There was some discussion a while ago on this blog about whether the actions and rhetoric of the Iranian regime really represent a genocidal threat to Israel. This article by Kenneth L. Marcus makes a compelling case that they do.
ZOMBIE CONTENTIONS
inferis blogere quam dissimulari cœli
Comments 76
Very useful and bracing piece, Peter, if not exactly Xmasy!
The only argument I would add to it is that we can ask the question if Ahmadinejad’s speech and actions are not those of a would-be genocide, what would the “real thing” be doing differently? If there’s no identifiable difference, then don’t we have to curb Ahmadinejad anyway – as an example to others before the world? Or at least wouldn’t we be justified in doing so – in the same way we’d be justified in disarming a madman waving a gun without knowing for sure that the gun was loaded?
December 25th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear capability and has gone out of its way to get the world to impose sanctions against it. Iran is fully aware of the fact that Israel–and even the United States–may consider a preemptive strike against it. Iran doesn’t care. Iran apparently feels that what it is doing is worth any risk.
As I have said before, Iran does not share a border with Israel. Iran has never been a pro-Arab country. Shiites do not like Sunnis, and the Palestinians are Sunnis. Iran has never, and would never, do anything to raise the living standards of Palestinians living in refugee camps. The only reason that Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah is that they are all united in a struggle against Israel’s existence.
Unmotivated hatred is the hardest form of hatred to fight. It is the most sincere and most dangerous form of hatred. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews was totally unmotivated and extremely counter-productive, since most of the world’s atomic scientists lived in Germany or in Axis countries, and most of them were Jews. Enrico Fermi, who lived in Italy and wasn’t a Jew, fled to the United States with his Jewish wife after Hitler’s Nuremburg Laws were adopted by Mussolini.
Hitler and Ahmadinejad may be very different from each other in many ways, but both are dominated by an unmotivated hatred.
The world tends to dismiss the danger of unmotivated hatred since it makes no sense. We must learn to recognize that sense is irrelevant, and that nothing is more dangerous than this idiotic variety of hatred.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:34 am
George, it’s interesting that you point out that “the world tends to dismiss the danger of unmotivated hatred since it makes no sense.” The Rwandans who talked to
MarcusSmall did not dismiss it, because they are in a position to know that even if it makes no sense, it is real.December 25th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Good to see you back Peter; but I have to say that the article is, in my opinion, the precise sort of academic gas that puts rational people in grave danger in this strange world of ours. It leads ineluctably to the comment that will almost surely soon appear here arguing that Achmedinejad didn’t really mean it, that he really isn’t in charge, etc., etc., etc.
When someone credibly threatens you in a civilized society setting you call the police and rely on the courts unless the threat is so imminent that you have to take personal action. You do that because there is a police force and a judicial system that has overriding responsibility and because you trust that authority to act in accord with well understood rules that pertain to everybody more or less equally.
The international system lacks an overriding authority, clear rules and any evidence of ability to treat everybody equally. It is a jungle.
In the jungle you get him before he can get you the moment you become convinced that he has the ability to carry out his threat. Every person possessed of both good will and common sense in the world knows in his heart that Israel is morally free to take whatever action it feels necessary to eliminate the threat. The others will not be convinced by academic arguments that serve only to deaden the self preservation impulse that screams for prompt and decisive action to discourage folks like Achmedinejad.
Marcus is a very smart, very moral, well meaning anesthetist.
Israel should have put a smart bomb on Achmedinejad’s house the day after he made the naked threat.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:53 am
It’s pretty solid that Ahmedinejad has made statements that are genocidal threats, as the linked analysis shows, less obvious that Iran has the ability and/or intention to follow the statements with action.
December 25th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
@ fuster:
The obvious reply is that if we wait for Iran to have both the ability and the intention, it’s too late.
If we are facing a prospect of genocide, any meaningful action against it is always going to be “pre-emptive” in some regard.
December 25th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
It’s not hard to understand that pre-emptive action becomes not only justified, but also desirable.
The harder part is finding the strength to act at the proper time and the wisdom to find semi-decent means to keep that time from arriving.
December 25th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
What part of Buenos Aires (AMIA, Israeli Embassy, Vienn (Quassemlou), both ofwhich Defense Minister Vahidi participated it, detract from that analysis
December 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
No part.
What does it show other than terrorism and murderousness?
That stuff shows about as much as Iran’s ordering Hezbollah to blow up our marines in Lebanon.
December 25th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Why would you kill people two continents away, why would you risk a diplomatic incident in the middle of a negotiation. It indicates a ruthlessness and total lack of restraint, that we sadly are abiding by. They multi task by the way, Feridoun Nezhi Nezhad, according to Baer, was not only the link on the Beirut kidnapping, and the Buenos Aires operation, but one of the contacts on the Iran initiatives as the Australian
December 25th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
@ narciso:
narc, the question isn’t whether they’re willing to use murderous violence and it’s not whether they’re nice people.
But your examples don’t indicate a total lack of restraint and I don’t think that you can make a case for it.
I believe that they are about as ruthless as hell, but they’re restrained by the limits of what they can accomplish without sacrificing their regime.
December 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Having actually read the piece, I don’t sense any such equivocation in Marcus, he does dismantle some of the pretenses of objectivity from the likes of Benesch(Elaine?) and co, which echo in thisadministration’ high councils. Which is why for many reasons it was a horrible gamble to even entertain their accession to power, much less actually go through with it. It’s a sobering companion piece to Kupperman
December 25th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
@ fuster:
Perhaps – or not to fritter away precious time while ignoring if not undermining Iranian resistance to the regime. We won’t know until we know. For now the stronger the Iranian resistance, or the weaker the regime, looks, the closer Obama’s limp policy looks to being rescued despite itself, but, especially in the event of failure, the more compelling the what-might-have-beens.
Whatever else you want to say on behalf of the Bamsters, they have not put the U.S. out front and unambiguously on the protesters’ side – unlike, say, Reagan and Solidarity. Instead, they’ve pursued a strategy of avoiding identification with the resistance and erring on the side of forgiving and minimizing the regime’s rejection of U.S. gestures and demands. If that’s not the Obama strategy, they’ve done little to combat the perception, which in the world of public diplomacy is virtually the same as the supposed substance.
We’re committed to “bearing witness,” to use the Prez’s favorite phrase, which at a certain point isn’t that much different from watching a crime (or two crimes) unfold without doing anything well within your power to stop it.
December 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
Charles Krauthammer has eloquently made a related point here.
December 25th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
Yah, sure, Obama’s gang has done really, really badly in dealing with the Iranians,
really badly.
uh-huh.
If only Officer John Bolton was out there speaking for America….
December 25th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
@ fuster:
That all ya got?
December 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
“Ethel the Frog” only has a few notes, often in contradiction to each other, to the tragic suppression of hope to the opposition, which is out of context with 1907, 1953 and 1978-79,
nothing is really offered, but weak jibes. I’m beginning to remember why the original Contentions comment section was sometimes
a drudge, not CK or some of the other mainstays
December 25th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
What’s there to argue over? Your criticism is worse than dumb, it’s simply silly.
Iran has lost every round in the last year and you’re bitching that we’re not gloating.
December 25th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
It may be eloquent but it’s not very substantial.
After opening with the assertion that the year was wasted, an obvious absurdity given that the last year was the worst one that the Iranian regime has had in the last decade, Krauthammer has nothing to offer except the complaint that this administration hasn’t been vocal in denouncing the Iranians.
it’s important that we do so because it’s not really clear whether or not the US and the Iranian governments are close allies or just good friends.
The only action that Charlie mentions (for non-bombers) is a boycott of imports on gasoline. Interestingly that’s the very same idea that the Obama administration has been putting about and that this very same administration has been working, over the last year, to get the world to put into practice.
Getting the Security Council to be along with this was, a year ago, impossible.
December 25th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
As I have written before, my students at Hebei University in 1989 kept asking me, “Why doesn’t President Bush say anything?” I assume G.H.W. Bush believed, as Eisenhower did, that democracy was not possible outside of Europe and America and would lead to instability. I don’t think Obama believes this. Yet Obama and Old Bush are behaving in exactly the same way.
Anything an American President says gets heard everywhere in the world (with the possible exception of North Korea). Old Bush lost a precious moment then, and Obama is doing so today. It is not too late in the case of Iran. Obama should tell the Iramians that they don’t have to die and destroy their country for the sake of fighting a pointless war. He should tell Iran and the world that democracy means strength, stability, creativity, and wealth. Somehow, however, I’m not holding my breath.
December 25th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
fuster wrote:
No, you have that exactly backwards. The assertion is that this year was wasted precisely because the Iranian regime was vulnerable. Instead of exploiting that vulnerability and using it either to help the resistance or gain concessions on the nuclear program, or both, Ø stuck to the traditional, and traditionally non-productive “engagement” strategy that the left always finds preferable with avowed US enemies (USSR, Iran, Iraq) but morally intolerable with everyone else (South Africa, South Korea, and the Phillipines, et al, during the Cold War). Of course there are borderline cases: It’s OK to make deals with Saudia Arabia, for instance, when we have a Democratic Witness-in-Chief. When it’s a Republican, it’s immoral in the extreme.
A blindly and misleadingly (look out for that chair!) reductive view of Krauthammer’s position. Taken on its own terms, however, even your characterization simply reflects your belief that vocal denunciations from our Witness-in-Chief would have been unimportant. History suggests otherwise – not that presidents can all by themselves blow the walls down, but that they can be hepful to dissidents and at crucial moments contribute meaningfully to the dissidents’ cause.
December 25th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
He sent the Nowrouz letter, that acknowledged the legitimacy of the IslamicRepublic and MahmoudAhmadinejad’s right to pursue nuclear power, set no preconditions for negotiations he was strongly against any sanctions even after the Qoum facility had been revealed,which angered Brown and Sarkozy he pretended not to acknowledge the nature of the stolen election, and the level of repression, he gave Ahmadinejad an open stage
in NY, to slander Israel and the US, under the pretext of the unique evil that is further Israeli settlements now we’re starting to move toward steps that should have evident a year ago
December 25th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
@ narciso:
There you go confusing us with facts again.
December 25th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
I understand the absurdity of Charlie pretty well.
The idea that we could have gotten more than we did is nothing other than a complaint.
What could we have gotten? How would it have been obtained? What instant gratification was available?
It’s a hollow cry.
This other nonsense about the importance of denouncing Iran, or rather the assertion that anyone thinks that it’s unimportant to make manifest that the US is opposed to their regime, remains idiocy.
There’s no doubt about the way we view the Iranian government. The Iranian fanatics have no doubt, why do you?
December 25th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I know I’ll have to give facts for the new year, much like “Ethel the Frog” has. btw, why have at least two main posts and three Wall posts have ended up in limbo, while “Mr. Anchovy”
effusions keep cluttering up the board
December 25th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
When he was a tadpole, he would have regarded this indifference or even tacit support as ‘constructive engagement’ and immoral. Hence the allusions to Guatemala and South Africa in that Wall post. This administration has shown more contempt toward allied regimes in Honduras and Afghanistan than foes like Chavez’s clique
in Venezuela, or Iran
December 25th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Well, we don’t know, because we didn’t try. For a few days last Spring, it looked almost as though the regime was teetering. Maybe a few more dissidents would have been set free instead of being tortured to death. Maybe we could have shamed our allies into action. Maybe we could have re-asserted the military threat – ours or Israel’s – with much greater credibility.
There’s no absolute science to this. You seem to be holding out hope that the regime is vulnerable – otherwise, what difference does it make whether the regime had a “good” year or a “bad” year politically? Maybe it had a great year in terms of proving it could get away with anything, that it had the will to put down demonstrations, and that it could sustain its rule despite opposition.
Or maybe things will turn out for the best after all. If they do, it’ll have near-zero to do with anything the Obama Administration did or didn’t do.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Surely all a coincidence.
The last six years everything went right for them, so they were due for a bad year.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
It’s rubiks cube logic, the way to show that a regime is vulnerable, to not only acknowledge it’s non existent legitimacy, but to repeat it’s slanderous claims, against Israel and the US
December 25th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
@ narciso:
If I thought that this administration was offering anything approaching support for the Iranian regime, I’d be disgusted.
The Iranians have got to change or go.
I worry that they’ll be wise enough to change sometimes, but am usually reassured by the thought that they’re too fouled-up to make enough of an effort before it’s too late.
Ck’s correct in thinking that I think that they’re vulnerable. They are. They’ll topple.
There’ll still be a lot of mess that they’ll be leaving behind.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I give up, I might as well be speaking Sanskrit
or Romulan, and I’m rusty on both
December 25th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
That Krauthammer’s a smart cookie.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Am trying to determine why comments seem to be disappearing from this thread. I’m not sure if Peter (or someone else!) is actively deleting them. You may consider this a test.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
[Comments restored - apologies for the disruption - still looking into the matter]
December 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
For a while there, I thought they were using equipment from the USS Eldridge
December 25th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
@ fuster:
They had a scheduled election. It was always going to be a time of vulnerability – all elections are miniature succession crises. That’s why we always puff out our chests every four years over the peaceful transfer of power. Its proximity to the U.S. election as well as to the onset of the economic crisis and collapse in oil prices also were part of the conjuncture. The notion that Obama policy per se had any more than marginal impact on the proceedings during the lead-up, and any positive impact after the stolen elections is what’s absurd. It would be easier to believe – though unproven and to my knowledge not even investigated – that the Iranian regime was encouraged to think from Obama’s election, his announced policy, and his distraction and inexperience that they could get away with the necessary fraud and suppression. They may have been surprised by the ability of the movement to mobilize and gain international support, but, again the only reason to believe that Ø had anything to do with it is wishful thinking, and you’d be arguing that side if by some miracle McCain-Palin had won and roughly similar events had transpired.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
@fuster: I don’t know why you think they’ll “topple” without a major military shove from outside. They’ve suppressed or contained the opposition and expanded their international presence . No doubt their progress hasn’t been a straight line but it’s been pretty impressive. If they were a stock I’d consider them a better than average long investment opportunity – savvy enough management, a history of attracting bailouts, a pretty good risk/reward calculus and a wall of worry that keeps them comparatively sober. Not a value stock to be sure, and already enjoying a healthy PE ratio, but well on their way to consolidating market share. Some people already think they’re too big to fail. I’d like to be a fly on the wall of their M&A department.
Not to make light of this. Most admit they’re up to no good, so the degree of their actual malevolence is critical. I have no doubt that the Iranian regime is, inter alia, at least as anti-Semitic as the Arab ones that fought multiple wars with Israel, and has the added impetus that it is competing with Sunni Muslim eliminationists to establish bragging rights. Lobbing a nuke at Tel Aviv may be a bridge too far while there are others to perform the ritual slaughter by a thousand cuts instead – why waste all that street cred in one risky swoop – but the long term goal is the same.
So I say stave in the structure and hope for a run on the bank. Whoever’s air force takes the trouble to fly over there would be foolish to settle for pennies.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Seth, get someone to look at their books before you buy in.
Their economy sucked wind while oil was at $100/barrel.
The only way that gas was affordable to the population was through government subsidy.
Their money-makers are all government controlled and doled out to the families of regime insiders or to the Ayatollahs private accounts or his private armies.
They’ve few worthwhile jobs, and most people under thirty are unemployed or underemployed. And there are a hell of a lot of people under thirty.
We can do our toppling with a few more nice sanctions and some steady, quiet subversion.
December 26th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
@fuster: Didn’t they teach you about metaphors and and analogies in high school?
Or are you suggesting that a ruthless kleptocracy that has successfully defied its enemies for thirty years will, with a deft flick of the pruner, fall like rotten fruit? (That’s a simile, too, btw.) Even the USSR lasted more than twice as long despite stronger-willed opponents than us.
December 27th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Edit function isn’t working. “…stronger-willed if not cleverer opponents.”
December 27th, 2009 at 7:48 am
One would feel better if this administration even gave the impression of acknowledging
the problem; ie; not cutting off the funding
to the monitoring of human rights abuses in Iran. Not appointing to the NSC, a lobbyist for NIAC, accomodationist to the regime
December 27th, 2009 at 8:19 am
@ Seth Halpern:
Actually, Seth I thought that we were the opponents and that the Soviets lasted as long as they did due to advantages that the Iranians don’t have.
There’s little possibility of the theocracy lasting seventy years unless it changes more than it seems capable of doing.
Every day they’re going to get another kick in the prunes.
December 27th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Well let’s consider the parallel, thirty years after the Russian Revolution, we had in ignorance of the Riga axioms, recognized it for half that period. That granted diplomatic legitimacy to an unjust regime, with little practical benefit, this was not longer after they had played a not so insignificant role in undermining the social democrats in Germany, paving the way for the Nazis to take power
December 27th, 2009 at 8:35 am
@fuster:
The rulers of the USSR wanted to live. They had rational motives. They cared about their country. That’s why MAD (mutually-assured destruction) worked during the Cold War.
The rulers of Iran don’t care whether they live or die. They want to do what they feel is virtuous, killing Jews. They don’t care what happens to the Iranians. They are doing what Hitler did when, in 1944, he gave priority to the use of trains for transporting Jews to Auschwitz rather than supplying his soldiers.
Iran’s rulers are utterly unaware of the fact that Iran has no quarrel with Israel. Iran’s rulers care even less about the lives and future of the Palestinians than they care about the fate of Iranians. Nothing is more dangerous than selfless, unmotivated hatred.
December 27th, 2009 at 8:37 am
@ George Jochnowitz:
George, the people of Iran want to live and the rulers of Iran don’t have anywhere near as firm a grip on the populace that the Soviet rulers had.
As you’ve noted many times, the people of Iran don’t have reason to hate Israelis. They’ll choose life for Iranian children ahead of death for the children of Israel unless and until Israel starts bombing Iran.
December 27th, 2009 at 8:45 am
@ George Jochnowitz:
“The rulers of Iran don’t care whether they live or die.”
About this I wonder. I think it more likely that the rullers of Iran don’t feel personally threatened as they observe the rulers of Israel and the West in general tie themselves in “ethical” knots. It is altogether possible that the rulers of Iran judge Israel and the West as incapable even of reprisal for an unprovoked attack. Swimming in the sea of their own innocent population they feel invulnerable.
This is why I believe it important that such as Achmedinejad be shown that personal actions and even threats have the potential for drawing personal and familial consequences.
December 27th, 2009 at 8:48 am
“The rulers of Iran” is an abstraction. They no doubt cover some range between psychotically zealous and zealous but functional – subject to normal human motivations. The more that the country seems on a psychotically self-destructive course, the greater their vulnerability both internally and externally: Even in Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler was subject to assassination attempts, and high officials sought to protect themselves from destruction. Even among the most fanatically anti-Israeli cadres, there will be choices between more and less costly or risky ways of achieving their main goals.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am
@fuster: A half-civilized Germany could have dismembered the USSR, such were the latter’s ethnic discontents.
Repressive regimes collapse for two primary reasons: Onslaught from without and ruling class demoralization, self-mortification and ultimate suicide within. Iran faces only the most hypothetical threat of the former and only impressionistic indications of the latter. And success abroad usually trumps grumbling at home. What you suggest would do little to contain, let alone reverse that success.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:51 am
@ CK MacLeod:
“Even in Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler was subject to assassination attempts, and high officials sought to protect themselves from destruction. ”
If I recall my history correctly that man’s popularity was greatest when he was making successful bets on the unwillingness of Britain, France and the rest of Europe to take action. and his popularity begain to wain only after he was opposed by the rest of the world.
There is a meme out there that Achmedinejad is speaking only for himself or a relatively small cadre of radicals; but in the recent election he did actually draw a substantial, if not majority, of the vote. A very large minority, at least, in Iran approves of his threats and bluster. And, a significant additional minority must not care deeply about what is threatened in their name, or else the regime would not survive.
December 27th, 2009 at 10:49 am
And I actually wonder whether Israel would respond promptly and proportionately to an attack on Tel Aviv that kills a couple of hundred thousand or half a million people, knowing as it’s leaders would, that the global news meme would soon be “look at all the poor innocent Iranians killed despite having nothing to do with the attack on Tel Aviv by that madman Achmedinejad.”
December 27th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Sully wrote:
I think they’d respond immediately and disproportionately (measured on an absolute scale anyway). I think they’d go Old Testament on the seats of Persian civilization while in the process of eradicating Iranian military, economic, and political power – and with justification.
What’s more, I think the Iranians and everyone else assume that they would, which is one major reason why it’s unlikely to happen, and why, though I believe that our stopping Iran and, almost as important, our being seen to have stopped Iran would be in the American interest and the world’s interest, I’m not quite as pessimistic about dealing with a nuclear Iran as some of our friends.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:06 am
They would more than likely launch first to prevent that circumstance, as a recent Foreign Policy commentary
December 27th, 2009 at 11:10 am
@ CK MacLeod:
with justification
No argument from me on that; but I really do wonder what they would do, and I’m certain that at least some in the room would talk morality and proportionality, so I have to think that at least some Iranians wonder as well.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am
@ narciso:
“Launch first” is a tricky proposition if you have less than perfect intelligence, and if Iran develops, as it seems to be attempting to develop, its own “launch on warning” and “counterstrike” capabilities, not to mention “unconventional” delivery methods.
The only real “launch first” for the Israelis may be pre-emption.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:19 am
@ CK MacLeod:
We found something on which to agree!!
December 27th, 2009 at 11:48 am
@ fuster:
Perhaps you’ll notice, though, that the continued credibility of Israeli deterrence is essential. The same basic formula applies to many other confrontations in the world – and the danger often increases where it doesn’t.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:52 am
@ CK MacLeod:
Perhaps you’ll allow me to point out that the Israelis and the Americans live in vastly different circumstances.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I seem to recall several prominent Israelis (including the current UN Ambassador?) speculating that if Iran nuked up, a lot of their countrymen would pack their bags and take the next flight out. That’s Jewish deterrence?
December 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
@ Seth Halpern:
That’s a fear that’s been attributed to the circles around Netanyahu, but deterrence would last well into an anticipatory evacuation. It wouldn’t be the first appearance of Israeli declinism of the sort that was said to be spreading prior to 1967 especially – the sense that the Zionist experiment was doomed and failing. Combating it might be difficult in the aftermath of a failure to stop Iran, a loss of faith in US security guarantees, the failure of an anti-Iran coalition rising up to replace the more familiar Israel rejectionist coalition, and the further consolidation of gains by the latter through Hezbollah, Hamas, and others.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
@ fuster:
You’re permitted to point out whatever you like – as long you point civilly – but I don’t get the point of your point.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
My good Tsar, most beloved, respected and feared, in my insignificance and imbecility I would suggest that you consider that I, most humbly, presumed to suggest that Israel is a small nation surrounded and must present a tireless fearsomeness to impress would-be enemies.
The US is vastly the most powerful nation on the planet and its capacity to overwhelm opposition is manifest and doesn’t require any more than a hint.
We are restrained only by ourselves and our calculations of what is best done.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Sure, amphi-worm, “ourselves and our calculations” are a major restraint: Without will and direction, all our weaponry is just a big, very expensive to maintain collection of toys and antiques, and potentially as great a danger to ourselves as to our adversaries. We seem to have been struggling very hard to convince ourselves and the world that we are unable or unwilling to sustain any effort if presented with the prospect of significant costs and casualties – “significant” having been defined down ever lower.
December 27th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
40,000 + casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq.
and we’re irresolute? as we massively reinforce in Afghanistan?
December 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
You’re either using a broad definition of casualty or you stole someone else’s zero.
We’ve likely increased the cost to ourselves, in Iraq and Aghanistan up to this point and going forward in those countries and beyond, by making ourselves appear irresolute. Under Ø, we’ve even gone so far as to make our lack of resolve a central part of our declared intentions.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
killed or wounded isn’t the right definition?
December 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
It’s not, or hasn’t been, the politically important number. When was the last time you heard someone complain about how many American “casualties” were suffered during Vietnam?
Also, not to be argumentative – but the number “wounded” wouldn’t necessarily be the same as the number of “casualties,” since the latter implies “lost to service.”
December 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
eight days ago.
that’s the actual truth.
and I mention it because of how odd it was that you asked the question and that I had such an answer.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
@ fuster:
Fine – I should have asked the question differently. How often do you hear the number of US killed in Vietnam as compared to the number of US wounded or US casualties in Vietnam? Speaking for myself, I’ve heard the first countless times, and I have no good idea what the second and third numbers would be.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
The larger point, and I recognize it, is that the country just doesn’t seem to want to have 50,000 or 100,000 or more dead soldiers.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
200,000 +
but my discussion of eight days past concerned how many soldiers weren’t shot but really mentally damaged.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
@ fuster:
“the country just doesn’t seem to want to have 50,000 or 100,000 or more dead soldiers.”
When did it ever “want to have 50,000 or 100,000 or more dead soldiers”?
After 9/11 the country was quite willing to risk however many soldiers were necessary to send a message to the Taliban and others in the Religion of Peace sphere of the world. And in 2003 the country was willing to send soldiers into harms way to be done with Saddam. And just the other month your man sent a bunch more soldiers to Afghanistan.
What the country typically objects to is wasting soldiers’ lives on half measures or no win forever wars, which is what President Bush made Iraq into. Relatively straightforward mission wars are usually tolerated well by most people even if they involve casualties.
And, nobody is talking about a ground war with lots of casualties in Iran.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
We will find the same problem if we go in with any major force in Yemen, it’s not like we can blow up anything between Aden and Sanaa, as we please. The point that was made about Iraq being
more target rich is true. The same argument obtains for Afghanistan. The objections have faded for Iraq, because the daily body count in down. The media shape the environment in so many ways
December 28th, 2009 at 5:22 am
@ Sully:
I’m agreeing with you ( or vice versa). See the Tsar’s comment @62. That’s the beginning of this.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:43 am
@ narciso:
‘The way to win a war is to make the other poor dumb sumbitch die for his country’
We should never go in with troops on the ground when smart bombs can do the job, which is persuading the average Muslim that ihe should fear us as much or more than he fears his extremist brother in law. A certain amount of collateral damage is actually useful for that purpose. It should, of course, be to a certain extent deniable.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:16 am
True, but George should have known from his experience with Pancho Villa, it is rarely that easy. It is easier to be a insurgent
rather than an invader, the Ewoks to the Naa’vi will agree on that point. So do Francis Marion’s, the anti-Napoleonic guerillas of Spain, and the Wolverines of Central Kansas
December 28th, 2009 at 9:02 am
@ Sully:
Bombs can’t inspire the same level of fear or produce compliance the way that the personal touch can.
Not even remotely.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:26 am