...Which is why there are times when we really should turn off the “smart” bombs and show our seriousness by putting the world on notice that, when we believe the situation calls for it, we are willing to ignore the inevitable bad press and the howls of protest from human rights groups, and exhibit a show of strength and military professionalism that is politically disinterested and tactically thorough and lethal.Robert Farley also has a nice discussion of Greenwald's post.
Of course, no one wishes to see innocent civilians die (only the unserious make the claim that those who support what they consider to be a necessary war somehow luxuriate in collateral deaths). But at the same time, from a practical standpoint, there is nothing wrong with fighting a war as if it is a war—and sometimes the only way to disabuse the enemy of the notion that we are constrained by a moral calculus that makes little sense in urban combat situations is to refuse to show the kind of restraint they have come to anticipate and count on.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Deconstruct before you reconstruct
Glenn Greenwald discusses the new theme of some on the right: we're not manly enough in Iraq (manly, in an Ann Coulter kind of way). This means turning off the "compassionate conservatism" button, overcoming "white guilt," and killing everything in sight. "Hearts and minds".... Here's a sample of such suggestions:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Fascinating and terrifying. I read the links and even went here.
I guess if we can psychologize them, they can psychologize us. We have to wonder if we're getting them as wrong as they're getting us.
I thought (silly me) that the trenches and chemical warfare of World War I and the firebombings of World War II taught us that all-out war strengthens the determination of the enemy. I didn't realize that it had to do with identity politics.
I do think that some of the commenters have the right idea: war tends to extremes, as Clausewitz pointed out. We call it escalation today. So if you let war progress, unbounded, in its own logic, the nation with greater resources will "win." However, we've seen what happened to the nations that "won" World War I.
So there are reasons to limit what can be done in wars.
I'm wondering if Steele's career in academia hasn't warped his mind. He's done so well debunking identity politics in other contexts, he thought he'd give it a go here.
But it seems to me quite irrelevant.
CKR
Great post and great comment above.
I've heard this very same kind of talk in private conversations since about 4 p.m. on September 11.
Basically, we can win if we go nuts. I find it kind of difficult to make a coherent and rational argument out of that. I.e., we're rational if we're irrational.
We could just gas to death everybody in Iraq, then import an American Iraqi Kurd, Shiite and Sunni who all really like each other, tell them how much we'd like to pay for oil and let them vote on who gets to turn on the pumps every morning.
Post a Comment