New at Reason

David Weigel | August 8, 2006

Cathy Young takes on the latest hoary comparisons between World War II and the War on Terror, this time from John Podhoretz.

Comments

|8.8.06 @ 1:34AM|#

Ugh. I thought Reason was against torture. But then you go and have a picture of a shirtless Podhoretz in a swimming pool.

|8.8.06 @ 2:25AM|#

Funny how according to these hawks we don't have the balls to go in and cleanse Iraq once and for all. How else were we to save the Iraqi people for freedom and democracy if not by slaughtering every one and levelling the country back to dust?

|8.8.06 @ 2:35AM|#

What if Americans during World War II had been confronted daily both with reports of American casualties and with images of dead and wounded German civilians, including children and old people? What if public opinion had been as troubled by both American and German casualties as we are by American and Iraqi (or Lebanese) casualties today? Would there still be a free world to speak of?

The Germans? Perhaps. Language and culture aside you average German doesn't look all that different from your average Anglo-American. However, given this nation's racial attitudes back then and Pearl Harbor, I think most 1940s Americans would care less how much those "filthy nips" suffered because of the firing bombing of Tokyo or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact the "Greatest Generation," whom we are told we must worship as heroes, probably thought the Japanese "deserved it."

Just like a lot of the warpigs today think that the largely non-caucasian muslims 'deserve" what happened Abu Gharib, Gitmo, and Haditha for 9-11. After all, we have a "civilization" to save.

To hell with that, fighting barbarism doesn't mean resorting to it ourselves. If what we're doing is in service of civilization, then WE fucking "deserve" to be conqured.

|8.8.06 @ 4:31AM|#

"did not have it in them to firebomb Dresden and nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki"

Am I the only one that finds Podhoretz's examples interesting. He chose the 3 bombing that were either unnecessary for victory or very controversial as far as their strategic necessity. He did not use the firebombing of Tokyo as an example, which was more damaging, but less controversial due to it being the capital and the seat of power. He picked the 3 bombings that some wish we could take back because we could have won the war without them.

I don't want this to degrade to a "was Hiroshima and Nagasaki" necessary thread, but his choice of options was interesting.

|8.8.06 @ 7:25AM|#

Actually, much like the person at this link, until I saw The Fog of War, a documentary about Robert S. McNamara, I didn't realize that the U.S. actually firebombed 67 cities in Japan, not just Tokyo.

|8.8.06 @ 8:37AM|#

First, that was an excellent article, Cathy. When you take a position you write interesting articles.

It has not escaped my notice that there is some overlap between the people who insist that what we're doing is all about liberty and democracy for oppressed people, and then insist that we need to stop worrying about civilian casualties and have the resolve to be as brutal as necessary.

|8.8.06 @ 9:09AM|#

The war on terror such as it is and the war in Iraq are as wars go pretty low level conflicts. The United States is fighting both of them by rules that its enemies have no intention of ever following and with a tiny fraction of our available resources.

The truth is no one knows what the threat from terrorism is. First, we need to dispense with the rediculous sophistry of basing future risk assessments on past actions. By that logic someone siting in Hiroshima in 1945 could validly argue that the chances of their dying from a nuclear weapon were zero because it has never happened before. Sometimes things happen for the first time. Perhaps, terrorist organizations really are incompetent and no danger to anyone. Or, perhaps they are about to nuke New York. I don't know anymore than the rest of you.

One thing I do know, is that if there is another terrorist attack, especially one involved WMDs, the United States will stop fighting by the rules and start taking this whole thing seriously. If and when that happens, there will be a lot more dead civilians and a lot of dead muslims. Unlike Podhertz, I have no doubt that if it really beleives that it is fighting for its survival this country is capable of a 100 Dresdens. In that sense, winning the war on terror by current methods is more about saving the lives of our enemies than it is saving Americans.

|8.8.06 @ 9:33AM|#

First, we need to dispense with the rediculous sophistry of basing future risk assessments on past actions. By that logic someone siting in Hiroshima in 1945 could validly argue that the chances of their dying from a nuclear weapon were zero because it has never happened before.

John,
Wow, that's some faulty logic. I bet someone sitting in Hiroshima would also argue their life ending due to a bombing from the US is significantly more than 0. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. In 2000, if I was to guess where Islamic terrorists would strike in the US, my guess would be NY (specifically the WTC, due to past experience) or Washington DC, due to the logic that it is our capital. This isn't hindsight speaking, but logic.

Do you have a better way of risk assesment other than past experience and current intelligence?

I do agree that the US has the stomach for another Dresden. If we were locked into an existential war with China, where they were the agressor, I could guarantee we would be brutal if it was necessary. I disagree that the lack of brutality is to save our enemies' lives, but more to prevent creating new enemies and to prevent censure on the world stage. Considering Iraq was a war of choice, we have to play by the rules.

|8.8.06 @ 9:36AM|#

"What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them...? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?"

I have a rule of thumb--I don't listen to Jews tell me how many Arabs must be killed, nor do I listen to Arabs tell me how the Jews must killed. I find this prevents me from getting drawn in to an insane bloodfeud that goes back many centuries, which is a good thing.

Despite the apparent the symmetry of this position, whenever I announce it I am invariably told that I am anti-Semitic. Nor I am relieved of this slander when I inform my accuser that I don't listen to Christains when it comes to ANYTHING. People who lead lives premised on some brand of Magical Invisible Bullshit no longer have anything to tell me that I am interested in hearing. Four decades of that shit has been enough, thanks--I've already taken all the useful stuff (e.g. Dostoevsky and Mahalia Jackson) and all that remains is the insanity. I'll pass.

So, JPod--your greatest accomplishment in life was being born with the last name "Podhoretz". In light of that, please shut the fuck up.

|8.8.06 @ 9:37AM|#

One of the "crimes" Doenitz was charged for was the crime of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. If I recall correctly Admiral Nimitz spoke out in defense of Doenitz at his trial pointing out many of his war crimes were also the official policy of the U.S. Navy.

I think the right paradigm is to look at this from an ethical standpoint. If I shoot someone who is not aggressing against me, I am clearly guilty of murder. It is irrelevant whether that person has the misfortune to live next door, or to be friends with someone who wants me dead.

Thus, modern war is immoral.

Now the situation in Lebanon is quite interesting in that Hezbollah is quite obviously attempting to commit murder on a fairly large scale by launching rockets into Israel. Obviously the people living at the locations where those rockets are being targeted are being aggressed against, and for them to kill their attackers in self-defense would be morally permissible.

So, if a fisherman living near Haifa were to invent a death ray that would kill whomever launched a missile in his direction and used it on Hezbollah fighters, it would be ethically OK.

If, on the other hand, he had invented a 60 megaton nuclear bomb, which he lobbed accurately onto his attacker, it would quite clearly be ethically unacceptable, since the would kill thousands of people who were not aggressing against him.

Unfortunately, most weapons wielded by armies are industrial ones that kill pretty indiscriminately. Even precision bombs can miss by several meters. Many people are of the opinion that so long as you do your best, you should be permitted to commit murder if the alternative is that your weapons are left unused.

I do not agree. Just because one develops the wrong weapons does not excuse one from the need to use them justly. For example the Hezbollah rocketing problem is one that requires surveilance aircraft guided by counterbattery radars that then direct people with guns. It's not a simple problem, but it is one that is quite technically feasible. The Israeli strategy which seems to be "we will kill and hurt people until the survivors rise up against our enemies," is unethical and doomed.

BTW to those who would argue that I know not what Israelis are going through, when I was a child in Turkey in the late 1970's my father stood up to the Grey Wolves, and they attempted to assassinate him. the local police were told by an informant that a plan to kidnap myself or my brother was semi-seriously discussed. Our house was under constant surveilance by our enemies who delighted in calling my mother as soon as she came home from the University. And, a playmate was blown up by a bomb (not intended for us, the target was some politician). In other words, I viscerally understand what it is like to try to go through life with assholes who want you (and specifically you) dead.

|8.8.06 @ 9:47AM|#

Thus, modern war is immoral.

Remove the "modern".

|8.8.06 @ 10:01AM|#

"What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?"

What if citizens of a liberal democracy - with the experience of incompetent leaders taking them into questionable conflicts over questionable goals - have now evolved to a point where they don't trust the leadership to act in the best interests of the country.

In other words, the notion that we are too civil in war is silly. Do you think the Iraqi civilians killed by American soldiers largely because of communication difficulties or being in the wrong place at the wrong time would call us "too civil?"

As for the nation as a whole, we're not getting weak-kneed because the war is getting too tough. We're having reservations because Bush and his advisers are morons.

The hawkiest (shout out to Steven Colbert) of the war's critics are focused the numerous bad decisions made with flawed intelligence and employing bad planning.

And moderates aren't being swayed so much by Iraqi civilians dying. Moderates are being swayed by the families of dead civilians turning anti-American, no-bid contracts to administration cronies, poor planning and ineptitude, mounting debt and the mysterious lack of oil money that was supposed to pay for it all.

We are a civilized country that - for the most part - sees the use of our military as a force for good and NOT to be used to further cynical goals. Most folks have no problem with going after the terrorist. And the bloodier the better.

But policing Iraq while insurgents kill and maim our soldiers is not "going after terrorists." It's babysitting a public relations disaster.

Supporting Israel's right to statehood and defense is fine and a noble goal. But supporting Israel in bombing to oblivian one of the few democracies (Lebanon) in the area - that just chased one of our enemies (Syria) out of it's country but wasn't strong enough to get rid of Hezbolah - over a minor border skirmish is foolish and allowing Israel to occupy them makes us look like stooges for the one country EVERY Arab country hates. It damages our credibility as a broker and damages our relationships with our allies.

|8.8.06 @ 10:33AM|#

Mo,

The point is not that the past can't be a predictor of the future. The point is that becuase you don't have complete information, the mere fact that something hasn't yet happned does not mean that it won't happen. I was responding specifically to the argument that if you do the math you are more likly to be killed in a car accident than a terrorist attack. That is true, if you assume that deaths due to terrorists attacks are going to remain constant. To do that, you must assume a level of knowledge regarding future terrorists attacks that we just do not have. In the same way the Japanese assuming his chances of being killed by radiation in 1945 assumed a knowledge of U.S. nuclear capability that he did not have.

|8.8.06 @ 10:46AM|#

Unfortunately, most weapons wielded by armies are industrial ones that kill pretty indiscriminately. Even precision bombs can miss by several meters. Many people are of the opinion that so long as you do your best, you should be permitted to commit murder if the alternative is that your weapons are left unused.

This last statement is simply wrong. The Israelis are not using every weapon - they have nukes, lets not forget, so to claim that their position is that they can fire off everything in their arsenal as long as they are doing their best is simply wrong.

If we say the Israelis can do nothing about Hezbollah if it means killing a single "civilian" (however that is defined in southern Lebanon), then we might as well let Hez set up the gas chambers in Tel Aviv.

The Israeli state and government have, first and foremost, an obligation to their citizens to protect them from being killed by Hezbollah. In order to carry out this obligation, they have to stop the rocket attacks. Everyone's on board so far, I presume.

However, (and this is where the squeamish throw the Jews under the bus) in order to stop the rocket attacks, they have to drive Hez out of southern Lebanon and interdict Hez supply and communications lines. If you know any other way to stop the rockets that doesn't involve driving the Jews into the sea, please share.

|8.8.06 @ 10:51AM|#

Thus, modern war is immoral.

Remove the "modern".

I disagree, somewhat anyway. War is not inherently immoral; rather, war is inherently amoral. For a nation to commit to winning a war means making winning the war its #1 priority, and yes, that means over preserving its moral cleanliness and self-image.

The thing is, it's a lot easier for a nation (or at least a democratic nation) to make that commitment when its people perceive an imminent mortal threat to their civilization than when they don't. This is why the very idea of "preventive war" (not just the Iraq war itself, which is merely the prototype for preventive war) is on thin ice: Its very purpose is to deal with lesser threats before they develop into imminent mortal threats to civilization, which by its very nature works against building the level of moral commitment necessary to win the war.

That inherent paradox of preventive war should be the #1 lesson learned from the Iraq war, if not by George W. Bush (for whom it's probably too late now) then at least by future Presidents.

|8.8.06 @ 10:51AM|#

"That is true, if you assume that deaths due to terrorists attacks are going to remain constant."

You, the Hysteric-in-Chief, and your panic-stricken ilk [drink up], have been doing exactly that. You have taken what was essentially a one time event and grossly inflated its probability of recurrence. And please don't give me any of that mumbo jumbo about our great and ongoing prophylactic vigilance. Terrrorists cannot destroy this country, but the hysterical fanaticism of our "leaders" can.

What exactly is it which distinguishes us from the terrrists (sic) and tinpot dictators whom you fear so much.

|8.8.06 @ 10:53AM|#

Henry,

I don't believe atheists when it comes to ANYTHHING. If you are an honest atheist you are nihilist and if you are not a nihilist you are just living in denial pretending that you are doing the right thing because you reason told you so or it is "just the right thing to do" some other such crap. I suppose if you are an atheist and honest enough to admit that man is completely insignificant in an unimaginably vast and cold universe and life is totally meaningless, I might listen to you about some things. But if you try to tell me that there are absolute right and wrongs and some kind of meaning in a Godless universe, I will just smile and put you on the same level as the snake handlers in Appalachia.

terran,

I agree with you analysis of the use military force. The problem is that if your enemy doesn't play by those rules, you a liable to loose. We can insist that Israel play by those rules because Hezbollah cannot hope to actually destroy Israel. What if it is a more powerful enemy who levels the entire country of Israel with the specific purpose of occupying the country? Would Israel be wrong to take whatever means necessary against such an enemy to ensure its survival? I think that it would and would never expect anyone to die at the hands of a barbaric enemy in the name of international law.

|8.8.06 @ 11:01AM|#

"If we say the Israelis can do nothing about Hezbollah if it means killing a single "civilian" (however that is defined in southern Lebanon), then we might as well let Hez set up the gas chambers in Tel Aviv."

What a splendid enumeration of the possible alternatives.

----

Should have been a "?" after "so much"

stupid keyboard

|8.8.06 @ 11:02AM|#

The only international law is force, or the threat of it.

As an American, I care little what Israelis and Lebanese do to each other. Yeah, we subsidize Israel, but then we subsidize most of the useless twits in that part of the world. Maybe if we stopped, they'd be forced to stop shooting each other and actually do something productive for a change.

|8.8.06 @ 11:03AM|#

PBrooks,

I am so glad you have such an insight into the current terrorist threat. You are 100% sure that 9-11 can never happen again. Of course I would bet that you were 100% sure it wouldn't happen in the first place. You certainly seem to have a complete understanding of the Islamist mindset. Wow, if we could all be so smart. Rather than deal with your obviously vast intelligence and worldly understanding, I will refer to Benard Lewis and his assesmet of at least one of our enemies in today's WJS.

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. ...

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights � the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom. ...

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead � hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD."

Not that the Iranians are our only enemy, but give the fact that these people are running an entire country and are not the only ones who seem to want us dead, forgive me if I am not a little more afraid of them than I am of you or any of our politicians.

|8.8.06 @ 11:08AM|#

I don't believe atheists when it comes to ANYTHHING.

John, the sky is blue.

|8.8.06 @ 11:10AM|#

Okay, David, I believe athiests about a lot of things. I suppose though it is a good thing you said that and not me, because P Brooks wouldn't have believed me.

|8.8.06 @ 11:12AM|#

John,

I am not an atheist, although I suppose, in practical terms, I could be--I just think nobody knows what the fuck they are talking about beyond the material world (and they are often half clueless about the material world as well), and given millenia of divergent "opinions" on the so-called "spirtiual realm", the idea that any person or person has some special "insight" into such things is both laughable and arrogant in the extreme.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the view that man is insignificant in the universe is held rather widely beyond these dreaded "atheists"--in fact, I'd quickly label someone who fails to acknowledge this truism a complete nitwit. It does not necessarily follow, however, that life is "meaningless", at least in the sense I undersand the term. I suppose if one was feed some "eternal life" in "heaven" bullshit from the cradle, then anything less might seem to render all "meaningless", but it ain't necessarily so for others.

My point is this: I'm no longer wasting my time on people whose motivations in life derive from what are demonstrably fairy tales. They will bend facts to fit the fantasy every time. Fuck all of them, and that would include the dogmatic atheist, too.

|8.8.06 @ 11:14AM|#

If you are an honest atheist you are nihilist and if you are not a nihilist you are just living in denial pretending that you are doing the right thing because you reason told you so or it is "just the right thing to do" some other such crap.

So...if you don't believe in God, you can't have meaning or purpose in your life or see that there's a difference between good and bad or right or wrong?

I think you're way off base there, dude.

|8.8.06 @ 11:44AM|#

FWIW

I grew up in rural Georgia. When I was a little boy, my friends and I often played near a long-abandoned rail track. It was clearly old and twisted almost beyond recognition. We never thought why anyone would so destroy a railroad, until our parents told us it was the work of the Union army led by General Sherman. Our parents had learned to say his name in the same tone as "Satan."

When I got older, I learned how this evil bastard was one of the modern world's first practioners of "total war." The movie "Gone with the Wind" gives no idea of the viciousness with which this willing servant of evil anti-federalism annihilated Georgia. (In his defense, it should be noted that he was the soldier who first observed that "War is hell.")

William T. Sherman was an evil, rapacious SOB! That is a fact. What he did to Georgia is unforgiveable.

But...

Southern Pride (and the excuse of states' rights) aside for a moment, the Southern cause was morally repugnant. The war was not going well. This was mainly due to the Southerner's dedication to their cause, and to their homes. To win, the North had to beat them up so hard that they would accept defeat. Sherman destroyed vital transport and communication facilities, and completely demoralized his enemy; he promised to "Make Georgia howl." He delivered: my home city of Savannah was so terrified of him that it surrendered well in advance of his arrival (thanks to their "foresight," I exist...but that's another tale).

My point is that, against a hardened enemy, only vicious--vicious!--destruction will suffice. Only when the bodies of millions of children are piled up, and all the infrastructure annihilated, will some hard-headed SOB's finally surrender. And when their surrender is necessary for civilization and decency to flourish, then we must be unforgivingly brutal.

Today, Atlanta is the home of the world's busiest airport, and at least 16 major multi-nationals. It is more cosmopolitan than most any other US city, and wealthier (proportionally) than all US metro areas. It would not be so if Sherman had not burned it to the ground.

Fact: Israel is a civilized nation.
Fact: Lebanon is not, because the stupid Lebanese tolerate the presence of filth.
Fact: Lebanon will benefit from being cleansed of the Hezbollah garbage which it has allowed to infest the country.

Fact: Uncivilized lands must be beated into submission to civilization. If that means killing, killing, killing, killing, then so be it. Radical Islamists are not acceptable as human beings: kill them. Kill them all. Kill anyone who could conceivably like them. Turn Lebanon into a radiactive ashcan if necessary.

We are wrong to obsess over "civilian" casualties. The only innocents in Lebanon--or Iraq, for that matter--are the ones who have already taken up arms to kill Islamists. Pity their accidental deaths...otherwise, kill, kill, kill.

Human decency DEMANDS it.

|8.8.06 @ 11:45AM|#

John-

I'm not, actually, "100% sure" that there will be no more terrorist attacks. I refer you back to what I said above; my contention is that it is you who have assumed "deaths due to terrorists attacks are going to remain constant." Your assumption is that those deaths will remain at 2001 levels; in fact, they have returned to "normal" or zero.

After the revenge killing spree undertaken by the American government in the past five years, I would calculate the probability of terrorist attack on American soil as significantly greater than zero.

---------

"In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam."
[from your response- Bernard Lewis' words, I believe]

Is that what you think we have been doing for the past five years?

|8.8.06 @ 11:56AM|#

What I hate most about being an atheist is it means that, when I die, I'll never get the chance to say "I told you so."

So far, the theists have not dreamed up a god worthy of being worshipped. {Try reading "Judges", which is mostly a chronicle of repeated genocides perpetrated by "god's chosen people.}

|8.8.06 @ 12:01PM|#

Aresen

If you want to see the literal blueprint for jihad, just check out God's instructions on how to deal with places like Jericho, Ai, etc.

He is one evil motherfucker, that God of the Christian, Islamic and Jewish bullshitters.

|8.8.06 @ 12:15PM|#

So are we to understand that Podhoretz wouldn't have much respect for Germans who weren't fully supportive of their War On Jews?

|8.8.06 @ 12:38PM|#

Henry:

My personal favorite example of god's monstrosity is in IIKings 2:18-22 [King James Version] A group of children called Elijah "thou old bald head" (='bald headed old coot', which he was). To avenge this insult to HIS PROPHET, God sent 'two she-bears' to tear 42 children to bits.

[I just realized that I have now called Elijah a bald-headed old coot. I better not go out to the woods today.]

|8.8.06 @ 12:56PM|#

BTW:

I first learned that one from reading the late, great Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land."

|8.8.06 @ 1:14PM|#

The pain and suffering of the families of the civilain contrators is truly sad but the rebel forces had to destroy that base.

|8.8.06 @ 1:40PM|#

I grew up in rural Georgia.

And damned if that isn't obvious!

Fact: Uncivilized lands must be beated into submission to civilization. If that means killing, killing, killing, killing, then so be it.

After we're done with Lebanon, maybe we ought to take another look at rural Georgia.

|8.8.06 @ 1:54PM|#

Right JMoore, because Atlanta was a backwater shithole before his march to the sea.

|8.8.06 @ 2:01PM|#

Right JMoore, because Atlanta was a backwater shithole before his march to the sea.

Most of the rest of rural Georgia pretty much still is.

|8.8.06 @ 2:33PM|#

My understanding of the look back on WWII by military analysts is that bombings that are considered horrific by modern standards, that is bombings with high civilian casualties, were a waste of resources. They not only diverted firepower away from military and production targets, they destroyed the recruiting power of dissident and resistance groups. As I understand it, a number of smaller German cities had functional and growing dissident groups and resistance groups that essentially disappeared immediately after local Allied bombing raids. As seen in France in WWII and Afghanistan in the WoT, those groups can massively reduce the resource requirements to win, secure, and recover from war.

So, in my opinion, a more sensitive and informed populace will be less inclined to accept atrocities, which should lead to more effective warfighting, not less.

|8.8.06 @ 3:09PM|#

Interesting to ponder, Rimfax. You sold me, but I don't think ol' J "Blood & Guts Bombs Away Stonewall Kill 'em All And Let God Sort 'em Out" Moore is going to buy it.

More effective fighting would just send the wrong message to the terrorists and the innocent civilians...like that we actually care, or something.

|8.8.06 @ 3:57PM|#

What Podhoretz calls "insufficient stomach" is better known as "proportionality." The US was pissed about 9/11 but, for all the foaming at the mouth done by Pod, most Americans understand that Islamic terrorists are not an existential threat. For that matter, neither are the "insurgents." If the Iraqi resistance had a shipyard where they were building nuclear-powered supercarriers, I am quite certain we would have the cojones to level it.

Unfortunately for Pod's vision of the Apocalypse, they have no such means. At the end of the day, they are only able to fight us because WE are over THERE. The Japanese Navy followed up Pearl Harbor with a devastating voyage through the Pacific and Indian oceans, launching dozens of amphibious operations and destroying dozens of warships and sinking hundreds of thousands of tons of merchant shipping. We were scared of them in a way we really just shouldn't be scared of Osama. What's old Osama done lately? Made scary videos?

I also noted that Pod singled out the gratuitous revenge killings at Dresden and Hiroshima as having special merit. Neither were necessary for victory, since both happened long after the enemy combat forces had been largely destroyed. It's the kind of "strategy" favored by people who have never been on the receiving end of such treatment. It's fake tough. They can endure any suffering as long as it's happening to someone else.

|8.8.06 @ 3:58PM|#

"The only innocents in Lebanon--or Iraq, for that matter--are the ones who have already taken up arms to kill Islamists"

Thankfully, our government hasn't yet progressed to this line of logic. It really is the whole point of what makes us different from the terrorists (and we are still better than them by the way.) We recognize that it is not necessarily just to hold people living in a country responsible for that country's government.

I guess the citizens in the world trade center were not innocent then, because they refused to rebel against the government that was helping to arm Israel? It's the logic that led to the attack against the world trade center in the first place: that a group of people can be held responsible for the immmoral acts of its own government.

I contend that if the son of man killed by the bombing of Baghdad were to kill me in revenge for the actions of my government that it would be immoral for him to do so, as I had nothing to do with the decision to bomb Baghdad...in fact I specifically opposed this action. Does my lack of willingness to violently overthrow my government really make me responsible for all of its actions? If so, we really are in trouble as a species, as the number of governments that have never done anything morally wrong is pretty much 0.

|8.8.06 @ 4:11PM|#

Oh, yeah. The whole "scrag 'em and leave" approach to warfare is epitomized by WWI. The effects of it are epitomized by WWII.

|8.8.06 @ 4:38PM|#

"To hell with that, fighting barbarism doesn't mean resorting to it ourselves. If what we're doing is in service of civilization, then WE fucking "deserve" to be conqured (sic)."

In "Apocalypse Now" Col. Kurtz tells us that the Viet Cong will win because they use moral terror (he sights the example of children�s arms being hacked off after receiving vaccinations for polio ("a pile of tiny, little arms"). He says you must make a friend of moral terror, because if you don't, it is an enemy to be feared. I believe that this is tautologically sound. I would have no trouble � morally � pushing the button.

|8.8.06 @ 4:48PM|#

"John, the sky is blue."

That depends on who's lookin'.

|8.8.06 @ 5:36PM|#

"In "Apocalypse Now" Col. Kurtz tells us that the Viet Cong will win because they use moral terror (he sights the example of children�s arms being hacked off after receiving vaccinations for polio ("a pile of tiny, little arms"). He says you must make a friend of moral terror, because if you don't, it is an enemy to be feared. I believe that this is tautologically sound. I would have no trouble � morally � pushing the button."

I have to thank Willard, undoubtedly as big a fan of the movie as I am for the post. But I think you have it wrong: in the end Willard refuses to take the Kurtz route, he takes the innocent Lance and heads back up river to civilization and its discontents. He won't allow the cynicism that drove Kurtz to his extremes do the same to him.

Of course, I think the analogy is bad anyway. Podhoretz, Bush, Cheny, and Wolfowitz are best symbolized in the film by the Army Brass (one played by a young Harrison Ford) who, while their subjects are dying in bloody combat, politely pass the roast beef...

|8.8.06 @ 5:45PM|#

"But I think you have it wrong: in the end Willard refuses to take the Kurtz route, he takes the innocent Lance and heads back up river to civilization and its discontents. He won't allow the cynicism that drove Kurtz to his extremes do the same to him."

Willard left, we lost the war. Subsequently, millions of SE Asians were killed (Cambodia, etc.).

In the long-run, it would have been best had we nuked Hanoi in 1967.

Larry A|8.8.06 @ 5:53PM|#

Yet it is all too easy to move from pondering a tragic paradox to considering acts from which even the most hawkish among us would recoil in horror. Thus, Podhoretz inquires: "What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them...? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?"

What's really scary is how well these arguments translate over to a "zero tolerance" war on drugs.

|8.8.06 @ 8:09PM|#

Willard: two million Vietnamese were killed during the US involvement in the war. I don't think insufficient ruthlessness was a factor in our defeat. I also don't see how killing a million more by using nuclear weapons and drawing China into the war would have left Indochina or the US in a better position afterwards.

In the end, Vietnam devolved into the just the kind of conflict Podhoretz is urging on all of us now: disregard for civilian casualties, retaliatory killings, widespread torture, assassinations performed on flimsy evidence, or none at all. How did that work out for us?

Once again, I'm struck by the Pod People's contempt for the notion that there is a point at which you simply have to cut your losses. Pod is like a gambler who takes every loss at the blackjack table as proof that he's about to get two face cards. He just needs to double down one more time...

If he wants to gamble his own life and money, well, fine. But my point above is that he (and Bill Kristol, and Bush, for that matter) remain comfortably remote from the real-world consequences of his "toughness." It's others that pay the price. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had their lives cut short by the sanctions regime...did that deter the 9/11 hijackers or spur them on? Read their communiques and figure it out for yourself.