An essentially defensive war is also quite different from the conquest of Iraq.
Britain won WW1, which was effectively a war over absolutely nothing. British and French generals sent millions of soldiers to their deaths charging at machine gun emplacements in the trenches. Are you going to tell me their lives weren’t wasted because we won a pointless war? The wastage of life has nothing to do with victory or defeat, but whether the war is just. And even if a war is just, you can still question the mismanagement of officials who send thousands of young soldiers or innocent civilians to their graves.
Britain won WW1, which was effectively a war over absolutely nothing…Are you going to tell me their lives weren’t wasted because we won a pointless war? The wastage of life has nothing to do with victory or defeat, but whether the war is just.
The dead of WWI were wasted because nobody won WWI. Had democracy been imposed on Berlin in 1918, their sacrifices would have forestalled a monumentally worse catastrophe, not to mention a Holocaust.
I agree with you, though, about loss of life and just war. You seem to apply the metric of “essentially defensive” in justifying WWII – forgetting, apparently, that those were not Messerschmidts that bombed Pearl Harbor, but Japanese Zeros. And while it’s true that a Saddam Hussein or an Ayatollah Khameini knows better than to openly declare war on the U.S. in the wake of an Islamist raid on our shores, it shouldn’t have escaped anyone’s attention that the U.S. had already been involved in a long-simmering, often-violent showdown with Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea over the issue(s) of unconventional weapons and international terrorism.
That cold war turned hot on 9/11, though the leaders of these hostile regimes may not have decided the date and even rued its appearance. They ought to have known that a decisive conflict with the U.S. was inevitable, given the volatile mix of aggressive policies they long maintained toward us. Now they’ve got it.
You and I can disagree about the “essentially defensive” nature of campaigns directed at governments that have long professed open hostility to the United States, plotted against and killed its citizens abroad, harbored anti-American terrorists of many stripes, and repeatedly demonstrated the most chilling contempt for the NPT. In the wake of 9/11, I’d argue that we can safely call actions against these regimes “essentially defensive.”
The dead of WWI were wasted because nobody won WWI. Had democracy been imposed on Berlin in 1918, their sacrifices would have forestalled a monumentally worse catastrophe, not to mention a Holocaust.
If I’m not mistaken Germany was a democracy post WWI and Hitler and the Nazi’s were elected.
If I’m not mistaken Germany was a democracy post WWI and Hitler and the Nazi’s were elected.
You’re mistaken. The “election” of Hitler is a gross, misleading oversimplification. The National Socialists could never muster more than 37 percent of the national vote – Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg, who was only in pursuit of a craven political coalition with the Nazis. As chancellor, Hitler quickly bullied the Reichstag (almost literally at gunpoint) into passing the Enabling Act that imbued him with dictatorial powers.
But even if I ceded your point – which I don’t – it wouldn’t change the fact that Hitler’s election would only have been the result of the continued appeal of militarist/chauvinist German nationalism. Had this “ism” been soundly crushed in 1918 as opposed to 1945, we’d be looking at a far different world today.
And even if a war is just, you can still question the mismanagement of officials who send thousands of young soldiers or innocent civilians to their graves.
I agree wholeheartedly. Right now, our chief error in Iraq is that our leaders won’t concede the need for more troops (50,000 more or so, according to Sen. McCain earlier today). The real tragedy of our marines in Fallujah will be if the city slips yet again into the control of the insurgents, due to a simple lack of U.S. manpower.
The dead of WWI were wasted because nobody won WWI. Had democracy been imposed on Berlin in 1918, their sacrifices would have forestalled a monumentally worse catastrophe, not to mention a Holocaust.
If World War I had never happened, and the Versailles treaty never imposed, it would have had a more averting effect than anything else you could propose. The dead of World War I were therefore wasted whatever the outcome.
I agree with you, though, about loss of life and just war. You seem to apply the metric of “essentially defensive” in justifying WWII – forgetting, apparently, that those were not Messerschmidts that bombed Pearl Harbor, but Japanese Zeros.
You are confusing me with Anders. I said nothing of an “essentially defensive” war.
You and I can disagree about the “essentially defensive” nature of campaigns directed at governments that have long professed open hostility to the United States, plotted against and killed its citizens abroad, harbored anti-American terrorists of many stripes, and repeatedly demonstrated the most chilling contempt for the NPT. In the wake of 9/11, I’d argue that we can safely call actions against these regimes “essentially defensive.”
While 9/11 was a tragedy, the number of victims pale compared to those of the regimes propped up by the CIA. If you are going to justify the invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with an act that killed thousands of your countrymen, then you are justifying attacks on America for its support of regimes like the Shah of Iran, General Pinochet of Chile, and Baby and Papa “Doc” Duvalier of Haiti. In fact given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 you could use your argument to justify these countries attacking anyone who has recently annoyed them, and then say “well they knew it was coming and it doesn’t really matter who we attack as they are all the same.”
Right right, but it was a democratic nation post WWI and the Nazis did win numerous seats in the Reichstag that allowed them to make that powerplay.
Your assertion above implied that ‘if only there was a democracy’ which there was.
Yeah, Weimar germany is the famous cautionary tale against democracy, remember?
Things worked out badly because of the punitive, possibly great depression-causing postwar reparations and the great depression.
Now, the war being so pointless brought down the German government and ended up giving them a democracy. I have a hard time picturing how democracy-through-direct British occupation would have changed anything.
…Hitler’s election would only have been the result of the continued appeal of militarist/chauvinist German nationalism.
For some reason everyone thinks WW1 was entirely due to german crackpot nationalism. Not true; the French were quite possibly even more nuts for the war, and the British were only a half-step behind.
While 9/11 was a tragedy, the number of victims pale compared to those of the regimes propped up by the CIA…you are justifying attacks on America for its support of regimes like the Shah of Iran, General Pinochet of Chile, and Baby and Papa “Doc” Duvalier of Haiti.
Ah yes, the “America is only now getting what it’s long dealt to others” school of logic. This school is noteworthy for its glib moral equivalization – as if support for Pinochet in 1973 meant that innocents from 80 nations should rightly die in the Twin Towers in 2001. (Or, as the equivalizers would insist, it would not be right, but expected and hardly worth complaining about, given the balance of accounts.)
In the meantime, the moral equivalizers are quick to dismiss the fact of a united European continent whose peace and prosperity was bought and guaranteed by American exertion; an expansionist Soviet superpower brought to heel by the sustained containment and engagement of America; an annual total of foreign aid to the Third World that dwarfs the contributions of all other nations combined; and every other good that the U.S. has done for the world, which, when weighed in balance with the missteps of Pinochets and Duvaliers, paint a fairer picture of what America “deserves.”
Within the context of current affairs, this school is equally noteworthy for its casual dismissal of American efforts (often unilateral) to end the slaughters of Muslims in places like Lebanon and Serbia (both places where we defended Muslims from rampaging Christians), not to mention the liberation of Kuwait, a decades-long defense of Arabia from Arab and Muslim enemies in Iraq and Iran, and the small matter of tens of billions in economic aid to Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine.
In fact given that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 you could use your argument to justify these countries attacking anyone who has recently annoyed them, and then say “well they knew it was coming and it doesn’t really matter who we attack as they are all the same.”
If that’s all you have to say about it, then it’s clear you don’t understand my argument. “It doesn’t really matter who we attack as they are all the same”? Please. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Syria. They are five. (Saudi Arabia qualifies as a phantom sixth, despite the reassurances of the royal family.) Their “connection” to 9/11 is that 9/11 was the ultimate and inevitable result of their decades-long policies of supporting and directing international terrorism, targeting and killing Americans abroad, promulgating violently anti-American propaganda, and nurturing the rise of Islamist terror in order to direct their societies’ discontents outward as opposed to internally – mixing all of these policies with a potentially apocalyptic contempt for the NPT.
Dan, did you fall down the stairs this morning? Why are you interpreting contextual criticisms as “we deserved it?”
Ah yes, the “America is only now getting what it’s long dealt to others” school of logic. This school is noteworthy for its glib moral equivalization – as if support for Pinochet in 1973 meant that innocents from 80 nations should rightly die in the Twin Towers in 2001. (Or, as the equivalizers would insist, it would not be right, but expected and hardly worth complaining about, given the balance of accounts.)
Oh no, Dan, don’t you go inserting your straw man arguments again. I did not say that the actions of the CIA justified the 9/11 attack, or that America got what was coming to it. I said that by your argument you could justify attacks upon America because of the CIA’s support for terrorists and death dealing despots. You think that because there is evidence for Iraq supporting some terrorists, that this is justification for invading the country because of an attack by some other completely unrelated terrorists. You can’t say that I think the 9/11 attacks are justified on that basis because I don’t agree with your argument.
That being said, I can ignore the several paragraphs arguing against my non-argument.
If that’s all you have to say about it, then it’s clear you don’t understand my argument. “It doesn’t really matter who we attack as they are all the same”? Please. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Syria. They are five. (Saudi Arabia qualifies as a phantom sixth, despite the reassurances of the royal family.) Their “connection” to 9/11 is that 9/11 was the ultimate and inevitable result of their decades-long policies of supporting and directing international terrorism, targeting and killing Americans abroad, promulgating violently anti-American propaganda, and nurturing the rise of Islamist terror in order to direct their societies’ discontents outward as opposed to internally – mixing all of these policies with a potentially apocalyptic contempt for the NPT.
First, could you point to the evidence of Iraq “targeting and killing Americans abroad” or “nurturing the rise of Islamist terror in order to direct their societies’ discontents outward”, which are the only two actions that you could even vaguely use to support an invasion based on 9/11? Secondly about the only thing those countries have in common is that they are an annoyance of the US because they don’t accept its hegemony gracefully. They aren’t part of some evil ideological alliance; they didn’t plot together to destroy the twin towers; their actions are no more responsible for it happening than the actions of the CIA, or any Americans in general. Like Bush you are just using an action that caused fear and hatred in the eyes of many Americans to justify a policy of crushing those who baulk at your nation’s position as world superpower.
Yeah, great example of how the victorious side’s war propaganda eventually becomes accepted history. There was no significant European nation before WW1 that was not nationalistic and militaristic – that was Napoleon’s heritage and the fertile soil for the post-WW1 fascist movements across Europe.
While I’m at it I’d also like to point out that Germany had had an elected Reichstag with control over the budget since 1871; that the Reichstag parties were broadly in favor of entering WW1 just like their counterparts in other nations, so Kaiser or no Kaiser didn’t really matter; that today’s governing party, the SPD, had also held the first government after 1918 and had been in the Reichstag since 1871, by which alone one might see that any claims about democracy suddenly falling from the sky by American fiat are at best exaggerated; that Hitler was indeed appointed rather than elected but the man who appointed him (Hindenburg) was a directly, democratically elected president; and that Hindenburg did so only very reluctantly when it seemed that there was no other option for a stable government.
In other words, Daniel Morris is full of shit. Again.
Do you really think the situation is as hopeless as Vietname? The only sensible thing to do is to cut losses and get out? That would save American lives certainly but it would really hurt our reputation to let the situation collapse into anarchy. There’s a difference beween liberating a country for democracy and crushing one for spite. If we manage to get a functioning democracy jumpstarted in Iraq, we are liberators. If we pull out and let chaos ensue then we are going to reinforce the idea the militants can push us around, that we lack the will to fight, and that we are just bullies who leave when things get hot.
Do you really think the situation is as hopeless as Vietnam? The only sensible thing to do is to cut losses and get out? That would save American lives certainly but it would really hurt our reputation to let the situation collapse into anarchy. There’s a difference beween liberating a country for democracy and crushing one for spite. If we manage to get a functioning democracy jumpstarted in Iraq, we are liberators. If we pull out and let chaos ensue then we are going to reinforce the idea the militants can push us around, that we lack the will to fight, and that we are just bullies who leave when things get hot.[/quote]
We haven’t entirely lost yet, but if the Sunnis boycott the elections we’re fucked. Rebellion from here until we leave, with probable civil war following.
the idea the militants can push us around
This is Bushian-stay-the-course-iron-resolution-Texas-Ranger theory. It’s absurd. What, there’s some militants out there who wouldn’t attack us if we stayed, because they’d be soooo impressed by our ability to sacrifice and focus on hopeless odds? This isn’t a B-western. Life isn’t like the movies.
Hijack Day probably wouldn’t have happened if we’d stayed in Somalia. OBL’s strategy of altering American foreign policy by inflicting relatively minor harm that led to his organizing Hijack Day grew out of the American response to Mogadishu.
I disagree. This is basic human psychology. If we reward behavior X, behavior X will be reinforced. Cutting and running from Iraq rewards militant groups reinforces the idea that guerilla terror tactics are effective. Look at the recent spate of hostage beheadings. We rewarded the first beheading with huge media coverage so suddenly imitators popped up everywhere.
First, could you point to the evidence of Iraq “targeting and killing Americans abroad”
You mean, other than sending 17 agents to blow up George H.W. Bush with an RDX-packed Landcruiser during his 1993 trip to Kuwait? How about we start there.
Secondly about the only thing those countries have in common is that they are an annoyance of the US because they don’t accept its hegemony gracefully.
I see – Saddam, Khameini, and Kim are but plucky fighters against American empire. The notion is comical and horrific. Iran’s mullahs routinely deploy thugs to violently disperse pro-reform demonstrations in Tehran. Saddam’s reign accounted for at least 100,000 dead just since 1991. Kim’s citizens (if they can even be called that, since they are essentially his hostages) face the world’s highest rate of starvation.
What these countries sincerely have in common (besides their internal atrocities) is that they are the world’s most dangerous failed states, ruled by militaristic regimes that accurately view the U.S. as the major obstacle to their plans for acquiring the means of nuclear and biological devastation.
One wonders how many Iranians pray for a little American “hegemony” to come their way. (Actually, one needn’t wonder.)
They aren’t part of some evil ideological alliance; they didn’t plot together to destroy the twin towers; their actions are no more responsible for it happening than the actions of the CIA
You seem willfully to miss the forest for the trees. Between the nations I’ve listed, we can account for embassy invasions, barracks bombings, and the flattening of cultural centers in Buenos Aires; support for transnational terrorist camps in Libya and the Bekaa Valley; funds wired through government accounts in Riyadh and Tehran; Abu Nidal’s retirement home within sight of the 707 “hijack model” on the tarmac at Salman Pak in Baghdad; suicide bombers recruited and armed by Iran’s Hizbollah network.
All these things culminated in the attacks of 9/11. No dictator knew the date was coming, and may well have cursed bin Laden for finally overstepping “the line,” but there can be no mistaking that the conflict now facing Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and potentially Saudi Arabia was the inexorable conclusion of decades-long policies of support, financing, and open direction of anti-American terror.
As far as ideological alliances are concerned, one would find little in common between the Nazi ideology of Aryan racial superiority and the Japanese ideology of equally racist imperial supremacy – in fact, one could point out that the ideologies were incompatible and diametrically opposed – and yet those two regimes found common cause and alliance in a common enemy, namely the United States. We think of that Axis today as a unified alliance, when in fact it was only a convenient (and, I might add, uncoordinated) front against the implacable enemy of their mutual extremism – America. We see the same kind of uncoordinated extremist front today.
I know it’s the study is problematic. You don’t have to post that. Just thought that the figure you used looked pretty familiar and we got there so much faster! Damn, we did it in just under 2 years!
brian
[quote=“Nick_Walter”]
I disagree. This is basic human psychology. If we reward behavior X, behavior X will be reinforced. Cutting and running from Iraq rewards militant groups reinforces the idea that guerilla terror tactics are effective. Look at the recent spate of hostage beheadings. We rewarded the first beheading with huge media coverage so suddenly imitators popped up everywhere.[/quote]
Wow, pop psychology and war:
Did you know that intermittant rewards are far more effective than constant rewards? So blah blah blah something something…
Those beheadings weren’t even FOR us, and they were on the Internet.
The insurgents want us out of the country, and to that end they want to turn the citizens of the country against the US.
Saddam used “brutal attacks against his own people ™” because they knew that would let him hold power against a people who ultimately want to control their own destiny… Looks like we’re doing the same thing.