Sultan Knish has another thought-provoking post on the philosophy of war, essentially making the point that when a person or group is at risk, it is appropriate to put survival and victory ahead of the moral high ground. As is often the case with SK, I don't disagree with the general point, but things become sticky when we get to the details. I suppose I have a couple of issues. The first is where to draw the line- can anything be done in the name of victory, no matter how bloody or appalling (torture comes to mind- we're doing "aggressive interrogation" now, can we go further)? What about necessity or lack thereof? Is it ok to be bastards for the hell of it? After all, I'm sure that a psychological function would be served by making our enemies think we rejoice at their deaths and drink their blood. What about the attempt to at least get our intelligence right on the people we go after (so we don't torture people that actually don't know anything?) What are our responsibilities? To our enemies, to ourselves, to future Americans, etc.? Obviously, if we don't work to defend ourselves, our children will be at risk. But I really do believe that there has to be some acknowledgment of a middle ground and of a red line, or we risk making American society, and particularly government, significantly worse. This isn't just some idealistic desire to keep Americans' hands clean, but also an attempt to explore exactly what American values we are fighting for.
The second problem is with rhetoric. I would be significantly less troubled by American interventionism (or isolationism) and some of the more blatantly self-centered elements of American foreign and domestic policies if we would all get over ourselves and the self-serving lies that we really care about the rest of the world, or even each other. At least if we were honest about what our goals really were- regardless of party- we could have real conversations about what our realistic options are, the validity of our goals, and the best way to implement them. Instead everybody obfuscates. We didn't invade Iraq because we cared about the Iraqis. It just wasn't part of the calculus. Now people are back-flipping in an attempt to deal with the lack of WMDs and are trying to use the "liberating conqueror" myth- we freed the Iraqis, they really like us, those that don't are jerks, oh, and Americans who opposed, or oppose, the war, hate Iraqis and Iraq. Or take your pick of any similarly moronic argument by the left. It's all bullshit, and it's extremely frustrating- furthermore, I would argue that it does a major disservice to the American people, particularly young people, again, regardless of party. Idealism is a great thing. Political fiction, not so much. And you know what happens to most idealistic young people when they realize they've been snowed? They become disillusioned, apathetic, and stay home.
I wouldn't vote for a candidate with Sultan Knish's positions, but I sure as hell would respect him for cutting the crap. And then I'd bitch about him here.
2 comments:
All told WW2 was a pretty decent guide to boundaries.
We did what we had to do to win and though we got a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the various nazi symps, e.g. mccarthy, and after the war from the communist sympathizers (during the war they were gung ho about supporting anything we did on orders from uncle joe), we didn't go overboard but we did do what was necessary. We matched the enemy's tactics when we needed to, we caused mass destruction but not because it was fun or because we had no clue what to do but because we had learned Sherman's lesson from the civil war. We didn't always get it right and we weren't perfect but we did our best and we brought an end to it, whereas if we fought the war in modern day tactics there's no telling how long it would have dragged on... imagine the military's painful attempts at precision bombing targets to stop the german war machine or the President issuing a 40th threat to use the atom bomb while the Japanese laughed themselves silly and continued building their own.
"Instead everybody obfuscates. We didn't invade Iraq because we cared about the Iraqis. It just wasn't part of the calculus."
Actually the problem is we do, at least guys like Bush do. If we didn't, we wouldn't be facing the problems or the death toll we are today, which come from rebuilding Iraq and utilizing painful discretion.
The problem in part is that post-ww2 rebuilding of Europe redefined wars for us as nation rebuilding excercises which muddles the whole thing, we can no longer win wars because we aren't fighting wars anymore, we're fighting to win hearts and minds and bringing clean drinking water and all that and unless the country itself is capable of getting its act together, e.g. germany and japan... the results are disastrous
All told WW2 was a pretty decent guide to boundaries.
We did what we had to do to win and though we got a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the various nazi symps, e.g. mccarthy, and after the war from the communist sympathizers (during the war they were gung ho about supporting anything we did on orders from uncle joe), we didn't go overboard but we did do what was necessary. We matched the enemy's tactics when we needed to, we caused mass destruction but not because it was fun or because we had no clue what to do but because we had learned Sherman's lesson from the civil war. We didn't always get it right and we weren't perfect but we did our best and we brought an end to it, whereas if we fought the war in modern day tactics there's no telling how long it would have dragged on... imagine the military's painful attempts at precision bombing targets to stop the german war machine or the President issuing a 40th threat to use the atom bomb while the Japanese laughed themselves silly and continued building their own.
"Instead everybody obfuscates. We didn't invade Iraq because we cared about the Iraqis. It just wasn't part of the calculus."
Actually the problem is we do, at least guys like Bush do. If we didn't, we wouldn't be facing the problems or the death toll we are today, which come from rebuilding Iraq and utilizing painful discretion.
The problem in part is that post-ww2 rebuilding of Europe redefined wars for us as nation rebuilding excercises which muddles the whole thing, we can no longer win wars because we aren't fighting wars anymore, we're fighting to win hearts and minds and bringing clean drinking water and all that and unless the country itself is capable of getting its act together, e.g. germany and japan... the results are disastrous
Post a Comment