iraq?
The public will always have an aversion to casualties, and it will
always have an aversion to death.
...but I think the American public's aversion to casualties and
death is far, far less in Afghanistan, and I think that's because
the public considers the Afghanistan War a war of
self-defense.
P.S. Has anyone heard from kwais?
|12.9.05 @ 8:06PM|#
"The authors of the war promised this would be a "clean"
invasion in which few would die"
Yeah, I remember that. It reminds me of when JFK said we really
shouldn't bother putting a man on the moon since its just too
easy.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/22/sprj.irq.main/
|12.9.05 @ 8:12PM|#
Their English Website discusses and condemns Arab-on-Arab
violence. Are you sure their Arab channel doesn't? Where are you
getting this information?
One of the interesting things I've read about is that a lot of
Arab/Muslim websites/new services put on a very moderate face when
speaking in English, but are incredibly fundamentalist when
speaking in Arabic.
|12.9.05 @ 8:14PM|#
One of the interesting things I've read about is that a lot
of Arab/Muslim websites/new services put on a very moderate face
when speaking in English, but are incredibly fundamentalist when
speaking in Arabic.
Of that, I have no doubt. A lot of them do--but what do we
know of al-Jazeera?
dave bones|12.9.05 @ 8:22PM|#
Yeah, the article is distorted by what the media calls news and
its a blabbing opinion piece. Media will always focus on 16 deaths
rather than 100 000 living peacefully. No one will say that the
insurgents are a relatively minor threat. No one wants to believe
that maybe 19 people took down the twin towers. Journalists don't
feel important saying
"A relatively small group of people are causing trouble."
They'd look stupid. At a very basic level everything we can't see
for ourselves with our own eyes is in a hall of mirrors isn't
it.
|12.9.05 @ 8:24PM|#
I'm Irish, so I'm respectful of any O'Neil.
That said, he's a parasite on clear thinking.
What would he have Dubya do? Develop a regiment of kamikazes within
the US Army? That would be so easy. Too easy.
But, then where would we be?
Give the Irish credit though for being able to think outside the
box.
|12.9.05 @ 8:37PM|#
At a very basic level everything we can't see for ourselves
with our own eyes is in a hall of mirrors isn't it.
On any given day, at least one journalist is taking every possible
position on every noteworthy event. ...and we have access to all of
it. We decide when to be skeptical and what to believe. It's all on
us. I wouldn't have it any other way.
|12.9.05 @ 9:26PM|#
Jennifer,
What lies would those be? Leave it to Jennifer to say something so
soft-headed.
Daniel,
(A) Ambrose's best work was done by other people.
(B) The Battle of the Bulge didn't last long enough for anything
like that to happen. I mean really, you are talking about an
offensive that lasted from December 16th-December 23rd, and a
battle which was over by January 7th (when Hitler decided to
finally withdraw after the pounding his forces were taking
following December 23rd). As usual Ambrose was being as realistic
as Hitler was.
|12.9.05 @ 9:32PM|#
Daniel,
No, the better analogy would the invasion of Italy and the battle
for Rome (including Anzio and the efforts to take Monte Cassino).
However, despite much negative press on the matter of these events
the resolve to continue the war on the one front the U.S. was
involved with on the ground combat troops at the time was not
abandoned (despite the best efforts of Gen. Clark and Gen.
Montgomery - later replaced to go England to prepare for D-Day - to
fuck it up).
Tim Cavanaugh|12.9.05 @ 9:43PM|#
I don't know how much Arab media in Arabic people on this thread
are familiar with, but one thing to keep in mind is that the Arab
news media in all areas-including reporting on local
traffic accidents and such-are more comfortable with graphic
depictions of violence than the western media. There are political
differences, and they're all abundantly covered (and mis-covered)
here, but the cultural differences are, I think, at least as
important. If you watch an Arab TV news report about a construction
worker falling off a tall building, chances are the report will
show the body of the worker lying in a pool of blood with its eyes
open. You don't see that kind of coverage in TV news in America,
where even a puddle of blood is generally denounced as
sensationalistic.
I draw no conclusions from this, just note I know it to be
true.
Tim Cavanaugh|12.9.05 @ 9:47PM|#
despite the best efforts of Gen. Clark and Gen. Montgomery -
later replaced to go England to prepare for D-Day - to fuck it
up
Somewhere Mark Clark is burning in lousy-general hell, and this
comment alone has made me regret that I ever kicked Gary-Hakluyt
out of the comments.
|12.9.05 @ 10:49PM|#
Describing The Memory Hole as "an anti-war website" severely damages O'Neill's credibility as far as I'm concerned. Kick may be an opponent of the war, and is certainly vocal critic of some of the American policies associated with it, but the website;s home page now includes links to "OSHA's Lost Workday and Illness Database," "FBI Research Reports on the Nation of Islam," "Philadelphia Grand Jury Report on Pedophile Priests" and plenty of other stories with absolutely nothing to do with the war. O'Neill is either sloppy, lazy or mendacious.
|12.9.05 @ 10:50PM|#
Rich Ard,
You know, prior to Ambrose being outted there was much discussion
about the issue of how he used sources between military historians,
etc. However, by the 1990s he'd become such a big, popular figure
most were afraid to rock the boat. Also, I'm still convinced that a
graduate student I knew was the "deep throat" behind the story of
his outting. My friend hated Ambrose and thought that he was a
hack.
Tim Cavanaugh,
It was all part of the "heat of battle" re: the banning. I've let
bygones be bygones. I guess we have a general dislike for Gen.
Clark in common. If you ever want to read some negative comments
about him all you gotta do is read Gen. Juin's (of the French
Expeditionary Corps) memoirs on the guy; he has nothing but scorn
for the needless, pointless deaths that Clark sent men to. His
moronic decision to try to take Monte Cassino, instead of pursuing
another line of attack, will always cause people to spit when they
hear his name.
|12.9.05 @ 10:56PM|#
Of course Clark also ended up getting a lot of Italians killed too when he made his moronic and ego-driven move to capture Rome first.
|12.9.05 @ 11:36PM|#
From the article:
Both sides have helped to turn death into the defining issue,
so it is not surprising that the insurgents should focus on that
same issue.
Killing is an integral part of war. If you don't kill anybody you
probably won't win the battle, hence all the rifles and missiles
and whatnot. And if you don't take casualties you probably won't
lose. So it's understandable that death might be the main
issue.
From Chad at 6:51 pm:
You should note that in the headlines bad news is usually
stated as fact
(ie, "18 killed in bombing") while good news is almost qualified
with "Bush/Cheney/Rice/etc claims..."
Bodies are easy to count. But "turned corners" and "last throes"
are more subjective. Now, purple thumbs are easy to count, and I
don't recall any newspaper saying "Rice claims that an election was
held."
And I totally agree with what Ken Shultz wrote at 7:13 pm.
|12.10.05 @ 12:32AM|#
I'm slightly confused about O'Neill's point. I mean if we grant
that the insurgents are tailoring efforts to American squeamishness
about death, then don't we somehow need to stop being squeamish
about death? Don't you usually do that by showing pictures?
Similarly, when O'Neill talks about the emotional blackmail used by
antiwar activists, how does he expect to neutralize that blackmail
except by acclimating the American public to them?
(And for the record, by what stretch of the imagination is a demand
for an accurate estimation of civilian war dead "emotional
blackmail"? Even if the data is used for propagandistic purposes it
is still data, goddamit.)
As Tim points out, Arab TV in general is just more violent overall,
and I assume that the audience is correspondingly more blase
towards it. I have found similar differences in broadcast standards
when travelling abroad. Lord knows an excessive dose of Italian TV
almost made me blase about breasts.
Almost.
Anon
|12.10.05 @ 1:31AM|#
Thoreau: killing may be an integral part of war, but in an
alleged "humanitarian intervention" it should certainly be expected
that the death toll resulting from the war would be part of the
win/lose calculation. After all, "winning" a humanitarian
intervention is defined as improving the lot of those whose country
you're intervening in. Dead people are rarely better off.
The simple arithmetic of a kill to casualty ratio doesn't
necessarily apply in a guerrilla war, or intervention, or whatever
this is. The British Army, for example, lost more soldiers in
Northern Ireland than it killed IRA terrorists, and yet the IRA has
essentially given up their armed struggle. There was no need for
them to do so, since they had the enemy outnumbered and outgunned,
but they accepted higher casualties on the grounds that the
political cost of dead soldiers was lower than that of dead
civilians.
The difference was that the dead civilians would have been British
subjects, which is what made the political cost so high. In this
case, the dead civilians are foreigners we never really cared for
much in the first place. The domestic political cost of their
deaths are pretty low in comparison to the political cost of dead
soldiers. On the other hand, the political cost in Iraq of dead
civilians is quite high.
Reading what I just wrote makes me extremely pessimistic: in order
to gain domestic support for continuing the war, Bush must minimize
American deaths, even at the expense of more Iraqi dead. In order
to win the war in Iraq, the military must minimize Iraqi deaths
even at the expense of more American deaths.
Oh, yeah, this is gonna end badly.
|12.10.05 @ 2:26AM|#
The article says
these faceless killers who incinerate worshippers or blow up
kids taking sweets from a U.S. soldier?
Uh huh. And then it says
The pro-war right can only say the insurgents are "pure evil."
That is no rational explanation, either.
Only the pro-war right calls this evil? B.S.
Why, precisely, is "pure evil" not a rational
catagorization of the motives of people who murder their own
civilian populations with reckless abandon? The "insurgents" are
monsters. Call a spade a spade.
This, however,
American leaders sent a clear message to the insurgents: "If
you want to get one over on us, kill people. We cannot bear this
burden."
is true. Except, it isn't just "American leaders" who sent, and
keep sending, that message.
It's our MSM that makes sure that message is up and running
24/7.
Rimfax,
Nick, what about this article compelled you to include it in
Reason? It's about as insightful as the typical Time Magazine
fluff.
I agree, the regular Reason staff is generally a cut above what we
got in this article. Still, this article does have a point to
make.
The enemy is using our own unwillingness to take casualties, and
inflict civilian casualties, against us. It is not the first enemy
to do so, and I suspect it will not be the last.
Good point above Re: the fact that we ought to be able to see a)
how many US soldiers killed, b) how many civilians killed by US, c)
how many civilians killed by "insurgents".
If we also had an average number of civilians killed by Saddam per
year to put up there next to all this, then we might start getting
a clearer picture of what "casualties" are all about in Iraq. But
don't hold your breath until the media, anywhere, puts all this
info together in one package.
My concern is what happens if we ever get into a justified and
necessary war. There aren't a whole lot of those (my opinion), but
they do happen.
Our military technology better stay really, really good relative to
everbody else's, because our Achille's heel is right out there
where everybody can see it.
|12.10.05 @ 2:31AM|#
James,
Oh, yeah, this is gonna end badly.
I said the same thing before we ever got to Iraq, for about the
same reasons you gave.
My way of putting it was, the US will not be willing to do what
must be done, if there is to be any chance of achieving the fuzzy
aims our leaders claim we're there to achieve.
|12.10.05 @ 2:39AM|#
James,
Oh, yeah, this is gonna end badly.
I said the same thing before we ever got to Iraq, for about the
same reasons you gave.
My way of putting it was, the US will not be willing to do what
must be done, if there is to be any chance of achieving the fuzzy
aims our leaders claim we're there to achieve.
|12.10.05 @ 2:53AM|#
Why, precisely, is "pure evil" not a rational catagorization
of the motives of people who murder their own civilian populations
with reckless abandon?
It's definitely a rational categorization for
acts of terrorism. The article, however, said it wasn't a
rational explanation. "Pure evil" is what you see in Star
Wars or Indiana Jones movies. I'm not against killing terrorists,
but I think it's harder to do so, or even prevent terrorism, if we
don't understand the enemy. And I think if we apply simplistic
labels to the enemy like, "pure evil," it makes it harder to truly
understand them. Human beings are complex. Human beings that do
evil things are especially complex.
fyodor|12.10.05 @ 3:15AM|#
Les & Kahn,
I'm not sure if calling terrorists pure evil is a "rational"
explanation for their behavior or not (in such a context my mind
kind of blanks at what a rational explanation even is), but I think
it's clearly not a very useful one. Well, maybe it's useful for
venting or rallying the troops, but not for understanding the
phenomenon or what to do about it. Unless we could really just kill
them all or scare them into submission. But I doubt it will ever be
that easy.
|12.10.05 @ 8:34AM|#
I thought this article was interesting and insightful, but in
the end frustrating because I can't discern what this guy thinks we
should do at this point. So they "love death" as we "love life" --
are we supposed to love death now? Publicly behead a few
insurgents, perhaps?
Decades ago most people here didn't even flinch at the firebombing
of Tokyo. Later we had a national implosion over the same tactics
used in Vietnam. We are a different nation than we used to be. Do
you want to go back?
I had these same questions when we got into this war. A tidy,
surgical little operation, in and out in six months -- "the
humanity of it" -- yeah right! Never happened and never will.
|12.10.05 @ 12:08PM|#
Remember shock and awe?
If you have big planes that's what you do.
If you have a 20 year old rifle, a big knife, and a video camera,
you film yourself cutting off heads.
Both are motivated by the same desire to scare the enemy and make
them give up.
This article is just silly. Hard to do with such a serious
topic
|12.10.05 @ 12:34PM|#
I agree with Catalina. I like the fact that we are less sanguine
about throwing bodies into the meatgrinder. War may benefit the
Carlisle Group, but pretty much everyone else suffers, on both
sides.
The key to this change has been religion, or more precisely the
loss of it. Agnostic Europe is convinced the GWOT is a war of
Christian fundamentalists vs. Muslim fundamentalists, and they want
no part of it. Good for them. Maybe we (Americans) are more
squemish about death because we're not so convinced paradise is
waiting just on the other side of that IED.
Spreadin' It, As Requested|12.10.05 @ 1:06PM|#
How deeply a nation truly believes in the justness of a war is strongly correlated to how many of their citizens they are willing to have die. The insurgents are constantlty testing the depth of US committment to the best of their abilities. Surprise! Surprise! Support in the Coalition Of The (Somewhat) Willing ain't that deep when measured by the only meaningful metric.
Warren|12.10.05 @ 1:11PM|#
The people of the Middle East are determined to continue killing each other. Nothing we do will ever change that. All of human history supports this thesis.
|12.10.05 @ 3:23PM|#
Kahn,
The supposed story about how Americans or Westerners or whatever
can't stand to take casualties is about as stale and tired a point
as how Americans or Westerners "just don't get" Middle East
politics or culture. This story added nothing new to the discussion
and failed to even retread some fairly obvious and interesting
ground on the subject.
For instance, is there a difference between the way that Americans
react to civilian casualties rather than military casualties? What
about when the civilian casualties are more foreign to us? The fact
is that the main kvetching going on about casualties here is about
American military casualties. Yet the feature photo was about a
civilian casualty, and it is my very limited perception that
beheadings and the like actually appear to marginally increase
support for the occupation rather than decrease it.
From what I see, the main driving force against support for the
occupation is not the ongoing casualties, but that there is no
apparent progress despite the casualties. Americans, media
included, were actually very pleased with the low casualty figures
during the actual invasion. There was apparent and obvious benefit
for the awful, but less than expected cost. The other element is
that fewer people have any trust left in those who continue to
claim that there are benefits for the costs.
|12.10.05 @ 3:59PM|#
Just for the record...
Only the pro-war right calls this evil? B.S.
You wrote this in response to:
The pro-war right can only say the insurgents are "pure evil."
That is no rational explanation, either.
...O'Neil didn't write that "only the pro-war right calls this
evil"; he wrote that "The pro-war right can only say...", which is
different.
|12.10.05 @ 4:40PM|#
Decades ago most people here didn't even flinch at the
firebombing of Tokyo. Later we had a national implosion over the
same tactics used in Vietnam. We are a different nation than we
used to be.
Once again, the nation of Japan attacked us, and I suspect this
contributed to the lack of squeamishness. The TV coverage had
something to do with the drop in support for the War in Vietnam,
but, even there, much of the support for Vietnam came from the
perception that we were protecting ourselves from an expansionist
Soviet Union.
...heard anything sounding like domino theory lately?
So, I'm not sure we're so different from where we were then. The
Colonists adopted a rattlesnake as a Revolutionary standard along
with the words, "Don't tread on me." Rattlesnakes will only bite
you in self-defense, and, even then, they give a long, loud warning
before they strike. Self-defense as a principle has been part of
our national character for a long time.
Maybe some things are worth killing and dying for to the American
people, and other things just aren't. Regardless of whether a cause
justifies the killing and dying, I don't see our squeamishness as
the problem. ...and it certainly isn't the facts of war. The
problem is when you get knee deep in a war, and the benefits aren't
worth the costs.
I can justify most any cost in the name of self-defense, but in
every other case, I have to think real hard for something to
justify all the dead Americans in the cost column. ...and if the
President proposes war, then so should he. Even as the pictures of
our dead soldiers flash by on our televisions.
|12.10.05 @ 6:47PM|#
I think Mr. O'Neill comes close here. The Left v. Right analysis
of the situation in Iraq is to blame for the likelyhood that Iraq
is never going to work. The right calls them "pure evil" because
the folks responsible for pissing off the middle easterners would
rather not risk alienating public support for said people by
explaining why it is they really hate us in the middle east. (I'm
really refering to the left-overs of Reagan-era policy makers who
still hold power and the policy-makers since then who have tried to
fix, extend or cover-over those policies.)
O'Neill might be close in stating that how we define these people
is a big part of the problem. It's easy to say that they are pure
evil; all pro-war propaganda (I use that word with neutrality)
asserts a battle over good and evil, with us being the good, and
they (whether it be Cherokees, Japs, Yankees, etc.) being the
evil.
The lefties just lack a spine and would rather ride on the tails of
the dead and wounded rather than propose a reasonable way to deal
with anti-US feelings in the Middel East. It would be poitically
unpopular to say, "Let's just forgive and forget." which is what
they really want to say. Not a bad policy, as long as we make note
that if a 9/11 happens again, we go 'nucular' on any country that
supports another attack; of course that is unreasonable and causes
conflict with the lefty ideal of not having to kill, ever.
Final alanlyis of the current status? It's a big arterial wound.
The right says "Look, let's put a band-aid on this here
'laceration' because band-aids here will lead to band-aids
elsewhere and a body covered in band-aids will stop bleeding for
good!" The left just sits on the sidelines and points at the wound
and says "Your band-aid policy sucks ass, look at all the blood.
I'm going out to grab a latte and a tofu-brussel sprout wrap; call
me when the patient is dead."
Neither are proposing bringing in the doctor into the OR to slap on
a tournaquette.
|12.10.05 @ 6:53PM|#
So, I'm not sure we're so different from where we were then. The
Colonists adopted a rattlesnake as a Revolutionary standard along
with the words, "Don't tread on me." Rattlesnakes will only bite
you in self-defense, and, even then, they give a long, loud warning
before they strike. Self-defense as a principle has been part of
our national character for a long time.
Just because we used a symbol back in the 18th century does not
mean that it's principle has been part of our national character
for a long time. Really, of all our wars and conflicts, how many
were legitimatley self-defense? And how many countries claim to be
not interested in self-defense? The rhetoric is as old as war
itself.
|12.10.05 @ 7:42PM|#
Really, of all our wars and conflicts, how many were
legitimatley self-defense?
Good point--not all of our wars have been wars of self-defense.
You're not suggesting that all of our previous wars were good ones
despite this, are you?
The War of 1812 counts. I've already commented that popular support
for one arena in the Cold War was predicated on self-defense
arguments regarding Communist, particularly Soviet, expansion. I'd
add the Korean War as one of those cases.
Neither the Spanish American War nor the US-Mexican War are very
good candidates for having been wars of Self-defense. We might have
done as well without those wars, I suspect.
...and yet the Spanish American War began with a Gulf of Tonkin
like, self-defense rationalization as did our entry into World War
I. In fact, it seems like the pretense of self-defense has been
very important historically, even the Mexican American War had such
a pretense.
One side of the Civil War might see it as a war of self-defense,
and from the other side, Lincoln seemed to make the case that what
the North was fighting for was worth the loss of life.
And how many countries claim to be not interested in
self-defense? The rhetoric is as old as war itself.
No question, self-defense has been used to justify wars that
weren't really wars of self-defense. I suspect our Iraq War is an
example; indeed, I suspect that domestic support for the war has
waned to the extent that the American people no longer consider it
a war of self-defense.
P.S. Panama and Somalia weren't wars of self-defense, but I don't
think they're comparable to what we're doing in Iraq.
|12.10.05 @ 11:13PM|#
Ken-
To be fair, I think that the self defense issue comes down to what
you consider self defense. Retaliation against people directly
involved in an attack is obviously self defense. Pre-emptive
attacks on people who are obviously preparing an attack (e.g.
armies massed along the border) can also be clear self
defense.
But military action could also be considered self defense in
situations somewhat less clear cut than those obvious examples.
Now, how far out we'd go, how far out we draw the lines, those are
the thorny issues. I think that most (all?) war supporters would
say that Iraq was a defensive war, at least if viewed in the long
run.
Some would say that, despite what we now know, at the time the WMD
threat appeared real enough that pre-emption was necessary as
self-defense.
Some would say that, even if the Saddam-9/11 link wasn't as strong
as the Taliban-9/11 link, any link at all, no matter how tenuous,
in unacceptable.
Others would take a "big picture" view and say that a
liberalization project is a form of pre-ventive self defense.
And, to be honest, some people seem to think that every now and
then we simply need to kick the asses of some bad foreigners who
don't like us, just to show that we can't be messed with and
thereby discourage attacks. I don't share that view, but they
clearly think that it's a form of self defense.
So just about every war supporter views war as a form of self
defense. The thing we need to debate is how expansively we should
view self defense.
|12.11.05 @ 1:44AM|#
Want to be successful against the "insurgents"?
1> Remove all non-Iraqi jouralists from Iraq. They are not
making a positive contribution to anyone.
2> When an insurgent is identified, immediately kill every
person discovered to have had a recent contact with that person,
including first and second level family members, wherever found.
Instantly cease financial and military aid to any government
failing in any way to cooperate.
Word will get around, the "insurgency" will be over in six
months.
Or (my preference): leave and let the people of Iraq do something
similar once we are gone.
Yeah, its not the American way, but this is a "when in Rome..."
situation.
|12.11.05 @ 3:06AM|#
DogBreath: I was hunting around on the web a few years back for
something or another and I happened on a website that showed
pictures of WW2 atrocities. One stuck out in my mind. It was a
Russian girl of fourteen, clad only in a man's shirt and boots,
hung in the middle of winter. She was executed for trying to set on
fire a barn full of German soldiers.
Oddly enough, this firm and decisive action against a known Russian
terrorist failed to prevent further attacks. Perhaps the Germans
were simply insufficiently ruthless in their behavior towards
occupied territories.
|12.11.05 @ 10:07AM|#
DogBreath,
That wouldn't work if we did it. It might work if the Iraqis did
it.
Their (the Iraqi's) problem isn't a lack of ruthlessness. (Saddam
didn't do his thing on his own) it is a problem of agreeing in the
direction they want to go.
On another note. This thread might be dead, sorry I didn't show up
earlier guys. I am on a much busier schedule than I was last time I
was deployed. I really don't have time to contribute to this blog
much. Too late and not enough. I'll try to write another article
for Gyrilade about Afghanistan.
|12.11.05 @ 9:30PM|#
So just about every war supporter views war as a form of
self defense. The thing we need to debate is how expansively we
should view self defense.
I agree with that.
...although I'd add that of the people who are against the Iraq
War, many are against it because they don't think it's a war of
self-defense--anymore. ...and I maintain that "bodybag syndrome" is
less apparent when the American people believe the war in question
to be a function of self-defense--however expansive their
view.
P.S. I suspect you'd consider my view of self-defense as expansive,
relatively speaking. Some of the things I'd find objectionable
otherwise, are okay with me so long as they're done in the service
of an alliance. Also, in the name of self-defense, I don't have a
problem with the idea of preemptive action per se. It's just that
in the Iraq War, what we preempted remains unclear to me.
|12.11.05 @ 11:24PM|#
wasn't the original graphic a dude holding a severed head? and now it's flag-draped coffins? what happened?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245