Peace
What percentage of the time, thoughout history, when given the choice between fighting or opting for peace while being confronted by an aggressor known for breaking his (or its) word, has choosing "peace" worked out well? From the playground bully to the genocidal dictator, how often has it worked out well to submit to their demands? From Philip of Macedon's story to the ancient Greeks of "don't worry, I'll never invade your lands," to Hitler's "don't worry, I'm just reuniting the German peoples," are there many (any?) examples of things turning out well for all (or at least most) of the parties when peace was chosen?
The "Give Peace a Chance" theme has been with us for a long time, but what is the empirical evidence that this is, on average, a good idea?
Civilians
When it comes to a long (intergenerational) war, why does the term civilian have any meaning at all? For illustration, consider me. I've never been in the military. Yet I consider myself a completely legitimate military target. I've worked on a number of sophisticated and highly deadly weapon systems during my career (which have been deployed with great effect). Right now I work on autonomous robots, and while none of them are for military purposes, the technology could easily be converted for intensely effective military applications. It would be effective, perhaps even more effective than killing a soldier, to kill someone like me, an enabler of soldiers.
Anyone with my skills could easily be redirected to work on military applications at any time, so as a preemptive strike, killing technical people seems fair enough to me. And killing the people who support such people seems justified to me as well. And if they weren't even born - all the better, so kill the mothers too, or at least get them when they're children. After all, in a long war, one day they'll grow up to try to kill you.
Especially in a democracy, such as the United States, or Israel, or Lebanon, I consider the entire populace to be supporting the military, and as a result, are fair game as military targets.
Clearly, Hezbollah agrees with me. What I'm wondering is why no one else does? It seems insane to me not to hit an enemy in a long war wherever, whenever, and however you can.
Antisemitic
Why do various intellectuals bristle when their comments and advocacy regarding Israeli policy, that if actually implemented will clearly lead to more dead jews, are called antisemitic? Even if their comments are well intentioned, or even fair and just, the comments are still antisemitic, aren't they?
8 comments:
Especially in a democracy, [...] I consider the entire populace to be supporting the military, and as a result, are fair game as military targets.
America has taken that road before, most recently during WW II.
The thing is, most wars don't start out as long wars, or intergenerational wars.
The hope is that if you crush the opposing military quickly and convincingly enough, then the indirect combatants will simply give up.
Further, in democracies, the populace can be persuaded to give up, so it's counterproductive to go immediately to scorched earth.
So while I agree that it's legitimate to kill you, you're a strategic target, not a tactical one, and modern armies aim to conclude operations within a tactical timeframe.
Finally, many of today's conflicts are truly "diplomacy by other means", in that they have a subjective political goal, not a purely objective, measurable one.
If you're trying to establish an alternative polity, it makes no sense to kill off all of the people.
Oroborous wrote: "The thing is, most wars don't start out as long wars, or intergenerational wars."
Perhaps not, but both Bush and the Islamists are taken the long view, no? Israel seems to be in the midst of a 60 year long war with no end in sight.
Also, neither Israel nor its enemies are particularly interested in establishing an alternative polity should they achieve their stated goals.
It also seems to me, that many wars end up with some level of direct and intentional civilian slaughter, so why pretend that it's not supposed to happen?
While it's true that non-combatants will suffer during times of war, there isn't supposed to be any direct and intentional civilian slaughter at the lower levels of conflict.
You seem to be viewing "warfare" as binary: Either you're committed to total war, or you're at peace.
I think that war is more of a continuum. There can be low-level conflict that, while involving lethal force, is intended to warn or intimidate more than defeat.
Also, as is the case now in Lebanon, attempting to avoid harming civilians can be seen as avoiding inflaming or shocking other nations, so as to keep them from deciding to operate militarily or otherwise meddle in the conflict.
Isn't the whole focus of military technological development based on ever more accurate and targeted weaponry, in order to maximise strategic impact and minimise collateral damage?
If we wanted to just drop atom bombs on nations, we could use pretty old technology and Bret could find another career.
Since you seem to have ruled basic human decency out of the equation, if nothing else killing civilians is terrible for domestic PR these days.
Talking of which, where do you draw the line? If merely supporting one side is enough, doesn't that make half of American citizens 'legitimate targets'?
Brit wrote: "Since you seem to have ruled basic human decency out of the equation."
I guess my fundamental problem is understanding how "human decency" and the type of war that Israel (and we) are fighting can occur at the same time. It seems to me that they they're mutually exclusive. At least if we want to win (which it looks to me like we don't actually plan on winning - we're just delaying the inevitable somewhat).
For a short war, with a specific strategic goal, for example regime change as in Iraq, then maximizing strategic impact while minimizing collateral damage may make some sense. There may be an advantage to minimize damage - makes it easier to rebuild.
But for an intergenerational war - it seems like you might as well destroy what you can and kill whomever you can. Anything or anybody you live will just be used to kill you later.
Where do I draw the line? I think all Americans are legitimate targets. And so does al Qaeda and other extremist organizations.
As a result, I think that all members of such organizations are legitimate targets - and any supporting actors including the entire states (and their citizens) who enable their existance. This includes any state that does not actively and convincingly try to eliminate them.
Aren't "intergenerational" wars usually based on tribal or racial affiliation, attributes that cannot be changed ?
Today's wars are over differences that can be changed or resolved. I don't think that any of today's conflicts are inherently "intergenerational", although Israel has been under siege for generations. But that's more about domestic politics and regional bids for power, among the Arab nations, rather than truly irreconcilable differences.
Isn't the whole focus of military technological development based on ever more accurate and targeted weaponry, in order to maximise strategic impact and minimise collateral damage?
Quite. In military parlance, that is called "economy of force" and is one of the most important principles of war.
Even ignoring humanitarian considerations, economy of force combined with technological advances would reduce civilian casualties.
With respect to "legitimate targets," secular countries (which includes the US) are far more likely to cast a smaller net than countries enmeshed in sectarian hatred. E.g: during Desert Storm, we had a target just northwest of Mosul. Not having magic laser guided weapons, obtaining decent results relied on getting real close to our work. Unfortunately, that also means getting close to the defenses. In order to keep them guessing as much as possible, we would plan for minimum (considering airborne frag) spacing and multiple attack axes.
Unfortunately, the proximity of Mosul to the target meant that run-ins headings from west through south (and their reciprocals) carried significant risk of collateral damage due to short or long impacts.
Here there was no economy of force consideration, but rather an assessment as to whether the increase in risk to us outweighed the risk to the adjacent neighborhood.
It didn't.
That is the sort of thinking that is completely alien to sectarian warfare.
another test
Post a Comment