| Sunday,
March 30, 2003
Henry Wyckoff -- henry_wyckoff@hotmail.com Please
post on Chaos Manor -- thanks :)
I don't want to offend anyone with what I am about
to say, but I find it a little ironic that everywhere on the media -- on
the TV, radio, and Internet -- I come across such indignation about how
the Iraquis are pulling dirty tricks and breaking the rules of war...
I am aware that there has been a Western Code of
War, understood if not actually written down. Still, I can't help but look
at the situation and wonder why everyone is surprised. After all, we have
two generally mismatched combatants.
If I were thrown into a fist fight with some guy who
was three feet taller than me, healthier, and had fifteen buddies ready to
beat the crap out of me at a moment's notice... you'd bet I'd use every
dirty trick at my disposal to get that Bruno on his knees and then get the
hell out of there. Even escaping with all my limbs attached would be a
victory, and if I had to use any unfair advantage, I'd use it.
Maybe it's because I always found myself at the
losing side of a fair fist fight that I can at least understand why Iraq
would even go so far as to break the rules. The justness of the war is not
really the issue in my mind -- let the politicans handle that -- but I do
have to raise my eyebrows when I hear talk about the "rules of
war", to which the Iraqis never subscribed to the best of my
knowledge.
I also find it ironic that the American military
would complain about recent Iraqi actions. I remember British accounts of
many battles in the Revolutionary War, including the Concord skirmish, in
which commanders complained that the Rebels wouldn't play by the rules. In
other words, they wouldn't submit to standing in silly ranks and being
mowed down like bowling pins. Our ancestors used tactics that worked, and
I'm sure that many of them broke the established rules of the time, and
yet we don't hear any West Point graduates saying that our ancestors were
wrong for doing what they are doing.
I don't want to offend anyone. I'm just representing
a point of view that I have not seen even once during this war.
Thanks for your time. Henry Wyckoff E-mail:
henry_wyckoff@hotmail.com
Well, Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva
Conventions. Most of the rules of war are unenforceable until one side
wins. War Crimes trials are only held by victors.
Jerry,
You gave us a very cute link on March 20th. It's not
so cute now.
http://www.confound.com/games/squoosh_terrorist.php
Hadley V. Stacey
I am not astonished. These things happen. Pity.
Hello Jerry,
Take a look at today's NYTimes editorial. Makes
sense to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/opinion/30SUN1.html
Best regards - Bob Griswold
Well, USAF has always been in favor of flashier
and more expensive aircraft. I don't agree with all the priorities in the
editorial, but most of it is very much on target. But then I would prefer
to give many USAF missions back to the Army to begin with.
And Michael Juergens says:
All this started as a response to someone who saw the point of Bush's
war as the enabling of aggrandizement of government domestic power
(Patriot Act II, etc). This comment grows as it goes, however. I end with
what are, for me, some radical conclusions.
I think my original correspondent was elevating a side-effect (the
blossoming of the security culture) to the level of the main strategic
goals.
Do you recall the Trotskyesque Red Army leader in Dr. Zhivago? At one
point it was suggested that the village they just shot up maybe wasn't the
one that sold horses to the Whites. His response: "A village betrays
us, a village is burned, the point is made." That's the first thing
the Iraq war is about: making a point. The point to each and every state
that doesn't possess a nuclear deterrent: don't piss us off, or we'll
invade you. That's the New World Order.
The rationale is that in this age of global terrorism and Weapons of
Mass Destruction, we can't afford to be Mr. Nice Guy any more. Instead,
it's gloves off if you are harboring terrorists, or trying to build WMD.
It's massive retaliation with conventional weapons: we are trying to make
the consequences of doing what we don't want so great that no one will
want to risk it.
This is an immoral strategy that won't work at a cost we'll be willing
to pay, or can justifiably inflict. However it sounds good to a leadership
that hates the idea that the world's "hyperpower" has to just
wait for terrorists to strike and can't do anything about it. Discussion
of sensible anti-terrorism policies that fall between the false dichotomy
of "New World Order" and "can't do anything" can await
another rock.
There are other unacknowledged agenda items being worked in the
invasion too, of course. These explain why Iraq got elected to be the
Great Example. First, this just happens to take out the regime Israel most
fears in the region, and dispose of the man who fired all those Scuds at
Israel. That's the sort of point Israel really likes to make. Second it
puts the U.S. Army on top of a vast amount of oil, and right next door to
Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's, conscious that we could conquer them in about
15 minutes, will become, in a word, pliant. Voila! OPEC R US! The point
here is less physical possession of oil, and more control of the PRICE of
oil. Cheap oil is expected to revive our economy. And people say Bush
lacks a domestic agenda.
And finally, a battle-demonstrated army next door to Saudi and to Iran
and to Syria is expected to convince those states to quash any terrorist
types that may be running around.
The domestic power-grab in the name of security? That's a necessary
go-with; empires have problems being all that democratic. But fulfilling
the agenda of the security dweebs isn't the main point. The New World
Order is the main point.
For now we're trying to be high-minded about all this. We feel have to
take these otherwise-immoral steps to save what can be saved of humane
values and liberal democracy. Otherwise, it is feared, terrorists and
rogue states with WMD will drag the world down into Hobbesian chaos. Since
we still honor these humane and liberal values, we try to mitigate the
slaughter we commit. But I expect we will encounter more terrorism and WMD
use than ever, and our high-mindedness will disappear as our losses mount.
So, I have to say that my pains to point out our attempts to be humane and
restrained as we head over this cliff haven't been addressing the real
issue. We're at an altitude now, but we'll hit the Hobbesian bottom we
fear soon enough.
Long enough message to do a summary:
The Real Agenda
1. Use Iraq as example to establish New World Order, a de facto
American Empire in which we demonstrably will invade and change the regime
of any (non-nuclear) state we wish.
2. Remove Saddam as a threat to Israel.
3. Establish control of world oil supply, both to benefit economy and
to use as geopolitical power lever.
4. Motivate Islamic regimes to suppress terrorist activities.
The above I've believed for a while. New to my thought, however, is an
appreciation of just how bad this is liable to work out. It has counted
for too much in my mind, up to now, that the top echelon of our government
includes people who are trying to do good, and who believe their policies
necessary to defend us. I would now say their self-righteous ability to
rationalize they are doing right in pursuing this starkly immoral and
harmful policy is a testament to the power of the human instinct to
respond to threat with force, if you feel powerful.
Thanks to all my correspondents whom have again made me think, though I
don't much like where my thoughts have taken me.
Mike Juergens
Out of the quarrel with others we make rhetoric; out of the quarrel
with ourselves we make poetry. - William Butler Yeats, 1865 - 1939
The
World is Changing.
Well I wouldn't agree that those are all the
objectives. The first one certainly is an objective; as to oil policy,
the US doesn't need control of oil, just to open the markets: pump a
lot of oil. Had we given the oil wells to the Turks so they pumped a lot
to sell on the open market it would have the same effect. Or even let
Saddam pump a lot of oil.
And to the extent there is a hidden agenda I
would say it's to get the Iraqi oilfields going, with the money definitely
not going to anyone who wants to harm the United States. This is not all
that immoral an objective; indeed, it's hard to disagree with it. We don't
need the money. We do need the oil in the market place. And the Iraqi
people do need the money.
Saddam was never a realistic threat to Israel.
Israel is more of a threat to Syria than vice versa.
As to motivating Muslim regimes to suppress
terror organization, well, yes; if that can be done, and it would be a
Good Thing, no?
I do wish it could be done without turning
Imperial. I am not sure it can.
And we have Alistair Cooke looking at history,
and writing eloquently:
-----Original Message----- From: S Scholze
WRITTEN SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. WHAT SHALL WE LEARN?
Peace for our time by Alistair Cooke (who was there
in 1938)
I promised to lay off topic A - Iraq - until the
Security Council makes a judgement on the inspectors' report and I shall
keep that promise. But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight
I've listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a monotonous din
of words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach - making a great
noise and saying the same thing over and over. And this ordeal triggered a
nightmare - a day-mare, if you like.
Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very
English voice of an old man - Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: "I
believe it is peace for our time" - a sentence that prompted a huge
cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then from the House of
Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land.
There was a move to urge that Mr. Chamberlain should
receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old
grumbler to growl out: "I believe we have suffered a total and
unmitigated defeat."
He was, in view of the general sentiment, very
properly booed down. This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 the
British prime minister's effectual signing away of most of Czechoslovakia
to Hitler. The rest of it, within months, Hitler walked in and conquered.
"Oh dear," said Mr. Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has
betrayed my trust."
During the last fortnight a simple but startling
thought occurred to me - every single official, diplomat, president, prime
minister involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them
unborn. So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been
remembered by most listeners.
Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years
but only two years before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty
by occupying the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland. Only half his troops
carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale
was too low to confront any war just then and 10 million of 11 million
British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot.
It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it
simply counted the numbers of Britons who were "for peace."
The slogan of this movement was "Against war
and fascism" - chanted at the time by every Labour man and Liberal
and many moderate Conservatives- a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as
"against hospitals and disease." In blunter words a majority of
Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler
except fight him.
At that time the word pre-emptive had not been
invented, though today it's a catchword. After all the Rhineland was what
it said it was - part of Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out
would have been pre-emptive - wouldn't it?
Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with
confidence to gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country -
"course by course", as growler Churchill put it.
I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was
fully grown, on the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age
of anxiety.
And so many of the arguments mounted against each
other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House
of Commons debates and read in the French press.
The French especially urged, after every Hitler
invasion, "negotiation, negotiation". They negotiated so
successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied. But as
one famous French leftist said: "We did anyway manage to make them
declare Paris an open city - no bombs on us!"
In Britain the general response to every Hitler
advance was disarmament and collective security. Collective security meant
to leave every crisis to the League of Nations. It would put down
aggressors, even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or
air force.
The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself
when Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia).
The League didn't have any shot to fire. But still
the cry was chanted in the House of Commons- the League and collective
security is the only true guarantee of peace.
But after the Rhineland the maverick Churchill
decided there was no collectivity in collective security and started a
highly unpopular campaign for rearmament by Britain, warning against the
general belief that Hitler had already built an enormous mechanized army
and superior air force. But he's not used them, he's not used them -
people protested.
Still for two years before the outbreak of the
Second War you could read the debates in the House of Commons and now
shiver at the famous Labour men - Major Attlee was one of them - who voted
against rearmament and still went on pointing to the League of Nations as
the saviour.
Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant
to the present crisis. It haunts me. I have to say I have written
elsewhere with much conviction that most historical analogies are false
because, however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one,
there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the
crucial one.
It may well be so here. All I know is that all the
voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003.
It is as good a case for preventive war as I
know.
From: Stephen M. St. Onge saintonge@hotmail.com
Date: March 30, 2003 subject: Thoughts on Wars and
Allies
Dear Jerry:
On the war in general, I think you have it nailed.
This is a victory of historic proportions. Delaying would have worsened
our diplomatic situation, and given Saddam more time to prepare. We were
right to go when we did.
Sure, with hindsight, we should have had more troops
on the ground, even if they only carried small arms. We need them as MPs,
sentries, and prisoner guards. We should have put the screws to the Turks
a lot harder. We should have anticipated more "asymmetric
warfare," and foreseen the effect of our 1991 crime/blunder, nicely
captured in a report from Iraq featured in Arab News:
"Iraqi men, women and children were playing it
up for the TV cameras, chanting: ‘With our blood, with our souls, we
will die for you Saddam.’
"I took a young Iraqi man . . . and asked him
why they were all chanting that particular slogan . . .
"He said: ‘There are people from Baath here
reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our
faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to
the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre
that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced
opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to
Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else.’ "
I do think we should reconsider the rules of
engagement. While they're generally right, we might, e.g., want to start
enforcing the "caught under arms out of uniform, you get instantly
executed" provision of the Geneva Convention.
Mostly, I think we're seeing culture wars being
fought. The media culture is to find something to criticize, no matter how
well we're doing, while the military's is to report only good news so
morale isn't adversely affected. The government culture is to worry
obsessively about casualties, while the civilians are either against the
war regardless of casualties, or willing to pay the price of victory
_provided we're actually allowed to win!_ (Hey, why am I shouting? And
when did I step on this soapbox?). Many in the Pentagon hold with the
'big, obvious, dumb frontal assault' doctrine we used in most of WWII (OK,
I'll get down now), while Rumsfeld and his advisors are with Patton and
Macarthur in wanting to cut them off and let them wither on the vine.
This happens among allies too. Contra our mutual
friend Joe Zeff, I don't think the British _ever_ wanted Overlord. They'd
been traumatized by WWI and the first three years of WWII, and expected
the Germans to beat them. Roosevelt and Marshall, with the experience of
WWI as resounding victory, wanted Overlord in '43 (which probably would
have worked).
Very interesting comment from Dr. Erwin, comparing
the EU with the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation. But I'm not sure
that all of Europe will side with Paris and against us if we force the
issue. 'NATO exists to keep the Yanks in, the Russians out, and the
Germans down.' An EU that "counterbalances" us will be Yanks
out, Russians in, and Germans up again. Would Britain choose that? How
'bout Denmark and Poland?
Note that the moment we talked about repositioning
our troops in S. Korea, we were suddenly showered with love and pleas to
stay put. And wars have a way of changing what's politically possible. The
Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic treaty were
unthinkable till shortly before they became reality.
But in any case, it's time to force a choice. We
shouldn't pretend our enemies are our friends, and we damned sure
shouldn't be paying to defend them.
Best, Stephen
DELENDAM ESSE SAUDI ARABIA!
Subject: DRM, and the First Rule of Security
Analysis
Excellent (short!) article that adds a little real
analysis to the whole DRM mess:
< http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000317.html
>
Pete Flugstad
Thanks
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW
Entire Site Copyright, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 by Jerry
E. Pournelle. All rights reserved. |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
