December 27, 2001
9:30 AM Subscribe
Recidivism being what it is among terrorists, we should kill 'em all, sez George Will in today's Washington Post. Does America have the stomach to do what its adorable chipmunk-cheeked pundits advise be done? Is he actually suggesting we line up the enemy against a wall and start shooting? Again?
luser-I think Will believes "combatants only" as well, although strictly speaking Osama himself is not a combatant(in the grand tradition of cowards like Hitler, Qaadafi and Tom Metzger he prefers to have others kill and die for him).
Actually, George Will is one of the few pundits of any political stripe who i will give a listen to, if for no other reason than his superior intelligence and rational sensiblity. In this case he has a point, at least as far as the Al Qaeda hard-core are concerned. There's a time for mercy and there is a time for decisive action and I believe now is one of the latter times.
As far as having the "stomach" for it, as a nation(as a world community, for that matter) we had the stomach for it with Goering, Eichmann and the rest of them. Osama and his crew definitely have Holocaust-level ambitions so I don't see why they should be treated any different.
posted by jonmc at 9:45 AM on December 27, 2001
Actually, George Will is one of the few pundits of any political stripe who i will give a listen to, if for no other reason than his superior intelligence and rational sensiblity. In this case he has a point, at least as far as the Al Qaeda hard-core are concerned. There's a time for mercy and there is a time for decisive action and I believe now is one of the latter times.
As far as having the "stomach" for it, as a nation(as a world community, for that matter) we had the stomach for it with Goering, Eichmann and the rest of them. Osama and his crew definitely have Holocaust-level ambitions so I don't see why they should be treated any different.
posted by jonmc at 9:45 AM on December 27, 2001
From the article:
So, as far as is consistent with the rules of war and the husbanding of the lives of U.S. military personnel, U.S. strategy should maximize fatalities among the enemy
To get really snarky...I wonder what George was doing in '67 when he could've been getting some firsthand military experience to inform his opinions further.
I have two questions:
OK, George, what did you have in mind, short of machine-gunning them so they'll fall into the mass grave you just had 'em dig?
And if the 'Ghanis get wind that you're gonna keep it going in a war of attrition/extermination, don't you just wind up with a guerilla war that grinds on and on, kind of like the Sovs had?
posted by alumshubby at 9:54 AM on December 27, 2001
So, as far as is consistent with the rules of war and the husbanding of the lives of U.S. military personnel, U.S. strategy should maximize fatalities among the enemy
To get really snarky...I wonder what George was doing in '67 when he could've been getting some firsthand military experience to inform his opinions further.
I have two questions:
OK, George, what did you have in mind, short of machine-gunning them so they'll fall into the mass grave you just had 'em dig?
And if the 'Ghanis get wind that you're gonna keep it going in a war of attrition/extermination, don't you just wind up with a guerilla war that grinds on and on, kind of like the Sovs had?
posted by alumshubby at 9:54 AM on December 27, 2001
We should at least do as Ann Coulter says and offer them the chance to renounce their faith and accept baby Jesus as their one true master. Then when they are taken out into the street and shot their souls will go to heaven. Right?
posted by wfrgms at 9:57 AM on December 27, 2001
posted by wfrgms at 9:57 AM on December 27, 2001
Wouldn't George Will and Annthrax Coulter make a great couple?
I agree with wfrgms and Annthrax that we should invade France first, then kill 'em all. :)
"his superior intelligence and rational sensiblity"
OK, tell me this was sarcasm right?
Gotta love the bow tie if it makes an idiot appear intelligent and rational. Try media whore instead.
posted by nofundy at 10:11 AM on December 27, 2001
I agree with wfrgms and Annthrax that we should invade France first, then kill 'em all. :)
"his superior intelligence and rational sensiblity"
OK, tell me this was sarcasm right?
Gotta love the bow tie if it makes an idiot appear intelligent and rational. Try media whore instead.
posted by nofundy at 10:11 AM on December 27, 2001
From the article:
However, is surrender really less expensive in the long run?
Despite his lip service to the "rules of war," Will dismisses surrender as cost-ineffective and urges maximizing fatalities, almost in the same breath. It's all about that fine line between preventing and declining surrender, and he's too clever to cross it.
posted by luser at 10:11 AM on December 27, 2001
However, is surrender really less expensive in the long run?
Despite his lip service to the "rules of war," Will dismisses surrender as cost-ineffective and urges maximizing fatalities, almost in the same breath. It's all about that fine line between preventing and declining surrender, and he's too clever to cross it.
posted by luser at 10:11 AM on December 27, 2001
---"strictly speaking Osama himself is not a combatant (in the grand tradition of cowards like Hitler, Qaadafi and Tom Metzger he prefers to have others kill and die for him)."
Isn't this true of any high ranking leader? You could add Kissnger to that list; Kissinger never fired a shot, others did his killing for him. The same is true for Slobodan Milosevic, who now sits in jail awaiting trial, as Kissinger should be, in my opinion.
Will writes: "It is a reasonable surmise that a reformed terrorist is a very rare terrorist ..." but offers no support for this other than that he thinks it is reasonable. Will never states that we should "kill 'em all", as the post says. No, Will is too much of a coward for that. He'll only include a few suggestive quotes from the latest book he's been reading. What a pathetic armchair warrior.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:30 AM on December 27, 2001
Isn't this true of any high ranking leader? You could add Kissnger to that list; Kissinger never fired a shot, others did his killing for him. The same is true for Slobodan Milosevic, who now sits in jail awaiting trial, as Kissinger should be, in my opinion.
Will writes: "It is a reasonable surmise that a reformed terrorist is a very rare terrorist ..." but offers no support for this other than that he thinks it is reasonable. Will never states that we should "kill 'em all", as the post says. No, Will is too much of a coward for that. He'll only include a few suggestive quotes from the latest book he's been reading. What a pathetic armchair warrior.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:30 AM on December 27, 2001
OK, George, what did you have in mind, short of machine-gunning them so they'll fall into the mass grave you just had 'em dig?
Why stop short of that?
I doubt the Afghans will mind all that much. First, the Al Qaeda are mainly arab, not Afghani. Second, if Taliban were to be included, well, they're not the group running things any more. The controling group only stands to gain if we prune down the numbers of those they replaced.
posted by dissent at 10:33 AM on December 27, 2001
Why stop short of that?
I doubt the Afghans will mind all that much. First, the Al Qaeda are mainly arab, not Afghani. Second, if Taliban were to be included, well, they're not the group running things any more. The controling group only stands to gain if we prune down the numbers of those they replaced.
posted by dissent at 10:33 AM on December 27, 2001
All the terrorists or rascists or communists or criminals or whatever we hate cannot be killed for one simple reason: they have not all been born yet.
Anihiliation does not destroy ideas, in fact it usually works as an enhancement and a driving force for the next generation.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:33 AM on December 27, 2001
Anihiliation does not destroy ideas, in fact it usually works as an enhancement and a driving force for the next generation.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:33 AM on December 27, 2001
Great start, but alas, we are involved in more than Afghanistan, as this indicates, though I have seen it in American media:
Thursday, December 27, 2001
In case you thought Americans were only fighting terrorism in Afghanistan....
Military action against terrorists under way outside Afghanistan
Dec 27 2001
US military officials have confirmed Afghanistan isn't the only country where American forces are fighting, or planning to fight, terrorist networks.
They won't say where, but other areas known as hide-outs for the al-Qaida network include Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and the Chechnya region of Russia.
All are predominantly Muslim, with vast, war-ravaged areas under little or no central government control.
© Copyright Ananova Ltd 2001, all rights reserved.
posted by Postroad at 10:36 AM on December 27, 2001
Thursday, December 27, 2001
In case you thought Americans were only fighting terrorism in Afghanistan....
Military action against terrorists under way outside Afghanistan
Dec 27 2001
US military officials have confirmed Afghanistan isn't the only country where American forces are fighting, or planning to fight, terrorist networks.
They won't say where, but other areas known as hide-outs for the al-Qaida network include Somalia, Yemen, Sudan and the Chechnya region of Russia.
All are predominantly Muslim, with vast, war-ravaged areas under little or no central government control.
© Copyright Ananova Ltd 2001, all rights reserved.
posted by Postroad at 10:36 AM on December 27, 2001
...although strictly speaking Osama himself is not a combatant(in the grand tradition of cowards like Hitler, Qaadafi and Tom Metzger he prefers to have others kill and die for him).
Funny how you didn't include GW Bush and Big Dick Cheney in your hypocritical little list. I guess you thought they'd been dodging bullets on the front lines in their long and illustrious military careers, right alongside George Will. Strictly speaking, I guess they prefer to have others kill and die for them as well.
Come to think of it, are you and the other hawks writing your brave little cries to battle from the front lines in Afghanistan? Or are you having others kill and die for you too?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:36 AM on December 27, 2001
Funny how you didn't include GW Bush and Big Dick Cheney in your hypocritical little list. I guess you thought they'd been dodging bullets on the front lines in their long and illustrious military careers, right alongside George Will. Strictly speaking, I guess they prefer to have others kill and die for them as well.
Come to think of it, are you and the other hawks writing your brave little cries to battle from the front lines in Afghanistan? Or are you having others kill and die for you too?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:36 AM on December 27, 2001
fold_and_mutilate- first of all, I don't claim to be a fan of either bush or cheney.
I'm merely saying that the hard-core command structure of Al-Qaeda should be dealt with the same way the hard-core of the Nazi party was at Dachau or at Nuremberg for that matter.
As far as being a "hawk" call me what you want, If I was asked to I would go to Afghanistan right now, and yes I would be soiling my drawers with fear the whole way, but I would still do it.
I am the son of a Vietnam veteran and my boss was a helicopter door-gunner during that war and both of them know firsthand that war is, at absolute best, a bloody depressing unfortunate mess, but they both believe that Al Qaeda must be dealt with harshly.
Or to put it another way, If you had the chance to even if it meant your life, would you hesitate to put a bullet in Osama?
I know my answer.
posted by jonmc at 10:53 AM on December 27, 2001
I'm merely saying that the hard-core command structure of Al-Qaeda should be dealt with the same way the hard-core of the Nazi party was at Dachau or at Nuremberg for that matter.
As far as being a "hawk" call me what you want, If I was asked to I would go to Afghanistan right now, and yes I would be soiling my drawers with fear the whole way, but I would still do it.
I am the son of a Vietnam veteran and my boss was a helicopter door-gunner during that war and both of them know firsthand that war is, at absolute best, a bloody depressing unfortunate mess, but they both believe that Al Qaeda must be dealt with harshly.
Or to put it another way, If you had the chance to even if it meant your life, would you hesitate to put a bullet in Osama?
I know my answer.
posted by jonmc at 10:53 AM on December 27, 2001
They're citing Sherman's guess that the Union would have to kill all 300,000 remaining Confederate soldiers before hostilities could end.
How stupid does George Will think we are? He personally knows better than that. The big story about the end of the Civil War was, the Union didn't have to kill every single Confederate soldier. When Confederate armies surrendered, their soldiers and officers went home; officers even got to keep their sidearms.
There's a case to be made for dealing harshly with al Qaeda fighters. But it was a crappy idea to compare CSA soldiers to Islamic extremists in the first place; and reading his column made me wonder if Will has completely lost it.
posted by coelecanth at 10:53 AM on December 27, 2001
How stupid does George Will think we are? He personally knows better than that. The big story about the end of the Civil War was, the Union didn't have to kill every single Confederate soldier. When Confederate armies surrendered, their soldiers and officers went home; officers even got to keep their sidearms.
There's a case to be made for dealing harshly with al Qaeda fighters. But it was a crappy idea to compare CSA soldiers to Islamic extremists in the first place; and reading his column made me wonder if Will has completely lost it.
posted by coelecanth at 10:53 AM on December 27, 2001
fold_and_mutilate- first of all, I don't claim to be a fan of either bush or cheney.
I'm merely saying that the hard-core command structure of Al-Qaeda should be dealt with the same way the hard-core of the Nazi party was at Dachau or at Nuremberg for that matter.
As far as being a "hawk" call me what you want, If I was asked to I would go to Afghanistan right now, and yes I would be soiling my drawers with fear the whole way, but I would still do it.
I am the son of a Vietnam veteran and my boss was a helicopter door-gunner during that war and both of them know firsthand that war is, at absolute best, a bloody depressing unfortunate mess, but they both believe that Al Qaeda must be dealt with harshly.
Or to put it another way, If you had the chance to even if it meant your life, would you hesitate to put a bullet in Osama?
I know my answer.
posted by jonmc at 10:54 AM on December 27, 2001
I'm merely saying that the hard-core command structure of Al-Qaeda should be dealt with the same way the hard-core of the Nazi party was at Dachau or at Nuremberg for that matter.
As far as being a "hawk" call me what you want, If I was asked to I would go to Afghanistan right now, and yes I would be soiling my drawers with fear the whole way, but I would still do it.
I am the son of a Vietnam veteran and my boss was a helicopter door-gunner during that war and both of them know firsthand that war is, at absolute best, a bloody depressing unfortunate mess, but they both believe that Al Qaeda must be dealt with harshly.
Or to put it another way, If you had the chance to even if it meant your life, would you hesitate to put a bullet in Osama?
I know my answer.
posted by jonmc at 10:54 AM on December 27, 2001
Seems to me that the difference is that the United States was attacked and 3000 people were murdered in a few hours.
Another difference in both versions of that list is that while they are all responsible for the deaths of innocents, some regard this as terrible side effect of a legitimate campaign, while others made it a national policy. (and don't tell me AlQaeda isn't a nation - I know it, but you know what I mean - semantics is not what we are arguing about here.)
Some of us hawks who are writing our "brave little cries" have been there on the front lines, serving our time and obligations to a greater purpose (please note I did not say the greater good - it's too murky a world to make such broad generalizations).
***
Back to the original question - I believe that there are some crimes that merit the perps being lined up against the wall. Large scale murder of innocent civilians is one of those crimes to my mind.
I also think that Patton's response to the "atrocity" of what happened in Dachau that day was a very reasonable one. (if you are lost by the reference, please read the entirety of the "Again?" link in the original post)
posted by Irontom at 10:56 AM on December 27, 2001
Another difference in both versions of that list is that while they are all responsible for the deaths of innocents, some regard this as terrible side effect of a legitimate campaign, while others made it a national policy. (and don't tell me AlQaeda isn't a nation - I know it, but you know what I mean - semantics is not what we are arguing about here.)
Some of us hawks who are writing our "brave little cries" have been there on the front lines, serving our time and obligations to a greater purpose (please note I did not say the greater good - it's too murky a world to make such broad generalizations).
***
Back to the original question - I believe that there are some crimes that merit the perps being lined up against the wall. Large scale murder of innocent civilians is one of those crimes to my mind.
I also think that Patton's response to the "atrocity" of what happened in Dachau that day was a very reasonable one. (if you are lost by the reference, please read the entirety of the "Again?" link in the original post)
posted by Irontom at 10:56 AM on December 27, 2001
---"I believe that there are some crimes that merit the perps being lined up against the wall. Large scale murder of innocent civilians is one of those crimes to my mind."
..which would require the execution of Harry S Truman.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:03 AM on December 27, 2001
..which would require the execution of Harry S Truman.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:03 AM on December 27, 2001
When mortally attacked, an individual or nation has the right to defend him or itself by mortal means. Every secular system of morality recognizes this. It is what permits a doctor to kill a full-term infant whose abormal birth threatens the mother's life. Is there anything short of killing our enemies that will remove the threat to our lives and cities? Some believe that needs to be debated. But while we are debating, our enemies (who do not debate, even among themselves) are moving to kill us.
posted by Faze at 11:08 AM on December 27, 2001
posted by Faze at 11:08 AM on December 27, 2001
Faze- To follow my own advice (in a recent MetaTalk post),while I agree with you that mortal action is necessary. I have to respect fold_and_mutilate,Ty Webb, and luser because "debate" is exactly what separates us from them.
posted by jonmc at 11:12 AM on December 27, 2001
posted by jonmc at 11:12 AM on December 27, 2001
Faze- To follow my own advice (in a recent MetaTalk post),while I agree with you that mortal action is necessary. I have to respect fold_and_mutilate,Ty Webb, and luser because "debate" is exactly what separates us from them.
posted by jonmc at 11:13 AM on December 27, 2001
posted by jonmc at 11:13 AM on December 27, 2001
For George W to compare Soldiers in the Civil War with a terror group elsewhere is just plain nonsense. In the Civil War, we had ordinary soldiers fighting other ordinary Americans. Sherman was a rather viscious person, as reading of his doings will indicate, but he did not get what he wanted.
As for what Will says:
The South, although militarily weak, "fielded," Hanson says, "individual warriors who were among the most gallant and deadly in the entire history of warfare." Hence what Sherman called "the awful fact": Victory required "that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright."
The men who ruled the South did not do the fighting, in most cases, and that is what gave us the saying that It is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
The thousands who died seldom if ever owned slaves; the wealthy got exempt so they could care for their estates and slaves!
At conclusion of WWII, we put on trial the leaders of Nazi party responsible; we did not execute or try the many who were members of SS unless able to prove barbaric behavior.
In sum: this is a different thing entirely, and thus should be considered as such, no matter what one's position might be.
posted by Postroad at 11:17 AM on December 27, 2001
As for what Will says:
The South, although militarily weak, "fielded," Hanson says, "individual warriors who were among the most gallant and deadly in the entire history of warfare." Hence what Sherman called "the awful fact": Victory required "that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright."
The men who ruled the South did not do the fighting, in most cases, and that is what gave us the saying that It is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
The thousands who died seldom if ever owned slaves; the wealthy got exempt so they could care for their estates and slaves!
At conclusion of WWII, we put on trial the leaders of Nazi party responsible; we did not execute or try the many who were members of SS unless able to prove barbaric behavior.
In sum: this is a different thing entirely, and thus should be considered as such, no matter what one's position might be.
posted by Postroad at 11:17 AM on December 27, 2001
For George W to compare Soldiers in the Civil War with a terror group elsewhere is just plain nonsense. In the Civil War, we had ordinary soldiers fighting other ordinary Americans. Sherman was a rather viscious person, as reading of his doings will indicate, but he did not get what he wanted.
As for what Will says:
The South, although militarily weak, "fielded," Hanson says, "individual warriors who were among the most gallant and deadly in the entire history of warfare." Hence what Sherman called "the awful fact": Victory required "that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright."
The men who ruled the South did not do the fighting, in most cases, and that is what gave us the saying that It is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
The thousands who died seldom if ever owned slaves; the wealthy got exempt so they could care for their estates and slaves!
At conclusion of WWII, we put on trial the leaders of Nazi party responsible; we did not execute or try the many who were members of SS unless able to prove barbaric behavior.
In sum: this is a different thing entirely, and thus should be considered as such, no matter what one's position might be.
posted by Postroad at 11:17 AM on December 27, 2001
As for what Will says:
The South, although militarily weak, "fielded," Hanson says, "individual warriors who were among the most gallant and deadly in the entire history of warfare." Hence what Sherman called "the awful fact": Victory required "that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright."
The men who ruled the South did not do the fighting, in most cases, and that is what gave us the saying that It is a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.
The thousands who died seldom if ever owned slaves; the wealthy got exempt so they could care for their estates and slaves!
At conclusion of WWII, we put on trial the leaders of Nazi party responsible; we did not execute or try the many who were members of SS unless able to prove barbaric behavior.
In sum: this is a different thing entirely, and thus should be considered as such, no matter what one's position might be.
posted by Postroad at 11:17 AM on December 27, 2001
..."debate" is exactly what separates us from them.
Johnmc, I am aware our system and values are superior to our enemies'. But our moral superiority to our enemies is not what places us in the right in this particular conflict. What puts us in the right is the fact that we are about to be killed. And we are defending ourselves. We don't have to be good to be right in killing under these circumstances. Even a gangster is justified in killing a man who comes at him with a knife.
posted by Faze at 11:57 AM on December 27, 2001
Johnmc, I am aware our system and values are superior to our enemies'. But our moral superiority to our enemies is not what places us in the right in this particular conflict. What puts us in the right is the fact that we are about to be killed. And we are defending ourselves. We don't have to be good to be right in killing under these circumstances. Even a gangster is justified in killing a man who comes at him with a knife.
posted by Faze at 11:57 AM on December 27, 2001
---"What puts us in the right is the fact that we are about to be killed. "
Oh give me a break. Al Qaeda is not massed at the U.S. border. There are no Taliban missiles aimed at America's children. Bin Laden is not about to march up Pennsylvania Avenue and redecorate the Oval Office with Persian throw pillows.
Yes, the terrorist threat is credible. Yes, we should be on our guard. Yes, we should marshal all the formidable military technology at our disposal to hunt down the motherfuckers, but let's try and keep at least a loose grip on reality.
---"Even a gangster is justified in killing a man who comes at him with a knife."
..though people will say the gangster had it coming.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:12 PM on December 27, 2001
Oh give me a break. Al Qaeda is not massed at the U.S. border. There are no Taliban missiles aimed at America's children. Bin Laden is not about to march up Pennsylvania Avenue and redecorate the Oval Office with Persian throw pillows.
Yes, the terrorist threat is credible. Yes, we should be on our guard. Yes, we should marshal all the formidable military technology at our disposal to hunt down the motherfuckers, but let's try and keep at least a loose grip on reality.
---"Even a gangster is justified in killing a man who comes at him with a knife."
..though people will say the gangster had it coming.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:12 PM on December 27, 2001
George Will is a national treasure. No doubt he'll soon be fired by ABC News for speaking the informed truth.
Also, the author of this flame bait FPP should be chastised for associating political views, opposed to his own, to Nazis.
posted by Real9 at 12:24 PM on December 27, 2001
Also, the author of this flame bait FPP should be chastised for associating political views, opposed to his own, to Nazis.
posted by Real9 at 12:24 PM on December 27, 2001
Real9,
luser associated Will's views (however loosely) with those of the Allies who executed Nazis at Dachau, not with the Nazis.
I've seen a lot of posts lately dismissed as flamebait. Seems like an easy way to get out of a debate you don't want, or aren't prepared, to have. But at the very least read the post before dismissing it.
And if ABC fires George Will, it will be because he's unnattractive, a poor dresser, a mediocre (at best) writer, not to mention a total dick (which is the best thing about him).
posted by Ty Webb at 12:36 PM on December 27, 2001
luser associated Will's views (however loosely) with those of the Allies who executed Nazis at Dachau, not with the Nazis.
I've seen a lot of posts lately dismissed as flamebait. Seems like an easy way to get out of a debate you don't want, or aren't prepared, to have. But at the very least read the post before dismissing it.
And if ABC fires George Will, it will be because he's unnattractive, a poor dresser, a mediocre (at best) writer, not to mention a total dick (which is the best thing about him).
posted by Ty Webb at 12:36 PM on December 27, 2001
Also, the author of this flame bait FPP should be chastised for associating political views, opposed to his own, to Nazis.
I call Godwin's! (transitive corrollary)
posted by luser at 1:21 PM on December 27, 2001
I call Godwin's! (transitive corrollary)
posted by luser at 1:21 PM on December 27, 2001
I don't think the comparison between the US soldiers who liberated Dachau and the US soldiers in Afghanistan is valid. In Dachau, those soldiers really had no idea what had been happening, came upon it while in combat fatigue, and executed many of those who were personally responsible for that train. Whereas it may break the rules of international law and warfare, it's difficult to imagine a different response. I can barely fathom the horror those boys felt at that moment, and there was no doubt who was responsible. As the end of the article says, there weren't any SS troops who wondered why they were being killed.
posted by elvolio at 1:39 PM on December 27, 2001
In Afghanistan, you have (a) rounded-up Al Qaeda soldiers who may not have been personally involved in the massacre in New York, and (b) soldiers who knew prior to going in what the situation was. Essentially, the extenuating circumstances at Dachau simply aren't present here.
George Will is a bright man, and this may be more of an emotional response than anything -- remember the horror and fear we all felt on September 11? It felt like the sky was falling -- no one knew what was going on. The faceless murderers that day could have been anyone -- and we didn't know if anything else was in store. (That's why it's ridiculous to criticize Bush for moving to a safe location -- we simply had no clue what was going on.)
It's almost like luser invoked Godwin's Law upon starting the thread...
posted by elvolio at 1:39 PM on December 27, 2001
Those were fighting words, because McClellan was a reluctant fighter. Ugh. He's no Buckley. The WOT resembles more the French and Indian War.
US military officials have confirmed Afghanistan isn't the only country where American forces are fighting, or planning to fight, terrorist networks.
There was an AP story in yesterday's paper about the US asking Yemen permission to send Marines in to fight tribal groups in league with Al-Qaeda. (It's being officially denied halfway down this story.)My theory is that the in all future phases of the WOT, the media will depict the enemy as a "tribe."
posted by rschram at 2:19 PM on December 27, 2001
US military officials have confirmed Afghanistan isn't the only country where American forces are fighting, or planning to fight, terrorist networks.
There was an AP story in yesterday's paper about the US asking Yemen permission to send Marines in to fight tribal groups in league with Al-Qaeda. (It's being officially denied halfway down this story.)My theory is that the in all future phases of the WOT, the media will depict the enemy as a "tribe."
posted by rschram at 2:19 PM on December 27, 2001
"Recidivism"? I've tried to repress Criminal Law from law school, but I think that would require a terrorist to be imprisoned, then released, and then commit additional acts. Short of bogus prisons in the West Bank and Gaza (with bogus incarcerations), I don't think there are any recidivist terrorists. Plus, these words are hard to say together.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:53 PM on December 27, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 2:53 PM on December 27, 2001
on second thought, what I just said was hypertechnical. But What else is Mefi for?
posted by ParisParamus at 3:02 PM on December 27, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 3:02 PM on December 27, 2001
" ... What puts us in the right is the fact that we are about to be killed. And we are defending ourselves. We don't have to be good to be right in killing under these circumstances. Even a gangster is justified in killing a man who comes at him with a knife ... "
It could probably be said any side in virtually any conflict, past or present, believes it is in the right, and is capable of justifying that sentiment with arguments. These generally reduce to either 1) "We have a right to defend ourselves"; 2) "God is on our side and sanctions the death of our opponents"; or 3) "That territory is ours and we have the right to (claim/reclaim) control of it".
The difficulty is that every perspective is self-contained within it's own closed feedback loop - i.e., it is absolutely correct so long as one accepts it's (usually unstated) underlying assumptions and worldview.
Subjectively, Bin Laden and his cohorts feel fully justified in their actions ... in fact, even frame the asynchronous nature of the battle (a bunch of believers in caves against a military/economic superpower) into a sort of David vs. Goliath struggle. That they might actually find support for their perspective in some parts of the world (especially those parts that feel themselves to have been subject to the seemingly arbitrary exercise of US power over the last few decades) is not surprising. From within their perspective, there were no "innocent victims" killed ... rather, the US has been asserting it's domination of the world to a disturbing degree - even in predominantly Muslim nations - and no one has been able to resist it.
Americans too have our own entirely self-justifying perspective. We are the ones that are in the right, that were brutally attacked for no reason, and suffered the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians. Virtually any response is justified against our attackers.
... name any current stuggle ... Protestants v. Catholics in Ireland, Jews v. Palestinians, India v. Pakistan, etc., etc., and you'll inevitably find each side fully self-justified in whatever actions they happen to be taking at ther time.
If there IS such a thing as an objective, "universal" standard of justice - well, it is likely to seem (at the very least) somewhat inconvenient to anyone that is firmly on one "side" of a war.
Personally, I happen to believe there are universals I do love some of our founding documents ... the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." is really remarkable in the history of humanity - it holds, in essence, that there are basic rights that ought to be accorded all human beings simply by virtue of being born human .. that is, they do not derive from belonging to a particular race, religion, or belief system, and should not be dependent upon whether the current thugs in power in a particular place are benevolent or cruel. That we are all created equal. That we all should be accorded life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now obviously there are some that break the social contract. There are those that are downright evil. And there are times when war is necessary, and killing justified. But if we (speaking as an American here) want to remain true to our own assertion and belief that we do not simply hold one of many equally compelling and justifiable viewpoints, but rather that we aspire to hold genuinely universal values, then we need to always attempt to avoid war, and minimize killing. We ought to honor human life and liberty above all other things. The thought that we should ever do wholesale exterminations of a category of people simply because it's the only way we can be sure they don't attempt acts against the US in some future time is not only morally repugnant, it is badly flawed from even the most pragmatic of views. Or, in other words, not only wouldn't it work, it'd likely strengthen the resolve (and fanaticism) of others around the world.
George Will is sometimes thought provoking (though sometimes he really is also almost supernaturally dull). He usually does, however, deliver carefully considered opinions. In this instance, however, he is terribly wrong, and uncharacteristically ... well ... just stupid.
Here's the essence: We are in a "war on terror", but in this war, the battlefield is primarily emotional - and actual physical acts of war mean far more from a symbolic perspective than from a physical one. (The total number of Americans killed by Al Qaeda in the last decade - in embassy explosions, the WTC & etc. - is still less than will be killed by drunken drivers on our own highways this year). We could attempt to hunt down and kill anyone associated with Al Qaeda ... but this still operates under the belief that this is a physical war. (And the fact that anyone would think the American Civil War has even the faintest thing to do with what's going on right now just ludicrous). It isn't. An old pundit once wrote that if you smash a fanatic's alter, each of the stones sprouts a new alter of it's own.
Our response up to now has been surprisingly good. A swift, almost overwhelming application of force, highly concentrated, aimed at the core of the guilty parties, attempting to limit civilian killing, while also attempting to broker a lasting government to emerge from the region, and even delivering aid to the populace.
Were we to actually start hunting all remnants of Al Qaeda with the stated intent to actually not leave a single one standing ... the civilized world would likely swiftly withdraw it's support. And we would hand the next generation of terrorist leaders the greatest weapon possible ... ordinarily George Will would be smart enough to understand this.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:23 PM on December 27, 2001
It could probably be said any side in virtually any conflict, past or present, believes it is in the right, and is capable of justifying that sentiment with arguments. These generally reduce to either 1) "We have a right to defend ourselves"; 2) "God is on our side and sanctions the death of our opponents"; or 3) "That territory is ours and we have the right to (claim/reclaim) control of it".
The difficulty is that every perspective is self-contained within it's own closed feedback loop - i.e., it is absolutely correct so long as one accepts it's (usually unstated) underlying assumptions and worldview.
Subjectively, Bin Laden and his cohorts feel fully justified in their actions ... in fact, even frame the asynchronous nature of the battle (a bunch of believers in caves against a military/economic superpower) into a sort of David vs. Goliath struggle. That they might actually find support for their perspective in some parts of the world (especially those parts that feel themselves to have been subject to the seemingly arbitrary exercise of US power over the last few decades) is not surprising. From within their perspective, there were no "innocent victims" killed ... rather, the US has been asserting it's domination of the world to a disturbing degree - even in predominantly Muslim nations - and no one has been able to resist it.
Americans too have our own entirely self-justifying perspective. We are the ones that are in the right, that were brutally attacked for no reason, and suffered the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians. Virtually any response is justified against our attackers.
... name any current stuggle ... Protestants v. Catholics in Ireland, Jews v. Palestinians, India v. Pakistan, etc., etc., and you'll inevitably find each side fully self-justified in whatever actions they happen to be taking at ther time.
If there IS such a thing as an objective, "universal" standard of justice - well, it is likely to seem (at the very least) somewhat inconvenient to anyone that is firmly on one "side" of a war.
Personally, I happen to believe there are universals I do love some of our founding documents ... the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." is really remarkable in the history of humanity - it holds, in essence, that there are basic rights that ought to be accorded all human beings simply by virtue of being born human .. that is, they do not derive from belonging to a particular race, religion, or belief system, and should not be dependent upon whether the current thugs in power in a particular place are benevolent or cruel. That we are all created equal. That we all should be accorded life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now obviously there are some that break the social contract. There are those that are downright evil. And there are times when war is necessary, and killing justified. But if we (speaking as an American here) want to remain true to our own assertion and belief that we do not simply hold one of many equally compelling and justifiable viewpoints, but rather that we aspire to hold genuinely universal values, then we need to always attempt to avoid war, and minimize killing. We ought to honor human life and liberty above all other things. The thought that we should ever do wholesale exterminations of a category of people simply because it's the only way we can be sure they don't attempt acts against the US in some future time is not only morally repugnant, it is badly flawed from even the most pragmatic of views. Or, in other words, not only wouldn't it work, it'd likely strengthen the resolve (and fanaticism) of others around the world.
George Will is sometimes thought provoking (though sometimes he really is also almost supernaturally dull). He usually does, however, deliver carefully considered opinions. In this instance, however, he is terribly wrong, and uncharacteristically ... well ... just stupid.
Here's the essence: We are in a "war on terror", but in this war, the battlefield is primarily emotional - and actual physical acts of war mean far more from a symbolic perspective than from a physical one. (The total number of Americans killed by Al Qaeda in the last decade - in embassy explosions, the WTC & etc. - is still less than will be killed by drunken drivers on our own highways this year). We could attempt to hunt down and kill anyone associated with Al Qaeda ... but this still operates under the belief that this is a physical war. (And the fact that anyone would think the American Civil War has even the faintest thing to do with what's going on right now just ludicrous). It isn't. An old pundit once wrote that if you smash a fanatic's alter, each of the stones sprouts a new alter of it's own.
Our response up to now has been surprisingly good. A swift, almost overwhelming application of force, highly concentrated, aimed at the core of the guilty parties, attempting to limit civilian killing, while also attempting to broker a lasting government to emerge from the region, and even delivering aid to the populace.
Were we to actually start hunting all remnants of Al Qaeda with the stated intent to actually not leave a single one standing ... the civilized world would likely swiftly withdraw it's support. And we would hand the next generation of terrorist leaders the greatest weapon possible ... ordinarily George Will would be smart enough to understand this.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:23 PM on December 27, 2001
Wasn't comparing Dachau to Afghanistan -- just pointing out the horror of that incident, the ugly feelings it provokes even today, even as most of us can justify the actions in light of combat fatigue, witnessing the savagery, etc. As bad as all that was, Will would have us conduct comparable massacres as official policy! I don't think we have the stomach (or the heart) for that. Thank God.
Will's one good point was that our enemies, even as they putatively surrender in battle, will never really surrender their ideas. And because al-Queda is stateless and ephemeral, they can coalesce again and again. The range of possible U.S. responses to this is actually quite breathtaking -- from permanent international security arrangements, to hand searching of all checked luggage, to biometric ID cards, to long-term infiltration and monitoring of radical Islamic groups...the list goes on. You can argue the merits of all of them, but to move right to a "kill them" strategy is just emotion talking, and as pointed out above, will only radicalize the next generation.
posted by luser at 7:38 PM on December 27, 2001
Will's one good point was that our enemies, even as they putatively surrender in battle, will never really surrender their ideas. And because al-Queda is stateless and ephemeral, they can coalesce again and again. The range of possible U.S. responses to this is actually quite breathtaking -- from permanent international security arrangements, to hand searching of all checked luggage, to biometric ID cards, to long-term infiltration and monitoring of radical Islamic groups...the list goes on. You can argue the merits of all of them, but to move right to a "kill them" strategy is just emotion talking, and as pointed out above, will only radicalize the next generation.
posted by luser at 7:38 PM on December 27, 2001
« Older WebVerbix | This is ODD. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by luser at 9:34 AM on December 27, 2001