SubscribeHowever convincing the case for an attack on Iraq, preemption as a declaratory doctrine lacking criteria but applicable to a generic category of states invites real trouble after Iraq, and for that reason could turn out to be a poor, even impossible basis for America’s relations with the rest of the world.In a sentence, that sums up the response to Bush and the hawk in their drive for war. The paragraph that follows, however, gives even more weight to the argument:
In the earliest years of the Cold War, before the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb, there were calls in the United States for preventive war against another evil dictator. The calls continued even after the Soviets detonated their first bomb in 1949. Indeed, in the following year, the Commandant of the Air Force’s new Air War College publicly asked to be given the order to conduct a nuclear strike against fledgling Soviet atomic capabilities. “And when I went to Christ,” said the Commandant, “I think I could explain to Him why I wanted to do it now before it’s too late. I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization. With it [the A-bomb] used in time, we can immobilize a foe [and] reduce his crime before it happened.” President Truman fired the Commandant, preferring instead a long, hard, and, in the end, stunningly successful policy of containment and deterrence.That Commandant sounds distressingly familiar.
Instead of little words, like "honor", "justice", "discipline", "respect", and "sacrifice", that you don't understand?
We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.Because deep down in places I don't like to talk about at parties, I want kablam on that wall, I need him on that wall.
« Older Articles on Indian art.... | This animation... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The former case is terribly destructive of unit cohesion and effective operation, and is very wasteful of equipment and supply, added on to the fact that "leg" soldiers are NOT humanitarian aid workers, rescue personnel, or carpenters.
They function better as a unit with their unit. You can't take a squad and send them to another continent and expect them to somehow still belong after six months.
The latter case assumes that soldiers are like day laborers, and are motivated solely by paycheck like any other employee, and that if you want them to do more than soldiers normally do, then you just need to pay them a little more or something. Even their officers are interchangeable with CIA agents or somebody with an "equivalent" GS rating. And once they've been paid, they want extra benefits? Like health care and retirement? But what have you done for us lately?
Now compare these two issues with the *news items* that the web site is discussing, that could be found in any civilian newspaper and will have little long-term effect on the policy of using military forces.
posted by kablam at 11:28 AM on July 20, 2003