I'm not sure whether or not this is related to the recent resurgence of the US anti-war movement, but there have been two articles published over the last couple of weeks by academics (who else?) arguing that what we really need to do is negotiate with al-Qaeda.
This sentiment isn't all that new, as I believe that UC Irvine's Mark LeVine argued back in 2004 that what we really need is for the US to declare a truce with radical Islam. How exactly this is supposed to occur given that LeVine probably sees the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism as more of a "social movement" than an organized terror network is beyond me, but at the time I more or less dismissed his theory as being something that was so patently stupid on its surface that only an academic could believe it. The same is true of Pape's occupation = terrorism foolishness, though at least that line pretends to follow some semblance of rational argumentation.
Well, two other academics recently published in the Boston Globe and Los Angeles Times appear to arguing more or less the same thing. I'll spare the whole "how dare the liberal media demean the sacrifices of our troops by peddling this crap during wartime" riff for now, so let me examine the substance of their arguments.
First of all, the two academics in question are Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, the Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard and Allen J. Zerkin, a research fellow at New York University's Center for Catastrophic Preparedness and Response and an adjunct professor at its Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. I have never heard of them before this and I'm sure they're nice people, but their arguments are little more than lunacy.
The basic gist of it, which I've heard in various forms online by people who've read but apparently not understood Imperial Hubris or the 9/11 Commission report, both of which argue that al-Qaeda hates the US for what we do in terms of policy rather than who we are as a society. The conclusion these individuals then reach is that because al-Qaeda hates us for our policies is that all we have to do is change our policies and they'll be nice to us. There are a couple of problems with this, not the least of which being that it accepts al-Qaeda's narrative of history as the correct one (or at least as close to being correct as post-modernism will allow among academics) without stopping to ask the question of how close that narrative is to reality.
For one thing, Al-Qaeda's list of grievances is somewhat self-generating, as it includes the incarceration or prosecution of any member of the organization irrespective of their actions. It also includes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the independence of East Timor, the long-running conflicts in Algeria, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, and most recently the Pattani provinces of southern Thailand. Irrespective of just how great a role the US played in any of this, especially pre-9/11, the organization also argues that the US tried to use Serbia to de-Islamicize the Balkans during the early 1990s. I point this out because at some point you have to ask yourself how seriously one should consider these issues legitimate grievances and at what point they become enemy propaganda for recruiting purposes along the lines of "the Big Lie."
But let's just say that Ould Mohamedou and Zerkin are right and the US should just screw the Middle East and abandon just about anyone living in Eurasia or North Africa to the thrall of Osama bin Laden. You would think that people dealing in humanitarian policy and catastrophic preparedness would actually be concerned about the practical consequences of doing so, but I digress. What happens next?
Dr. Gunaratna addressed just that point back in 2002 for those of us who were actually interested in understanding our enemy:
As defined by Osama, Al Qaeda has short, mid, and long-term strategies. Before 9/11, its immediate goal was the withdrawl of US troops from Saudi Arabia and the creation there of a Caliphate. Its mid-term strategy was the ouster of the "apostate rulers" of the Arabian Peninsula and thereafter the Middle East and the creation of true Islamic states. And the long-term strategy was to build a formidable array of Islamic states - including ones with nuclear capability - to wage war on the US (the "Great Satan") and its allies.
And for those who are tempted to dismiss this as enemy propaganda, we get a fuller version straight from the horse's mouth from al-Qaeda's rank and file members as well as its de facto minister of war Saif al-Adel, who despite being in Iranian custody was nevertheless more than able to send a message to Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein. Unlike Ould Mohamedou and Zerkin, Hussein has actually talked to members of al-Qaeda to get a pretty good idea of what they want and it ain't a pretty picture when you get to the latter stages:
The Fifth Phase: This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.
The Sixth Phase: Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.
The Seventh Phase: This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half billion Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.
How exactly one is supposed to negotiate with people whose goals include the depopulation and subjugation of much of the planet as a matter of religious belief is beyond me, but then I'm not an academic. The twisted scope of these goals, at the risk of violating Godwin's Law, tends to bring back to mind these lines from the equally twisted The Turner Diaries:
"About 45 seconds after the second round the third one landed on the roof of the south wing of the Capitol and exploded inside the building... We saw beautiful blossoms of flame and steel sprouting everywhere, dancing across the asphalt, thundering in the midst of splintered masonry and burning vehicles, erupting now inside and now outside the Capitol, wreaking their bloody toll in the ranks of tyranny and treason."
"Then, of course, came the mopping-up period, when the last of the non-White bands were hunted down and exterminated, followed by the final purge of undesirable racial elements among the remaining White population ... But it was in the year 1999, according to the chronology of the Old Era — just 110 years after the birth of the Great One — that the dream of a White world finally became a certainty."
The "Great One," in case anyone is curious, is a reference to Adolf Hitler and I fail to meaningfully distinguish between infernal vision sketched out by William Pierce and the designs of Osama bin Laden and Saif al-Adel. Entirely irrespective of why they hate us, they do not want to peacefully coexist with us - they want to destroy or else subjugate us under what I believe Cordesman has termed a "utopian vision of a worldwide totalitarian theocracy." The only peace or negotiation that can be reached with these fanatics is the same kind of peace that the Mouth of Sauron offered the Armies of the West at the Black Gate in The Return of the King. None of this is any great secret for those who are familiar with al-Qaeda's literature, ideology, or statements.
As they say in Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time saga, "No truce with the Shadow."
Indeed, the clash of civilizations, as put by a scholar Samuel P. Huntington, looms large. The clash is inevitable between the two religions of recent origin and fundamentalists to the core in their preaching. In both there is hardly any room for moderation, reform or adjustment, required for the welfare of the mankind
I have actually read Huntingtons book and I got the impression that he was WARNING against a clash of civilizations and that his book was was intended as a counterpoint against historicism in the Fukuyamian manner.
He was more or less pushing some sort of neo-isolationism based on spheres of influence. Where Fukuyama said that with the Soviets gone free markets and democracy would infiltrate every square inch of the earth and we would all live happily ever after, Amen, Huntington said that the west should leave them, specifically China and the Islamic world, and IIRC the Orthodox world, along with their borderlands and penumbras, alone. Becasue otherwise they'd feel threatened and start a confrontation against the west, which would be the eponymous "Clash of Civilizations".
I'm having a hard time to see how either his "Don't provoke them, or they might become hostile!" or for that matter Fukuyamas "While we sleep the market will magically pacify them!" apply today.
Especially note that Fukuyamas book came out in 1992, Huntingtons "Clash" in 1993, and bin Ladens first attack against an american target according to Wiki was on Dec 29 1992. So merely months counted for whether the verdict "Already irrelevant when it was published" would apply or not, if you allow me a gratuitous parting shot against them both :-)
Ursus Maritimus
Huntington said that the west should leave them, specifically [...] the Islamic world
Leave them assaulting Europe's borders?
It is not an option when you live at 0 miles from them.
Ah, we must be winning if the left wants us to negotiate with them!
I'm not sure I'm willing to attribute good intentions to MOHAMEDOU:
Sept. 11 was not an unprovoked, gratuitous act. It was a military operation . . . [that] . . . targeted two military locations and a civilian facility . . ..
What kind of person (besides Galloway) can write that September 11 was justified? Or describe Washington D.C. as simply a military target?
And as to ZERKIN, I wonder where he came up with this:
Most scholars of Islam argue that because jihad is a defensive concept, the attacks on us must be understood as retaliation for perceived provocations, and that Al Qaeda's stated agenda — which has been consistent since 1996 — should be taken literally
To borrow a criticism from MOHAMEDOU, ZERKIN may want to spend more time understanding how Al Quaeda uses the term "jihad" before negotiating a truce. And may want to explore how Al Quadea's legalists view the term "truce."
It is important to understand where this mindset comes from. Its obvious that what they suggest is suicidal, but thats the point. People like this want us to be defeated, even if they refuse to say it explicitly. Their hatred for the Western world's imperfection instills the desire to burn the house to the ground, regardless of how terribly brutal and reactionary the competition is. I suppose when you keep echoing the mantra that we are really no better than nazis you start to believe your own BS after a while.
A great man once said:
"I see not the slightest probability in the foreseeable future that any conqueror can impose oppression upon us, and the dangers to our liberties that I would discuss with you are those we create among ourselves. . . . The essence of liberty is the rule of law. . . . Because liberty cannot exist apart from the impartial rule of law, it is vulnerable to wartime stresses, for then the rule of law breaks down. The same passions and anxieties may result from a long period of tension which may be almost as demoralizing as an actual war. . . . [I]t is . . . important to recall that our Government, during [the two World Wars], did not have to combat a really numerous, cohesive or well-organized internal opposition. The Nazis had no effective or far reaching underground of their own here. During the time Stalin was the partner of Hitler [i.e., until Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union], it was the extensive and disciplined Communist underground that was at their joint service. . . . But before we were attacked, Hitler turned on the Soviet Union and the only way the Communists could support Russia's war was to support our war. Had not this change in their course been taken before we became a belligerent, drastic measures to disable them from doing harm certainly would have been undertaken. . . .There is no reason to suppose we will be so fortunate again. . . . Probably greater than [the internal opposition's] capacity for actual harm, is their capacity to arouse fears and hatreds among us. . . . There is a popular impression, fostered by ignorance of our history, that civil liberties in this country are not so [as in Germany] vulnerable, and that the courts are always open as the sanctuary from arbitrary government. . . . Wartime psychology plays no favorites among rights but tends to break down any right which obstructs its path. And the fall of one weakens the others. . . . Temperate and thoughtful people find difficulties in such conflicts [between liberty and security] which partisans find no trouble in deciding wholly one way or another. It is easy, by giving way to the passions, intolerance and suspicions of wartime, to reduce our liberties to a shadow, often in answer to exaggerated claims of security. Also, it is easy, by contemptuously ignoring the reasonable anxieties of wartime as mere hysteria, to set the stage for by-passing courts which the public thinks have become too naive, too dilatory and too sympathetic with their enemies and betrayers. Lax law enforcement is the enemy of civil rights under law, for it creates the demand for the military trial and for extra legal vigilante organizations. . . . And if the people come deeply to feel that the civil rights are being successfully turned against their institutions by their enemies, they will react by becoming enemies of civil rights."
What Robert H. Jackson said in 1951 about the courts and law enforcement has application to the press as well. Media organizations who claim for themselves the role of guardians of our liberties must be mindful that in choosing to amplify the voices of our enemies, our betrayers, and their sympathizers, they may inflame the same sort of reaction as courts which are naive, dilatory and sympathetic to our enemies and betrayers. If the institution of the press is perceived as a tool of our enemies, the courts will be inadequate to serve as a guarantor of the press's freedom and independence, and the rest of our civil rights will therefore begin to erode. Some among the press, including the New York Times, have forgotten the importance of their role in our society and the responsibility that must go hand in hand with the freedom (and consequently, the power) they have under our Constitution.
big waste of time...
because jihad is a defensive concept ...
Zerkin's definition of jihad is nonsense. It's like saying that warfare is a defensive concept.
The practical problem that jihadists have faced historically is balancing the need to expand Dur-al-Islam with the need for stable government and economy. Obviously everyone can't go on jihad all the time, or everybody will starve to death.
Defensive jihad occurs when an already Muslim land is invaded, resulting in the mobilization of every man, woman, and child. This is a temporary and emergency form of jihad.
Offensive jihad is the "normal" form of jihad, in which Allah's endless war is carried to other countries by a select few (the mujahideen)- the number of which is regulated by the caliphate, taking other manpower requirements into consideration.
_Huntington said that the west should leave them, specifically [...] the Islamic world
Leave them assaulting Europe's borders?_
Clearly he imagined the Islamists to be neo-isolationists too and at least a bit rational.
Ursus Maritimus
Al Qaeda's agenda has nothing to do with Western foreign policy. It is simply the continuation of 1400 years of expansionist Islamist foreign policy. In a word, jihad.
We can choose to stop them now, or we can leave them alone, withdraw and allow them to get stronger, gain control most of the wolrd's oil supplies, and arm with nuclear weapons. The war will then come to us.
Kumbyah my Lord, Kumbyah ...
The Extremists theme goes something like this -
We are oppressed.
The Americans are all powerful, therefore, we are oppressed by the Americans.
This is the same fundamental theme the extreme left has been preaching for at least a century.
The communists freed the peasants from Czarist rule, then became more oppresive than the Czar's were.
AlQeuda/Taliban freed the Afghani's from Soviet Rule, then became more oppressive than the Soviets.
The Iranians freed the oppressed from the chains of the Shah, then proceeded to become more oppressive than the Shah.
contrast with -
The Nazi's freed the Germans from the oppression of WWI reparation payments.
The US freed Europe from Nazi rule, then drew its forces down to a minimal number given the population.
The US freed Japan from the Emporor's rule, then drew it's forces down to a minimal number.
The US freed the Afghani's from Taliban rule, then drew it's forces down to the absolute bare minimum.
The US freed the Iraqi's from Saddam's rule, then drew it forces down to 1/4 the number Saddam had.
Those "Freedom Movements" carried out by "Hard Core" idealogs actually resulted in more oppression, rather than less, as well as significant world instability.
The reality is that the US can work towards freeing the oppressed of the world, or some "Hard Core Idealogs" will.
My understanding of imperial hubris was a little different. He argued that we should by no means ever negotiate with terrorists, but should seek out and destroy them.
Instead, he argued that our relationship to those of Middle-East tyrannies, Israel, of course, our long history of meddling around in Middle-East politics (like the Shah of Iran, for example) makes it easier for Osama bin Laden to recruit from moderate Islam by making us appear part of a 'zionist' threat to Islam, and this has helped unite various muslim causes to back Al-queda, instead of dealing with their more local squabbles. Unfortunately, our actions in Iraq have only helped draw constituents to him.
These terrorists groups will still be trying to kill us if we remove ourselves from the middle east. However, Imperial Hubris argues that if we no longer appear to be on a 'crusade' (for religion or oil) we may be able to remove popular support for his causes, and splinter some of these groups which will make it easier to remove Osama. The theory is that only the most radical muslims are concerned with world domination. As long as the muslim world does not feel it is under attack, most of the middle east will go back to their own business.
Or, you could argue that withdrawl could be a 'victory' that incites the enemy. Either way, I'd rather the US (or US companies) didn't deal with Syria, Saudia Arabia, or Uzbekistan anymore. These are bad, bad places and they are beneath the US belief in freedom.
BTW: About these articles emobldening the enemy...I really don't think the 'enemy' cares what the New York times or a few ivy league professors think.
alchemist:
Scheuer doesn't argue that we should negotiate with al-Qaeda, but he more or less accepts their narrative as far as history is concerned at least when it came to many of the long-standing grievances held by the Muslim world. This, combined with his more disturbing descriptions of bin Laden tend to add weight to the perception that while knowledgeable, he's been reading al-Qaeda propaganda for a little too long.
I'll buy into the argument that most Muslims aren't interested in actively pursuing world domination, but the discussion raised by Mohamedou and Zerkin doesn't deal with Islam as a whole but rather with al-Qaeda, which an entirely different issue for a number of reasons. Mark LeVine's idea of declaring a truce with "radical Islam" is insane, especially if you accept his description of it as a social movement rather than an organization. How do you negotiate a truce with a social movement?
In any event, Mohamedou and Zerkin accept the idea that al-Qaeda is an organization and they more or less want to find a way where we can give it what it wants so that it will leave us alone - which is pretty much the textbook definition of appeasement.
As far as the US abandoning the Syrians, Saudis, and Uzbeks to face al-Qaeda on their own, that's more or less what we've done. In the case of Saudi Arabia, our counter-terrorism "assistance" was so meager that the FBI was more or less frozen out of the Saudi investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing.
On the issue of emboldening the enemy, as we have seen before, al-Qaeda does pay attention to the political currents in Western countries, enough for bin Laden to frame his opposition to the United States using watchwords like Halliburton, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the US deficit, Fahrenheight 9/11, and so on. Iraq al-Jihad likewise contains a fairly compelling analysis of Spanish politics going all the way back to the 1980s. After the London bombings, the Tory vice chair called for talks with the perpetrators similar to those held with the IRA.
Now do these ideas have traction right now? No, at least not in the US. But one can easily imagine them taking root in much of the academic community and some of the kookier sections of the anti-war left. All the more reason to nip this one in the bud, I think.
Al Qaeda (and other similar radical Islamist groups) will simply create a grievence in absent of anything legitimate, and then proclaim to speak on behalf of a monolithic Muslim world.
Iraq is a study in opportunism, hypocrisy and revelation of al Qaeda's true intent. During the 1990s, Bin Laden railed on numerous occasions about the oppressed Iraqi people and the genocidal sanctions imposed by the US/UK. Of course this was all propaganda and many people saw right through it, but many others in western society didn't and bought it at face value.
Today, it's al Qaeda killing those very same Iraqi's they once used as an opportunistic grievence. Militant Islam is expansionist in nature, and doesn't know the word tolerance. To allow these thugs to run rampant in the middle east unhindered would be to invite greater disaster tomorrow.
History is full of examples where a smaller minority of ruthless thugs controlled the larger masses through killing, intimidation, torture and propaganda. I have little faith that a U.S. policy of isolation would marginalize the killers, who instead would be free to subjegate at will.
Not gonna happen. In guerilla warfare the objective is to wear the enemy down until they leave with their tail between their legs. This happened with Ho Chi Min. There would be diplomatic promises from him and then they would be broken hence the reason the US will not negotiate with North Korea and more than likely what will happen with the terrorists.
The professors are virtually agents of propaganda for AQ. Whether purposely or not, negotiating with a group that would incite riots over a coke machine is paramount to giving up.
Watching a democracy deal with this sort of terror is instructive. In the short term, we can choose to fool ourselves and sleep some more. In the long term, however, the idiots will self-select out of the system and the entire public will swing hard against the jihadists. Not only is this process happening in the USA, it is also happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou's longer and footnoted paper is located here: Non-Linearity of Engagement (warning pdf) Yes, he cites Pape, Scheuer and Burke.
My two cents:
1. Agnostic al-Qaeda. An important premise here is to de-emphasize any religious components in the conflict. Al-Qaeda must be seen as political in motive and in appeal. A negotiation-driven solution cannot be offered to settle religious differences. His case (on page 18) is sophistry: jihadist can't be religioius fundamentalists because that term strictly applies to a certain Christian movement, Bin Laden & Zawahiri don't claim to be religious leaders, and ultimately al-Qaeda represent the aspirations of an "Islamic nation" which is a group of people with "historical" interests (?). Having dispensed with religious motivations, Mohamedou need not consider the religous context or connotatoins of al-Qaeda's declarations.
2. Al-Qaeda's brand of democracy. Only one type of democracy is given serious consideration, that practiced and revolutionized by the terrorists: democratization of responsibility. Since al-Qaeda doesn't get to vote in elections that impact their political agenda, they have extended the voting franchise (what can best be called "suffrage") by attacking the voters, which in democratic governments are ultimately in charge of the military.
What about Western democracy? I read no serious discussion of the Bush doctrine. Mohamedou seems to think that complaints about undemocratic regimes in the Mideast are merely attempts to label Muslims as "evil." But certainly the Bush doctrine, as opposed to being "unlinear" is an attempt to "democraticize responsibility" in the Mideast.
I remember reading about a Muslim sheik who invited the leaders of an enemy tribe to a peace dinner in a big tent. Everyone was seated and enjoying the meal, when his mean left the tent on one pretext or other. They cut the lines holding up the tent, jump on top of it, and stabbed to death everything that moved. Sounds like a good U.S. negotiating ploy.
Don't you think, that just maybe, the hate-filled rhetoric from Islamic terrorist cheerleaders could just be propoganda in order to recruit simple-minded impressionable people to fight for their cause...and that this cause may not be exactly as they articulate?
And by choosing to believe their propoganda rather than trying to take a more "academic" view of the issue, you are simply falling into the same trap as the jihadists and suicide bombers.
Yeah, academics and liberals are the real danger, keep telling yourself and everyone else that....
You see, because believing that jihadists are in a religious war suits YOUR political purposes as well, doesn't it? Because a lot of the solutions that you and your side keep on raising always seems to fall into the same mold of giving the government more control over American citizens and giving citizens, academics, and others who disagree as little as possible...after all, they don't really understand this "threat" as clearly as you all do, right? That makes them dangerous! Enemies, even!
Can't you see the utter foolishness of this approach and how it will more quickly lead to the destruction of Western Democracy than terrorists? Perhaps that is something you have in common with them. That is my view at least, and I am far from alone in seeing it this way.
>>What kind of person (besides Galloway) can write that September 11 was justified? Or describe Washington D.C. as simply a military target?
The exact same kind of person who can write that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.
These people believe that, in war, all that matters is victory for their side as quickly and cheaply as possible. Enemy "civilians" are at best expendable and at worst support the infrastructure of the enemy war machine.
Total War supporters here in the US cannot reasonably complain about Al Qaeda's methods and tactics, since they have no problem with far worse means when used by their own side. US Total War supporters CAN still reasonably claim that Al Qaeda's ENDS are unjust. Thus arguments of the form, "The cause of destroying the Japanese government was just, whereas the objectives of Al Qaeda are unjust" still make sense in the Total War framework.
Occasionally an intellectually honest nationalist supporter of Total War, like Paul Harvey, will suggest the use of strategic nuclear weapons against civilians in order to end the current conflict. Since US Total War supporters are convinced that nuclear terrorism against Japan forced it to capitulate, this is not that unreasonable.
Using nuclear weapons against Mecca and Medina during the Hajj just might succeed in "breaking" the Muslim faith by demonstrating the impotence of Allah in the face of USG military might. Many devout Muslims, like the Jews before them, may be forced to acknowledge that No Big Man In The Sky will save them. This could lead to increased secularism and modernity within the Islamic community, thereby "draining the swamp" enough to reduce terrorism. It would also dramatically increase the credibility of USG diplomacy on other fronts (NK, etc.)
Advocates of Total War who claim to have problems with the above plan would need to be careful not to include phrases like "murder of innocent people" in their criticisms.
Since I don't advocate nuclear strikes on Mecca or Medina, T.J. will have to find the fight he's looking for from someone else.
But I'll rephrase my question:
What kind of person (besides Galloway) can advocate a policy to a U.S. audience while writing that September 11 was justified? Or describe Washington D.C. as simply a military target?
The same person that appears in China justifying the Rape of Nanking, in Israel justifying Kristalnacht or in the case of Galloway, arguing in NYC that the U.S. deserved 9/11.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, our counter-terrorism "assistance" was so meager that the FBI was more or less frozen out of the Saudi investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing.
When the Saudi contributions to terrorism have not gone down much since 9/11, when their state-sponsored television extorts money from viewers in support of Jihad...
When the legislative branch of the Saudi government tells young men to become suicide bombers in Iraq (and when many young Saudis comply, slaughtering many young Iraqis), as was reported here on Winds of Change less than a month ago:...we can't help Saudi Arabia "face al Qaeda" because they pretty much are al Qaeda.
We have abandoned the terror supporters to fight terrorism on their own. I'm not surprised to see that they're doing a terrible job of it.
[and no, TJ Madison, I'm not advocating nuking Mecca. Like the anarchy that you support, this would make the Iranian, Syrian and Saudi state supporters of terrorism more powerful, not less]
T. J. Madison -
It's good to see an opposing argument that actually deals in ideas not just rhetoric. I've seen too much of the contrary lately.
Please understand that in what follows I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I am merely writing thoughts as they come to mind.
There are admittedly some parallels to the dropping of the bomb in WWII to the situation today, assuming that the viewpoint of the jihadis is correct or at least understandable. In both instances (A-Bomb and 9/11), one side kills a number of people, almost entirely civilians. In both instances, it can be argued that the attacker believed that they were in the right and defending against a dangerous and powerful nation. It can also be said that both sides believed that "the ends justifies the means" when defending their own people and way of life.
That's about where it ends, though. While it's at least a reasonable argument and analysis to a certain depth, there are too many differences between the US during WWII and the jihadis now.
First, discuss cause. Japan outright attacked the United States in a clearly resource and conquest driven campaign, a campaign designed at the direct domination of resources and entire populations and cultures. While the US has been involved in regional politics, no conquest has ever occurred. The Middle East is currently filled with tyrants who are largely opposed to the United States. Take a google for OPEC and the gas shortages and the resource angle goes out the window. Google for the public statements of the officials of Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq (prior to 2003 invasion) and Saudi Arabia; their governments are no friends of the United States. If this is conquest, I want my gas prices back under a dollar again.
Second, let's take the whole conquest idea and expand it. Arab nations have their own tyrants who rule their own populations with their own iron fists. Japan can be blamed directly for a war of conquest that was directly affecting the US and its allies. Today, the US cannot be blamed as such -- the problems of the Arab people are largely their own fault. Their bleak state today cannot be traced back to the UN boundary-tweaking after WWII -- it goes back much farther. Greater Arabia has not joined the civilized world. Today's flaws, perpetuated by Arabs who are led by Arabs, are the fault of Arabs. At some point, a culture has to take responsibility for its own situation. When an Arab strikes down another and the crowd blames people on the other side of the world, you've got yourself a victim mentality. When an Arab wakes up in one of the most resource-rich areas of the world and finds himself poor, blaming a tiny, tiny nation called "Israel" for his empty pockets is rooted in a victim mentality. Their culture has become a victim culture.
Third, discuss target. While the Pentagon is surely a valid military target, the WTC was not. The WTC, was certainly not fueling the military with weapons and, as shown by the first point I discussed, was not involved in supporting a conquest of foreign nations because said conquest didn't exist. Back in WWII, however, military infrastructure depended entirely on civilian production. This is why the US was such a threat in WWII, our production capacity was very high. Production depends almost entirely upon major cities; factory employees, management and assembly are all based in large cities. To cripple the Japanese military effort, bombing bases would be a temporary solution, especially against a determined population.
Fourth, look at general treatment of opposing sides. Look up the Bataan death march. Look up the rape of Nan King. I would much rather be pinned by a female guard with panties on my head scared out of my wits by a guard dog that experience the former. The parallels between WWII and the WOT don't exist when comparing Japan and the US. Comparing Japan and jihadis, on the other hand works quite well. When our administration dropped the bomb on civilians during WWII, the debate was centered around whether annihilating an entire city full of civilians was justified. When Osama decided to do the same to our civilians, that aspect did not enter into the equation. When a jihadi sticks his knife into the throat of an American while someone has their boot on his head, and saws his head off, the pour soul screaming until they finally cut his windpipe... when that jihadi holds his head up for a camera to see... justification comes in the form of "Allah's Will" or "Allah's War."
Fifth, discuss solution and how the decision was come to. World War II, specifically the battle between the US and Japan, involved horrific fighting across entire chains of islands with an enemy fighting to the last man. It involved pilots who flew their own planes laden with fuel and bombs into ships. It involved civilians who were being given instructions on how to bite and kick and resist invaders -- civilians that answered to an Emperor who was quite tied in with their religion. The perceived key to winning WWII was breaking the Japanese people's will. Dropping the bomb was calculated to be (and was) successful at this. Looking at today's situation, I can certainly see Osama reading US history since WWII. The only reasonable way for him to break his enemy was to break the will of the American people. Vietnam is the primary example. However, despite two decades worth of killing American civilians, he has thus far failed miserably. Americans have been targeted all over the world and here at home. American civilians. This is a theme running throughout Arab "resistance" movements -- blow up civilians until they capitulate. It sure as hell hasn't been working, but they keep at it year after year.
I'm all in favor of understanding enemy mentality, but it doesn't change anything. The people perpetuating the rape and pillage of the Middle East are Arabs. Arab culture lacks morality, freedom and a respect for others. Given a chance to live their lives under their own control, not the control of a tyrannical state, they will, like any other free nation, tend to favor living their own lives and nurture their children, society and technology. Left where they are now, they will continue to blame their failures on outsiders and we'll be paying the price. Spreading the ability to live a free live to fellow human beings is a noble cause and will make the world a better place. To play moral relativist and say that "democracy is no better or worse than tyranny" is taking the good "analyze thyself" lesson from history and distorting it beyond all reason. You are abandoning your fellow human beings who share your desires and dreams to the wolves.
The US has its faults. Many of them. But to compare us to WWII Japan or to present day jihadis is to show a complete lack of grounding in right and wrong. By fixing the problem and giving their culture a way to heal, regulate and build itself up on their own, the terrorist problem will resolve itself and everyone will be better off.
Again, please understand that I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I am merely writing thoughts as they come to mind.
Wow.... that turned out MUCH longer than I would have liked. Very sorry for the long post! Politics have been bothering me of late and writing all this down helps.
Cheers,
Duckman
Another thing to add that I meant to:
Nuking Japan was the chosen option primarily because of the number of US lives it would have cost to win a war that a hostile, immoral, conquering invader began. While jihadis are clearly hostile and immoral and history and their own statements suggest that conquering is on their list, nuking Mecca is unnecessary given the nature of the threat. If we act correctly, hopefully with the help of the rest of the civilized world, we can stop this problem without repeating the tradegy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's also debatable whether nuking a holy city would actually stop jihadis from attacking us.
Cheers,
Duckman
(Sigh)
Reading over my last post, I thought it odd the way I worded what I said and the points I didn't cover.
First off, I'd like to add that I am on the fence about the solution to ending WWII.
Nuking a city, even one which is responsible for the legs and arms of a war machine is, in my mind, something so horrible that it cannot even remotely be put into words.
That said, when the city and the population of that city support an outright war of domination and aggression, and when the only other solution to ending the war is a long, drawn-out fight that will roughly end up doubling US WWII casualties and likely kill just as many Japanese people as did the bomb, the bomb becomes justifiable. Recall that WWII combat involves carpet-bombing and fire-bombing. Neither solution would have been very pretty.
You do all you can to avoid being pushed into a corner where those are the only two options. In today's world, putting constant pressure on terrorist supporting governments and forces, and spreading human rights (freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) in the Middle East will hopefully diffuse the vicious circle which spawns victims who blow themselves up on city buses full of people going to work.
My father would have been in the invasion of Japan, so on behalf of my siblings and our children, I say, "Way to go, President Truman."
Iran boasts about its goals to use the nuclear bomb to destroy Israel and other enemies. Chinese generals have made the same type of boasts toward the US west coast cities. Some types of people are inherently too dangerous to allow to control that much devastation.
The US did not boast about its nuclear power. It dropped leaflets over Hiroshima and Nagasaki before the bombs, urging the Japanese to evacuate their cities, warning of the devastation to come. Truman urged the Japanese to surrender before their cities fell to nuclear annihilation. The deaths of hundreds of thousands saved the lives of many millions. The ugly economics of war. Denying its reality is for the intellectually dishonest.
The problem with "negotiating" with bin Laden is that unlike the IRA there is no mutual solution.
Britain didn't really care about maintaining the hold of the Protestants in Northern Ireland and could afford to compromise on that. We can't afford to allow bin Laden to construct his global Caliphate.
Most likely is the emergence of nuclear Iran attacking us through bin Laden as a proxy, with the loss of one or more US cities and millions of lives. We are unwilling to face the nexus of Iranian nukes and bin Laden proxies as the mortal threat.
Hence, sleepwalking into a strategic retaliation. I think that danger is greater than ever. Iran seems to have convinced itself along with bin Laden that we are weak and killing enough of us causes us to surrender. Cindy Sheehan and ANSWER tend to foster that illusion. The US seems to have simply hoped Iran will go away. Neither approach is particularly helpful in staving off nuclear attack and strategic nuclear counter-attack.
Losing 3-9 million American dead and several cities, and yes we would use our submarine, missile, bomber, and cruise missile weapons to simply erase the responsible nation. The terrible logic of nuclear weapons pretty much guarantees a response of that nature; if only to deter future attacks. God save us from that future, but I don't see much being done.
>>My father would have been in the invasion of Japan, so on behalf of my siblings and our children, I say, "Way to go, President Truman."
If the only means available to save your brother from an untimely death would be to cut out the hearts of, say, four or five Japanese schoolchildren, would you do it?
Would you feel proud about it afterwards?
Some things are worse than death.
>>It's good to see an opposing argument that actually deals in ideas not just rhetoric. I've seen too much of the contrary lately.
Good. I propose some axioms before we move on.
I. Responsiblity defined -- "An individual is responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions."
II. Universality -- "We should judge ourselves and others by the same standards. If it is Wicked for others to do something, it is Wicked for us to do it as well."
>>First, discuss cause. Japan outright attacked the United States in a clearly resource and conquest driven campaign, a campaign designed at the direct domination of resources and entire populations and cultures.
Indeed. The Japanese government was aggressive, treacherous, and amazingly brutal. Definitely Wicked.
>>If this is conquest, I want my gas prices back under a dollar again.
This brings up an important side point. This administration is supposed to be the Oil Presidency. If Bush and his advisors know anything about anything, it's oil. With that in mind, a US nationalist might ask this question: "We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and had tens of thousands of Arabs killed. Where the &*% is our cheap gas?" Standard answers include "because there's a conspiracy to boost oil company profits" and "because the Bush administration is filled with morons." I'm reserving judgement as to what exactly is going on here.
>>Japan can be blamed directly for a war of conquest that was directly affecting the US and its allies.
The Japanese government can definitely be blamed. The women and children in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the command decisions associated with Japanese atrocities. Similarly, our parents had nothing to do with the murder of 200,000 East Timorese. But Cheney and Rumsfeld likely did. It's important to differentiate the leaders from the Man on the Street Just Trying To Get By, especially under a dictatorship. (See Axiom I above)
>>Today, the US cannot be blamed as such -- the problems of the Arab people are largely their own fault.
Again, most of these "Arab people" got born into a &*(^hole. Some of them had the intelligence and ability to escape. Some were brave and foolish enough to challenge the dictatorships and got killed. Most of the rest are just doing whatever they can to survive. A few extremely corrupt and evil people control most of the resources and political power.
>>When an Arab wakes up in one of the most resource-rich areas of the world and finds himself poor, blaming a tiny, tiny nation called "Israel" for his empty pockets is rooted in a victim mentality.
I suspect most of this is due to media corruption by the aforementioned corrupt and evil elite. I'm pretty sure MEMRI will back me up on this. The impoverished masses really are victims, and it's vitally important (to the elite) that the local leadership not get blamed for how bad things are. Hence brainwashing and propaganda.
>>Third, discuss target. While the Pentagon is surely a valid military target, the WTC was not. The WTC, was certainly not fueling the military with weapons and, as shown by the first point I discussed, was not involved in supporting a conquest of foreign nations because said conquest didn't exist.
What percentage of the revenue flowing through WTC businesses was diverted to the Pentagon System through taxation? The USG's military might is dependent on the the wealth of the population it feeds on. From a Total War standpoint, then, destroying the WTC makes just as much sense as any other kind of strategic bombing. As for the "foreign conquest" issue, perhaps bin Laden can be forgiven for thinking that the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been bought by the USG, given the immense amount of foreign aid (given to Egypt) and military cooperation (in the case of SA) over the years. And then there's Israel. . . I personally suspect that rather the reverse has occurred: the Egyptian, Arabian, and Israeli governments have bought (leased, really) the USG, leading to a rather schizophrenic USG foreign policy.
>>I would much rather be pinned by a female guard with panties on my head scared out of my wits by a guard dog that experience the former.
Please remember that people were KILLED at Abu Ghraib as well.
>>When our administration dropped the bomb on civilians during WWII, the debate was centered around whether annihilating an entire city full of civilians was justified. When Osama decided to do the same to our civilians, that aspect did not enter into the equation.
I seem to recall Osama explicitly invoking the concept of reprisal, using USG atrocities against Arab civilians to justify attacks like WTC. Note that this is the same logic used to justify the atomic bombings. To see that this is so, envision a scenario where nuking 200,000 Moroccans would somehow force the Japanese to surrender. I don't see how changing the nationality of the thirty-second-helpless-innocent-children changes the ethics of the scenario.
>>The perceived key to winning WWII was breaking the Japanese people's will. Dropping the bomb was calculated to be (and was) successful at this.
There has been a lot of revisionism at work here. I'm going to side with wimpy Liberal Democratic Peaceniks like Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Herbert Hoover on this issue. Let's just say that I'd recommend you do some additional research into this matter and leave it at that.
>>Spreading the ability to live a free live to fellow human beings is a noble cause and will make the world a better place.
Indeed. Let us begin immediately.
>>To play moral relativist and say that "democracy is no better or worse than tyranny" is taking the good "analyze thyself" lesson from history and distorting it beyond all reason.
I would claim that democracy leads to tyranny, but that is a result of an extended chain of reasoning beyond the scope of this discussion. That said, I am no relativist. IMHO, Murder and terror are wrong, and more murder and more terror is more wrong. We should act to decrease murder and terror, and efficiency demands that we eliminate those sources of murder and terror that are within our control first.
But to compare us to WWII Japan or to present day jihadis is to show a complete lack of grounding in right and wrong.
Indeed. You and I personally had nothing to do with any of the atrocities under discussion, and it would be silly (see Axiom I) to blame "us" for any of them. :-)
>>Truman urged the Japanese to surrender before their cities fell to nuclear annihilation.
Bin Laden has likewise urged us to submit to his demands before he's forced to use more brutal means. Does this absolve him of responsibility?
T.J. is an idealist. He has no place in his moral universe (or his axioms) for utilitarianism. A hypothetical strategy that risked the lives of 100,000 civilians, but might save the lives of 1,000,000 civilians is not moral, premised as it would be on the "predictable consequences" of the action.
Ok, let me reply. Some of what you're saying I agree with. I imagine we're not too far off from each other.
"The Japanese government can definitely be blamed. The women and children in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the command decisions associated with Japanese atrocities."
First off, even a dictatorship gets its power from the people. In extremely rare situations (like trying to take over the world), revolutions are important. It is reasonable to expect that a population responsible for feeding and tending the war machine responsible for outright, brutal, overt conquest can share responsibility with their government. Their culture and societal values as well as their hands-on effort led to the conflict. Societal values in the US have long been against this sort of thing (even back to before WW1).
While I don't think that killing civilians in any fashion is ever a good thing, when looking at 500,000-1,000,000 estimated casualties from an invasion of Japan just on our side, pure preservation of life comes into play, and not just ones own.
*****
"Again, most of these "Arab people" got born into a &*(^hole. Some of them had the intelligence and ability to escape. Some were brave and foolish enough to challenge the dictatorships and got killed. Most of the rest are just doing whatever they can to survive. A few extremely corrupt and evil people control most of the resources and political power."
But it is those on-the-stree Arabs who keep these people in power. You'll look, many of these people have quite popular support. Their culture feeds on blame of extraneous forces, much like children do. I know this isn't black and white, but in the large scale of things, their culture is not "grown up." "Civilized."
You said "born in to." Ask yourself this: What is the difference between the US and Africa? Why are we so better off than they are?
It basically boils down to community. We work together to amplify the strengths of our neighbor. We work together to create things and share them. That is our culture. Africa does not have these things. They work largely on smaller levels and have not organized themselves into a greater force.
Civilization forms precicely because people want to coexist together and work together. People took great, hard steps to form these bonds in the civilized world. Arabs have yet to meet that level of civilization; Africans fall into this box as well. They are responsible for their own culture and civilization.
I think this may be one of our sticking points so I ask you to think over this again. Does the responsibility for a culture ultimately rest on the leaders? How do those leaders get to be leaders?
I will not say for a moment that I can't comprehend why they are in the situation they are. What I'm saying is that we cannot be blamed for it and that makes all the difference. Many, many arguments that I hear just fall apart after that is established.
*****
"What percentage of the revenue flowing through WTC businesses was diverted to the Pentagon System through taxation? The USG's military might is dependent on the the wealth of the population it feeds on. From a Total War standpoint, then, destroying the WTC makes just as much sense as any other kind of strategic bombing."
By this logic, bombing about anything fits "Total War." Think about this carefully and perhaps read it again and be careful not to read into what I'm saying, I might not take this where you think initially:
Understanding money is fundamental. Pretend it doesn't exist. Pretend we're in a barter economy. People produce goods and services and exchange them for others. These goods and services allow people to go about their day with food, shelter, conveniences and so on. It allows the gun maker to travel to work in the morning and perform his craft so that the result might be used in war. Without the supporting industry, the gunmaker couldn't make guns.
What is money? It is the representation of goods and services given. The representation can be used at a later date to get more goods and services. It's a delayed barter system.
What is the money coming into the pentagon from the WTC, and moreover, from our entire economy? It is a representation of work owed to the government that the government can spend on making guns.
By the "Total War" logic you just gave me that the WTC is a valid target, the WTC is no different than Jim-Bob's Auto Parts down the street. The overall effect of his business is to keep the wheels of the country running (no pun intended). Damaging an economy in "Total War" may be valid under that logic, but it's not a logic that I'm arguing for nor one that I agree with.
I'll raise my point again: the WTC was not involved in making weapons like the Japanese factories nested inside major cities -- that's the comparison I made.
*****
"Please remember that people were KILLED at Abu Ghraib as well."
Fair enough. That said, that argument of mine was a pun. It's interesting to know that the whole Abu Ghraib thing happened in one night. I'm not dumb enough to think that a hot-headed military guy hasn't swung a few punches at a prisoner to get him to talk here or there, but the difference between that and demonstrating systematic torture is a canyon wide.
*****
"I seem to recall Osama explicitly invoking the concept of reprisal, using USG atrocities against Arab civilians to justify attacks like WTC. Note that this is the same logic used to justify the atomic bombings."
You are correct and I apologize. What I said, strictly read, was wrong. I'll back off to the core of what my statement was centered around. Truman and his folk were dealing with serious moral questions. When they came to their decision, the weight of that decision and the consequences for most of them can't be put into words. Many of the people involved in the process never recovered. If any moral debate was going on among Osama and his group, it in no way resembled the kind of debate and guilt that occurred in the US administration during WWII.
*****
"There has been a lot of revisionism at work here. I'm going to side with wimpy Liberal Democratic Peaceniks like Douglas MacArthur, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Herbert Hoover on this issue. Let's just say that I'd recommend you do some additional research into this matter and leave it at that."
Aye, on both sides. I'm no history buff but I'm a big fan; I've listened to and read quite a bit of material on the world wars. I seem to recall some quotes from MacArthur and others that contradict much of the rest regarding motive, etc., so I'll take you at your word.
In the end, it is well established that most estimates for any invasion of Japan were put between 250,000 and 800,000 troops lost on one side alone. Given that the bombs did stop the war, for whatever reason or for whatever motivation, I can see the action justified given that there were no other reasonable ways out.
If you have material to show me such, perhaps it's the bit of information I was looking for regarding this issue. If this is the case and I agree with the reasoning, then I'll go back to what I said in my third post that the bomb is justified "when the only other solution to ending the war is a long, drawn-out fight." Almost no other person on this board would argue against that. The end goal was to get out of the war with as little loss of life as possible, American lives having priority (as, if nothing else, we were not the aggressors).
*****
_"> But to compare us to WWII Japan or to present day jihadis is to show a complete lack of grounding in right and wrong.
Indeed. You and I personally had nothing to do with any of the atrocities under discussion, and it would be silly (see Axiom I) to blame "us" for any of them. :-)"_
That wasn't my point. The US, its people and its government, during either WWII or present day, cannot be compared to WWII Japan or the jihadis for the myriad of reasons we've discussed above. I'm not referring to anyone on an individual level. As I was getting at above, blaming an individual for the actions of a nation or a culture is a fallacy.
*****
_">>Truman urged the Japanese to surrender before their cities fell to nuclear annihilation.
Bin Laden has likewise urged us to submit to his demands before he's forced to use more brutal means. Does this absolve him of responsibility?"_
The complaints of the jihadis go well back beyond the existence of the United States, much less to our involvement in the M.E. There have been many discussions and analysys done on the given reasons by Bin Laden including this article. :) There is actually a lot more out there; this article scratches the surface. It may be worth your time and interest to take a look.
Cheers,
Duckman