InstaPundit notes that some folks are complaining because, gads, we’ve been bombing for weeks and we haven’t won yet. Gads! I was really hoping the Instant Gratification streak of the…
InstaPundit notes that some folks are complaining because, gads, we’ve been bombing for weeks and we haven’t won yet. Gads!
I was really hoping the Instant Gratification streak of the US would be on hold for a bit longer. It makes you wonder how WWII would be different if fought today.
Geoff also makes the interesting obervation that “[T]his war is the inverse of most Afghan conflicts: to win, they have to govern Afghanistan. We just have to stop them.”
There’s a low but growing tide of hostility out there toward the Saudis. A lot of the money trail supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda seems to be leading back…
There’s a low but growing tide of hostility out there toward the Saudis. A lot of the money trail supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda seems to be leading back to Saudi Arabia. And more and more evidence is coming out that, whether through cultural schizophrenia or through an attempt to counter fundamentalist forces in their own regime, the Saudi royal family is seems more than willing to play both sides of the modernism/reactionary fence. A number of folks are beginning to ask when the Bush “You’re With Us, Or Against Us” Doctrine is going to be put into play.
Not to address that directly, but here’s an interesting bit about how Saudi reconstruction crews in Bosnia are demolishing historic religious architecture they consider idolatrous and blaphemous, and rebuilding it in their own fashion.
At the Beg mosque, the Saudis ordered the Ottoman tilework and painted wall decorations stripped off and discarded and had the whole building redone, as Riedlmayer puts it “in gleaming hospital white, even the minaret slathered in white plaster.” He says that in scores of villages, the Saudis had war-damaged but restorable historic Ottoman-style Bosnian mosques demolished and redone Saudi-style. All of the colorful Balkan-Muslim interior decor was eliminated, and separate entrances were added to segregate women.
Imagine, if you will, if the US were doing this ….
(I have to confess, that with my twisted Historian values, this bothers me a lot worse than some other things going on ….)
(Via InstaPundit)
According to a just-released UN report, Taliban forces retaking the Yakoalong district earlier this year basically rounded up all the males they could find and had them executed. Oh, and…
According to a just-released UN report, Taliban forces retaking the Yakoalong district earlier this year basically rounded up all the males they could find and had them executed. Oh, and tortured. And desecrated the bodies.
And these are the folks crying bloody murder over heartless US aggression? These are the folks trying to rally the Muslim world around the virtue of their cause?
Feh.
(Via InstaPundit)
The Harris Poll Online is doing a worldwide poll on 9-11 and the War on Terrorism. Granted, it’s by no means a scientific sample, it’s still at least worth as…
The Harris Poll Online is doing a worldwide poll on 9-11 and the War on Terrorism.
Granted, it’s by no means a scientific sample, it’s still at least worth as much of your time as discovering what robot, Star Wars character, or level of geek you are, right?
Too much fun. Someone is collecting all those news site logos related to 9-11 and the subsequent conflicts and putting them on one site. Cool stuff. Of course, they missed…
Too much fun. Someone is collecting all those news site logos related to 9-11 and the subsequent conflicts and putting them on one site. Cool stuff.
Of course, they missed the contributions of The Onion and The Daily Show.
(Via Boing Boing)
Okay, just to show that I can be paranoid, too … The American public is very warm-hearted. Really. We hate to see blood being shed. So even with the greatest…
Okay, just to show that I can be paranoid, too …
The American public is very warm-hearted. Really. We hate to see blood being shed. So even with the greatest provocation, there are a lot of people who really hate that we’ve started a bombing campaign in Afghanistan, let alone the length of time its run.
So why aren’t we hearing more protests? Because it’s not getting a huge amount of air time?
What is getting air time?
Anthrax.
So if you wanted to wage a war, but you didn’t want the public ragging on you about it, could you think of a better distraction than some relatively harmless, but high-publicity, anthrax scares?
(I don’t really believe this. But I just wanted to show I could Theorize Conspiracies with the best of them.)
Taking the moral low ground The Taliban are, according to refugees, hiding military equipment in civilian neighborhoods, around mosques, etc. And these are the folks screaming bloody murder when any…
The Taliban are, according to refugees, hiding military equipment in civilian neighborhoods, around mosques, etc.
And these are the folks screaming bloody murder when any US bomb goes astray?
The Washington Post story goes on to note a Taliban rocket that exploded above the bazaar in Alliance-controlled town of Charikar. Will we hear any regrets or apologies from the Taliban government for the deaths and injuries? Surely it wasn’t intentional!
Following the same line, Ramadan is coming up. This is the Muslim holy month, in which fasting, inner reflection, devotion to God, and self-control are practiced. Ramadan this year (it’s based on the Islamic lunar calendar) is 17 November to 16 December.
There are already calls for the US to stop bombing (or whatever we’re doing by then) during that period. That it will demonstrate how barbaric and evil and anti-Islamic the US is, make for great publicity-fodder for Al Quaeda et al, and generally be a bad idea. This column from the National Review discusses this.
Muslims have been killing each other, and other people, during Ramadan for centuries. Mohammed himself opened a clay urn of whup-ass on tribes outside Mecca during Ramadan, in 624 AD. Iraqis and Iranians killed each other over Ramadan with great aplomb during their war. Anwar Sadat of Egypt launched the Yom Kippur war on Israel during Ramadan, with little respect to his own religion and even less for Israel’s. Besides, as Tod Linberg of Policy Review points out, if we did stop bombing because of Ramadan, that would send the signal that we are waging war against Muslims – instead of against terrorists, as we keep insisting.
[…] Now, I know that bin Laden and al Qaeda aren’t truly representative of the more than 1 billion Muslims in the world. But that’s not really the point. The point is that the people we are at war with – and there may be untold millions of them – couldn’t pass a multicultural sensitivity-training course even if some fatwa said they’d get 72 virgins in this life for doing it. If they believed the West and Islam were in a holy war before September 11; if they thought the Pope was a legitimate military target; if they believed America was a crusader nation – it seems pretty unlikely we can change their minds now, when we’re dropping bombs on Afghanistan.
Harshly phrased, and the author may have some axes to grind, but his key points are sound ones. While we like to think of ourselves as better than the immoral butchers of Al Quaeda, or the intolerant xenophobes of the Taliban, we should also not let ourselves be too bound by ethical restrictions by which they clearly are not. We are not at war with the people of Afghanistan. If that’s not already clear, there’s not much we can do about it — and declaring a month-long cease fire or withdrawal during Ramadan isn’t going to accomplish anything except the agendas of our enemies.
(Via InstaPundit, various places today)
Jordan bomb trial offers US a case study Torture. Truth drugs. Rubber hoses. Electrodes to the groin. Breaking bones. We abhor it. We deplore it. We consider it repugnant. It…
Jordan bomb trial offers US a case study
Torture. Truth drugs. Rubber hoses. Electrodes to the groin. Breaking bones.
We abhor it. We deplore it. We consider it repugnant. It flies in the face of our highly touted ideals of human worth, of the dignity of each man and woman.
We scream bloody murder when our own police use mere intimidation (not even physical duress) to extract confessions or information.
It’s just wrong.
And yet — to get back to that “ends” and “means” discussion before — and yet, can we, in wartime, refuse to use such measures? Or refuse to garner any benefits from those who do? Even if it’s the only way to save lives? The only way to get information to avoid another 9-11?
Are our principles worth anything if we are brutish when it serves our purpose, or when we turn a blind eye to others who are brutish if it is to our own gain?
Are our principles worth anything if we let them stand in the way of our own survival, of learning things that will help prevent future terror attacks?
Information from torture is tainted, both morally and, sometimes, factually. After all, under torture, folks will confess to nearly anything. But sometimes it’s the only way to get the information you need. So then, you have to ask, what are the costs of getting that information? What are the costs of not getting it?
Wish I had answers to all these questions, folks. All I have is a vague relief that I’m not the one, on the ground, having to make such decisions. And a more-than-vague fear that it doesn’t let me off the hook.
Lessons Learned? A US Army Foreign Military Studies Office report on the Soviet war in Afghanistan. One of the more level-headed sound-biteless bits on this decade-long bloodbath I’ve seen. Whatever…
A US Army Foreign Military Studies Office report on the Soviet war in Afghanistan. One of the more level-headed sound-biteless bits on this decade-long bloodbath I’ve seen.
Whatever else these lessons may show, the most fundamental of them is that no army, however sophisticated, well trained, materially rich, numerically overwhelming and ruthless, can succeed on the battlefield if it is not psychologically fit and motivated for the fight. The force, however destitute in material advantages and numbers, which can rely on the moral qualities of a strong faith, stubborn determination, individualism and unending patience will always be the winner. These may not be the optimum qualities always found in the armies of western democracies.
Something for the US to bear in mind, regardless of how we go about conducting our own war.
(Via Lake Effect)
Divide Afghanistan Along Ethnic Lines An interesting (Letter to the Editor) concept. Rather than try to come up with a coalition government in such a strongly divided nation, instead follow…
Divide Afghanistan Along Ethnic Lines
An interesting (Letter to the Editor) concept. Rather than try to come up with a coalition government in such a strongly divided nation, instead follow the recent European model and let the ethnic groups have their own “homelands.”
Of course, one can argue whether such splitting is responsible for further problems in Yugoslavia, or whether it was a mistake to try to create such a country to begin with.
(Via Lake Effect)
Sinn Fein to IRA: Disarm Now Now this is really interesting, not to mention heartening. Is terror and violence becoming unacceptible in at least one world flashpoint? One can but…
Now this is really interesting, not to mention heartening. Is terror and violence becoming unacceptible in at least one world flashpoint? One can but hope.
How Will It Play Out Slate looks at the optimistic and pessimistic views of where we’ll be in October 2002. The predictions, though, come with a caveat best expressed by…
Slate looks at the optimistic and pessimistic views of where we’ll be in October 2002.
The predictions, though, come with a caveat best expressed by Christopher Bassford, a professor of strategy at the National War College: “I believe the foreseeable future just ended.”
Mark your calendars — we’ll want to check back and see where in the middle this all ends up.
(Via Blather)
Ethics In keeping with my advice below, I went and caught up with some of Vogt’s columns. One interesting column posits that we, as a country, have crossed a significant…
Ethics
In keeping with my advice below, I went and caught up with some of Vogt’s columns. One interesting column posits that we, as a country, have crossed a significant ethical line from deontology (right/wrong are based on some principle other than the results) to consequentialism (“the ends justify the means”) or utilitarianism (“the greatest good for the greatest number”).
He uses as the flashpoint for this the formal recognition that US fighter jets might have to shoot down a civilian jetliner in order to avoid greater casualties. He makes some interesting observations about “hypothetical” vs. “real” lives/deaths.
I feel safe in saying that until Sept. 11, President George Bush would have planted his feet squarely in the deontological camp, as would most people who are as devoted to Biblical teaching as he is. Had you asked him on Sept. 10 whether it was morally acceptable to directly kill 100 innocent Americans for the possibility of saving a greater number of people, he most likely would have told you it was not. This is the “pro-life” position, to which the president says he subscribes.
Now, even dedicated pro-life adherents and other deontologists can justify the taking of “innocent” life through a variety of methods. … In the current situation involving the possible shooting down of an airliner, we have a discrete group of real people, whom we are willing to not only sacrifice but actually kill directly in order to possibly save a larger group of hypothetical people. The fact that the country has not only endorsed, but adopted, such a policy has crossed an ethical divide of mammoth proportions. We are admitting, as a country, that sometimes the end does justify the means.
This change is made clearer in the support in the US for the current military campaign in Afghanistan. Most people are willing to accept a degree of collateral damage (civilian deaths) toward the greater end of stopping the evil of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. There are still plenty of people saying that violence and war are, per se, wrong, but they are, at least at present, a minority. As InstaPundit might describe it, the soccer moms are more interested in the ends of safety for their kids than what the means are to achieve it.
As with all such matters, I take a firmly middle-of-the-road attitude (along with the rest of the squashed squirrels). Taking either stand as an absolute leads one to some terrible positions.
Most of us think that there are actions, stands, moral principles that are, in and of themselves, right and good. But that’s often oversimplistic. Judging actions in a vacuum, without considering their foreseeable consequences, seems antithetical to responsibility. It’s the MO of a bureaucracy, where it matters not how just or reasonable or urgent your desire is — all that is important is that the rules are followed, the forms filled out, the correct approvals signed off. It’s the philosophy that allows one to say that life is all-important, rather than quality of life — that abortion and doctor-assisted suicide are not only wrong, but are not even debatable, regardless of the circumstances or what it will mean to all of the players.
So we all allow our ends to justify our means, to some degree. And yet, when we look at a consequentialist or utilitarian way of thinking, we all recognize that there are lines we should not cross, even for what seem to be wonderful, ultimate goals. At some point, quality of life decisions become Nazi-like. Certainly those who flew the planes into the WTC and Pentagon believed that their ends justified their means (indeed, made their means holy and right). The US backing of the mujahadeen against the Soviets was driven by the Cold War goals of defeating Communism, regardless of what had to be done to accomplish it. Today, driving toward the ends of safety might mean we sacrifice something we value just as much (freedom), without realizing it. And vice-versa.
Fanatics of all stripes, I suppose, could be said to be firm believers in one or the other of these ways of conduct. But it’s a messy world out there. Means and ends are wrapped up together like a brier patch. Ignore one or the other, and you’re going to get more than scratched, you’re going to get torn apart.
Remember, if it were easy, everyone could do it.
Anyhow, read the article. Again, good stuff.
This question was raised in an editorial I didn’t have time to finish reading while we were at breakfast. And I think it’s the crux of much of the internal…
This question was raised in an editorial I didn’t have time to finish reading while we were at breakfast. And I think it’s the crux of much of the internal debate here in the US. Is terrorism — the Black Tuesday branch in particular — a problem in and of itself, such that it needs to be attacked and suppressed in some fashion? Or is it a symptom, a sign of more systemic problems that must be be addressed and dealt with if we ever hope to have peace?
In typical black and white fashion, the battle lines of domestic rhetoric are drawn up at either extreme. And, of course, looked at from either extreme, the other side is clearly, funadmentally misunderstanding the situation and pursuing a course that can only lead to further tragedy and bloodshed.
Me? In typical media res (Latin for “wishy-washy”) fashion, I answer the titular question with a resounding … “Yes.”
Terrorism springs from roots. It is, indeed, a symptom. Folks on that side of the fence have already published long laundry-lists of sins of commission and omission by the West in general, and the US in particular, so I don’t have to repeat them. The fact is, though, these systemic problems need to be addressed, or taking out bin Laden will do very little aside from serve as revenge.
On the other hand, Rome wasn’t built (or torn down) in a day. These systemic problems will be years, decades in addressing. To take care of them quickly would require the sort of massive American intervention to establish a just Pax Americana that the “symptom” camp abhors. Reform of Middle Eastern governments, resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem, the warping effect of world oil dependency ont he Middle East — all of these will take time and effort.
In the meantime, though, we can’t sit around and wait for the terrorists to get tired of bombing, shooting, and killing people.
A high fever is a symptom. If you just treat the symptom, you aren’t treating the underlying disease, which may well get worse and kill you with interesting new symptoms.
On the other hand, if you ignore that 105F temperature, focusing instead on a long-term regimen to defeat the disease, you’re likely to die from seizures and other damage from the symptoms before the disease can be cured.
So when you check into the hospital with a 105F temp, the docs will first work to knock that symptom down, because it’s the most clear and present danger. Then they try to figure out what’s causing it, and how to keep it from coming back.
A holistic approach. Treat the symptoms and treat the problems underlying them.
It seems pretty straightforward to me. Unfortunately, there seem to be already too many rhetorical battle lines drawn to hope that such a sensible approach will ever be fully adopted. Pity, that. The patient would certainly appreciate it.
The Time Machine Yet another National Review piece (by Victor Davis Hanson) on the Doolittle Raid over Tokyo, and suggested modern reactions. Until this rash response, we were at a…
Yet another National Review piece (by Victor Davis Hanson) on the Doolittle Raid over Tokyo, and suggested modern reactions.
Until this rash response, we were at a critical lull in a precious four months of reasoned sobriety, a sort of equilibrium where Pearl Harbor could be seen in terms as a response to our own prior indifference — or in fact hostility — to the legitimate aspirations of the Japanese people. But with Mr. Doolittle’s theatrics we are entering a cycle of violence, where the root causes of this conflict will not be addressed by bombing in some sort of endless tit-for-tat.
Wickedly funny.
(Via, yet again, guess who)
The Morality of the Air War Another National Review opinion piece, by James S. Robbins, about how American air war policy has changed — for the more moral — since…
Another National Review opinion piece, by James S. Robbins, about how American air war policy has changed — for the more moral — since WWII.
Of course innocent blood will be shed. It already has been by the terrorists, with full intent and extreme prejudice. But the critical distinction between our side and theirs is that we recognize that there are innocents. The terrorists grant no such fine distinctions. As Osama put it himself so trenchantly in 1998, “In today’s wars, there are no morals.”
The article also notes that the American reputation for “pin-point accuracy” and “smart weapons” (reputation loudly proclaimed by the DoD itself) may be backfiring on us, as it makes any miss, any damage to anything but the precise point where there was a military target, fodder for the “Americans are carpet-bombing innocent civilians” mill.
(Via, once again, InstaPundit)
Taliban Singles Online I’ve avoided much of the humor regarding bin Laden, et al., since much has been crude, and much has spilled ever into ethnic/racist/religious jokes which I think…
I’ve avoided much of the humor regarding bin Laden, et al., since much has been crude, and much has spilled ever into ethnic/racist/religious jokes which I think are the last things we need right now.
I’m a nice guy.
I’m a nice guy with a weakness for satire. So click the link.
(Is it just me — or do those outfits look more like Haz-Mat suits?)
(Via Instapundit)
Piracy and Parasites Parallels between piracy two centuries ago and terrorism today. The key is breaking state sponsorship, and a sense that it’s okay and profitable and useful to have…
Parallels between piracy two centuries ago and terrorism today. The key is breaking state sponsorship, and a sense that it’s okay and profitable and useful to have terrorist bands operating from inside your borders, with your money backing them.
Useful? How could that be so? Well, imagine you have a … well, competitor. Enemy. Another country that’s causing you nothing but grief. Certainly your populace thinks so, and that’s a useful attitude to encourage. But militarily — well, you can’t field an armed forces that can do anything useful without paying a huge cost (in diplomacy, or in terms of having your butt whooped).
So you sponsor some psychopaths who have such a mad-on against your enemy that they’re willing to do the dirty work. You provide them with shelter, perhaps. Money. You provide them with intel, even materiel to use. And then you get out of the way, and let them do their thing. Sure, it can be dangerous, if they decide that you’re the enemy. But short-sightedness is common in such affairs, else hubris.
Think Syria. Think Iraq.
Heck, think the US regarding Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Could this be the point where the US is willing to stop sponsoring terrorists — er, freedom fighters? And can we convince enough other people that it’s not profitable, not wise, not useful, to do so as well?
Good article.
(Link via InstaPundit)
Bush Says Side by Side with China Against Terrorism Of course China stands against terrorism. They’re Lawful Evil, for pity’s sake. The last thing they want is Islamic Fundamentalists or…
Bush Says Side by Side with China Against Terrorism
Of course China stands against terrorism. They’re Lawful Evil, for pity’s sake. The last thing they want is Islamic Fundamentalists or Taliban-like groups getting a foothold in western China.
No, but, really — I’m seriously hoping that in our eagerness to deal with terrorism, and to garner support in that effort, we won’t give other folks too big of a blank check for too long. The ends may justify those means in the short run, but in the long run it can only do us (if not others) grave harm.
MTFierce was commenting from one of my posts on concerns that the whole Afghanistan thing might eventually go nuclear (though the US was not thought to be the party that…
MTFierce was commenting from one of my posts on concerns that the whole Afghanistan thing might eventually go nuclear (though the US was not thought to be the party that would be involved).
I demurred.
Then I read this. Granted that Indiana’s kind of a weird state, and Republicans are occasionally a bit hawkish, is this guy insane?!
