I Can See Mushroom Clouds Yonder

Off to buy a flashlight and stock up on tuna fish (thanks to Jeff Taylor):

The U.S. Defense Department is said to be mulling a proposal to expand special operations forces and send them to destroy insurgency strongholds along the Lebanese-Syrian border.

…wait a minute, what "insurgent strongholds" on the Lebanese-Syrian border?

Comments

[mak_nas]

i've always found the concept of morality and law in war to be rather humorous. seems to me to be a way for people who truly fear disorder to impose order on, ironically, the breakdown of order.

i would hesitate to kill civilians (or non-civilians, for that matter) in these places because a) i don't see what we would gain, and b) i do see what we would lose. pardon my decidedly passe machiavellianism.

[junyo]

Is it really irresponsible or immoral to bomb/kill X number of civilians if it saves X+1 lives? A legitimate aim of what were acknowledged even at the time to be "terror bombing" campaigns during WWII was to break the populace's will to fight, and thus shorten the war, saving lives. The atomic bombs the US dropped to end WWII weren't dropped on overtly strategic targets, but they accomplished the strategic goal of convincing Japans leadership that further struggle was pointless. So, horrific as they were, the bombings saved lives on both sides. Would it have been more moral to conduct a bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland?

"...we are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying newspapers to believe that we were being whipped all the time now realize the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience..."
- William T. Sherman

[JSM]

I have to disagree with this one, Dan:

"(2): Any military action undertaken by the United States of America or its allies (the leftie definition)."

Many of my far lefty, Seattle friends supported the military operations in Afghanistan following 9/11. However, besides Al Queda, they were, as I, still quite sore over the destruction of the ancient buddhist statues the Taliban conducted and the fact that just prior to 9/11, Bush had sent millions in aid to an oppressive authortarian regime to combat the opium production that was at its lowest level in years. Only the Iraq war was seen as a war crime by them.

[thoreau]

I will grant that if a bombing raid that causes some civilian deaths saves more lives in the long run then it may be justified if there wasn't another way to save those lives (or at least no other way involving similar levels of risk, resources, etc.).

But I was originally responding to rst, who thought we should stop trying to avoid civilian casualties because we weren't getting any good PR for our scruples (i.e. people in certain quarters will criticize the US no matter what). I never thought that good PR was the reason for avoiding civilian casualties. I always thought it was a moral issue.

For instance, I haven't raped anybody. Yet, despite the fact that I haven't raped anybody, I have yet to receive a single medal or recognition for it. In fact, a few feminist extremists insist on bashing men. Does this lack of recognition mean that I should commit rape? OF COURSE NOT! I refrain from rape because it's immoral, not because I want somebody to pin a ribbon on me.

I never thought I'd see the day when somebody would argue in favor of killing civilians on the grounds that the US receives criticism even when we don't kill civilians.

[jon b.]

Isn't there some sort of equation at the Penagon so they can figure how many civilian casualities it takes to convert another terrorist?

thoreau, lol.

[Jon H]

JSM writes: "However, besides Al Queda, they were, as I, still quite sore over the destruction of the ancient buddhist statues the Taliban conducted"

I would like for them to be around, as historical and cultural artifacts, but, really, you couldn't ask for a better exemplar of the Buddha's teachings.

His whole message was centered on the impermanence of things, even massive stone carvings. And because of that impermanence, it's unwise to cling to things. And so, from a Buddhist perspective, getting upset about the Bamiyan buddhas is kinda silly.

Just as silly as going through the effort to create a permanent monument to a teacher of impermanence, in the first place.

[joe]

Jon H, I've read about carvings in Sri Lanka depticting Buddha torturing sinners in hell!

So you can't really be too surprised by messages getting off track.

[arvydas sabonis]

JSM:

Hmmm...perhaps your Seattle friends are not far left enough... We had a City-sponsored meeting regarding the Afgan war here in PDX shortly after 9/11 where several people in the audience starting clapping and cheering when a video was shown of the Trade Center(s) collapsing. There were also several (admittedly very small) demonstrations against that war and commentators on the 'community radio' station already parroting that Bush was a war criminal long before the Iraq war.

...Little Beruit indeed...

[pdxmark]

JSM said: "Bush had sent millions in aid to an oppressive authortarian regime to combat the opium production that was at its lowest level in years."

You need to stop believing Robert Scheer. That money, as Spinsanity points out, consisted of "$28 million in surplus wheat, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in 'livelihood and food security' programs intended to help alleviate a looming famine." It was administered by the UN and NGOs.

http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200106-3.html#12a

[Rick Barton]

Insurgency?? That far away? Bull! Sounds like another neo-con job. They must figure that if they use the word "insurgency" a lot of folks will think; Iraq. Of course the "war on terror" is nebulous enough to give them a sort of carte blanche anyway but as the lies the taxpayers were neo-conned with start to fray, they need to employ a little more misdirection.

Bring the troops home now, lest any more get killed and the Defense Department expands this insanity.

[Rick Barton]

If the Pentagon really thought that American troops were being killed or threatened as a result of activity on the Lebanese-Syrian border, we hope they wouldn't be "mulling" anything hopefully they would be taking action. And; they most certainly wouldn't be telegraphing their intentions!

No; this is PR to actually expand the war at a time when our troops in Iraq are already taking loses. I'm thinking Sharon might be quite happy at the prospect.

[R. C. Dean]

Just guessing, but perhaps Hamas or Hezbollah or some other Islamo-nutzoid group being sponsored by the Syrians.

Sounds to me like Middle Eastern News Line has adopted the Reuters spelling of "terrorist".

[Grant Gould]

...wait a minute, what "insurgent strongholds" on the Lebanese-Syrian border?

The ones with the WMDs, silly!
--G

[Jon H]

The Lebanon-Syria border is not anyplace near Iraq. There's a whole bunch of Syria between Lebanon and Iraq.

Why would Iraqi insurgents bother setting up camps that far away, when, presumably, anyplace in Syria would be available to them for that purpose?

[Jon H]

That article also says Rummy wants to hit Al Qaeda 'strongholds' in Somalia.

That infamous professor just might get a second Mogadishu, if not the million he wanted.

[AJMB]

The only rule in any war is this: WIN. The winner's tend to hold sway over what is and isn't a 'war crime'. Personally, I find the term absurd. 'Crimes against humanity' is a heading I can sanction, however.

[fyodor]

The unexpanded operation is hardly worth operating! 🙂

[rst]

might get a second Mogadishu, if not the million he wanted.

I think it's high time we returned to carpet bombing. It's not like it makes a difference, half of these retards are convinced our military takes pleasure in the death of innocents and enjoys civilian bloodbaths. Bush is evil; Mugabe is just a pawn in a Commonwealth power game; Hussein and OBL just victims of American Cold War policy. Ok, we might as well feed the fantasy.

[thoreau]

rst-

I thought the reason for avoiding civilian casualties was because, um, it's generally considered bad to kill innocent civilians. The fact that it doesn't get us any good PR from certain quarters is irrelevant, because the goal is to avoid killing innocent civilians.

I never thought I'd come to a libertarian forum and find that I need to argue against killing civilians. What's next? Any pro-rape posters around here?

[Jean Bart]

thoreau,

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is likely a war crime.

[R. C. Dean]

Umm, folks, I don't see any verbatim quotes from Rumsfeld or anyone else in our military that use the "insurgent" word. I suspect they may have used the term "terrorist", but I really don't know and don't care.

Terminology aside, we know that many of the "insurgents" in Iraq came from outside Iraq (including Syria) after being recruited by terrorist organizations that are quite cozy with, among others, the Syrians, and have bases in Syria and Lebanon. Given this set of facts, we are quite justified in pursuing these hostile groups and attacking their bases, wherever they are. In fact, we would be foolish to leave their bases untouched, if we have the means to destroy them (and we do). What is so hard to grasp about that?

[Mark Bahner]

This is how wars get started!

Michael Young writes, "...wait a minute, what 'insurgent strongholds' on the Lebanese-Syrian border?"

The ones that the Defense Department is "said" (by completely unidentified sources) to be "mulling."

This "Middle East Newsline" has completely unidentified sources "mulling" various actions. Then they contain an actual **quote** from a Donald Rumsfeld briefing:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040106-secdef1104.html

...but where in the briefing is anything like the actions that are being "mulled" described?

As part of my general policy of skepticism, I generally don't trust newspapers. And I certainly wouldn't trust Middle East Newsline, with paragraphs like this:

"The London-based A-Sharq Al Awsat reported on Wednesday that the proposal submitted to Rumsfeld was the result of the secretary's decision to expand the U.S. war against Al Qaida and its allies. The Saudi-owned newspaper quoted U.S. sources as saying the first step being mulled by Rumsfeld is for a U.S. military attack on Al Qaida strongholds in Somalia as early as this month."

So Middle East Newsline is reporting on what a Saudi-owned newspaper allegedly quoted "U.S. sources" as "saying." (About a Secretary of Defense's "decision" to "expand" a war to new countries.) Hmmmmm...

[Andrew]

The story itself appears to be bullshit. What it does tell us is that regimes in the region are getting jumpy-- which is the effect we were trying to achieve.