Obama's against 'em, Hillary Clinton's for 'em. Read more about cluster bombs here if you can stomach it.
« Shuster Out | Main | At the Margin »
Cluster Bombs
09 Feb 2008 11:57 am
Comments (52)
What other weapons does Obama oppose? Fuel Air Explosives? Conventional bombs? Chain guns? Might as well know ahead of time. I'm with Powell: score one for Hillary here.
Ha ha. Good one, Robert!
This just shows the moral unseriousness of Hillary Clinton. Yet another reason to vote for Obama.
Inter arma enim silent leges.
There's no clean way to make war. It inevitably gets very, very ugly.
This is one of the reasons it's getting harder and harder for me to pull the lever for Hilliary in November. There are only 2 words that draw me back = Supreme Court.
What other weapons does Obama oppose? Fuel Air Explosives? Conventional bombs? Chain guns? Might as well know ahead of time. I'm with Powell: score one for Hillary here.
This is stupid. Of course there are restrictions placed on the use of inhumane weaponry. We don't use anthrax, we don't use nukes, we don't use napalm, we don't use nerve gas. Cluster bombs, quite reasonably, should be classed among them.
While maybe some people disagree and want to use cluster bombs, immediately rejecting the possibility of placing restrictions on weaponry goes against the practice of this country over its entire history.
But, but, I thought there was no difference between the two on foreign policy...!
Tell me more, Paul Krugman. I'm fascinated.
yeah, robert powell: I mean, the US would be like totally strategically crippled without cluster bombs, or reserving the right to drop nuclear bombs on Pakistan to take out 1 or 2 guys. Those things are important. Militarism is good
That's restore our moral standing in the world!
There's no clean way to make war. It inevitably gets very, very ugly.
Similarly, there's no way to have a society without crimes being committed. Ergo, we should get rid of all laws.
Wait, but I thought that Hillary LOVED children.
Oh, wait, that's right, the Children's Defense Fund broke with the Clinton's when the "reformed" welfare.
It may take a village to raise a child, but it only takes a few politicians like Hillary and Bill to approve the funding to destroy those villages.
Actually, that overstates it. The cluster bombs only blow the legs of the kids in the village. So, technically, that doesn't destroy the village which for legal purposes is defined as a collection of buildings. And, really, the cluster bombs don't destroy the kids either. The cluster bombs just blow their legs and arms off.
It's too bad Hillary isn't as interested in protecting other people's children as she is in protecting her own.
From the link:
Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
That's our girl!
What we're talking about is not the use of cluster bombs, but just their use in civilian areas where they will inflict untold casualties on innocent civilians for years to come.
Greg's post might has the tone of a wise man resigned to reality, but it's really a quick way to shut down a debate about the moral consequences of the way we fight wars.
In fact, how we fight a war is a worthy subject of discussion. And whether or not a particular weapon is moral or immoral, in this or that context, is not a crazy question. It goes to the "nuclear bomb on Al-Queda" question. Hillary was afraid of appearing soft, or, alternatively, she really is too morally obtuse to grasp any concept other than the soundbite "everything stays on the table."
Obama, conversely, gives the smart, sound answer, both on that issue, and the one raised in this post.
A president's power on foreign policy is so much greater than domestic policy. Only one of the candidates will change the direction of our foreign policy.
Wait, but I thought that Hillary LOVED children.
Oh, wait, that's right, the Children's Defense Fund broke with the Clinton's when the "reformed" welfare.
It may take a village to raise a child, but it only takes a few politicians like Hillary and Bill to approve the funding to destroy those villages.
Actually, that overstates it. Legally, a village is defined as a collection of buildings. The cluster bombs that Hillary is for DON'T destroy buildings.
Cluster bombs only blow the arms and legs off the kids who pick them up. And, the more you think about, that isn't "destroying" those kids because the bombs don't kill them - they just maim them. So, I guess, when you think about it, Hillary really does care about kids.
It's too bad Hillary isn't as interested in protecting other people's children as she is in protecting her own.
Interesting...
Considering that Israel totally saturated Southern Lebanon with American cluster-bombs---apparently hoping to permanently expel the local population---did Obama say anything about this at the time, or since?
Or is he only opposed to the *American* use of American cluster-bombs?...
So she's going to win, and she's evil. Thanks Matt, made my day.
You don't get it. None of these actual policy positions matter! Hillary is a good 60's progressive liberal! She is one of us! Let's not bicker over details like her support for wars in Iraq and Iran, her equivocating on torture, support for cluster bombs, and her brave, brave attempts to outlaw flag burning. None of that matters because someone called her a bitch once and Chris Matthews hates her. That is all that really matters.
Inter arma enim silent leges.
In war, law falls silent? Is that really what you believe? Then I guess you're full-bore on your support of the Bush regime of torture, warrantless spying on U.S. citizens, indefinite detainment and suspension of habeas, military tribunals, and all the other meddlesome laws that should just fall silent since we're in the midst of a war.
jbryan - it sounds better in Latin.
Ryan S, one of my major's military history. I've the flu and a secondary bacterial infection that might develop into pneumonia. So my posts this past week and next have necessary limits on them. However, this is the most stimulating thing I've been able to do all week, so I'll write it anyway :)
Let's address this:
"Greg's post might has the tone of a wise man resigned to reality, but it's really a quick way to shut down a debate about the moral consequences of the way we fight wars."
Notice in my original post, there was no one word of support for cluster bombs. I believe they are horrific weapons. Moreover, for the sort of wars we fight, John Paul Vann's dictum still seems most useful: "The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The worst is an airplane. The next worst is artillery. Barring a knife, the best is a rifle — you know who you're killing."
However, one of the primary facets of what Bush idiotically calls terrorism *is* provocation. By this I mean constantly angering the larger power into greater and greater reprisals. These inevitably lead to greater civilian casualties.
But why the need for these greater reprisals? The larger power usually possesses many more well trained soldiers. Well, the larger power is not operating in a vacuum; every time it loses a single man, it faces greater and greater pressure to "do something" and "take care of the problem" - it also faces the demoralizing paradox that Martin van Creveld has noted:
"If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot."
As a result, you have frustrated military leaders looking for any possible way out.
The reason these men are frustrated, as van Creveld and essentially every serious military historian points out, is that they already possess the most effective weapon imaginable. Unfortunately to their minds, that weapon cannot be used. So they turn their heads towards what are, in fact, wonder weapons designed to mimic the ability of nuclear weapons to obliterate the target. Meanwhile, these officers are constrained still again by their own public opinion. Western democracies do not want to feel responsible for deaths of innocents. So these men create devices that will maim, rather than kill, or reduce "collateral damage". The maiming ones are really nasty, but at least those people aren't dead, so wealthy 1st worlders can sleep at night in their A/C houses and in their Sealy posturepedic beds with the Swedish foam pillows. Or better yet, let's get rid of the maiming ones! Let's get a bomb-a-guy that only kills one person at a time! Miracle of miracles? Not really.
I have a little question. Say you have a weapon, like the Israelis do, that essentially evaporates (for want of a better word) everything in a three meter blast radius. Sounds great, right? One of those miracles of miracles? You've just found a way to wipe out John Q. Abdul without any consequences. What thrills, we don't even hurt his kiddies playing in the other room.
Hmm, I have to ask, as the War Nerd did, what the hell are you thinking? Those kids, in the other room. Are they going to thank you? You've just killed their father, who unlike many in the 3rd world, probably has a decent job as a side effect of being a wanted man. And because it's the 3rd world, we're probably talking a lot of kids. Every single one of them, for the rest of their lives, will hate you. Every time you kill, you create implacable enemies. Even worse, if you got the wrong Muhammed H. Smith, you've made enemies of not just his family, but his village, since, hell, they kinda knew old man Abdul was up to no good, but Mr. Smith was just a plain old regular guy.
There is no. way. ever. to minimize collateral damage in the kind of war we're now fighting. We are not fighting the Russians at Fulda Gap. Hell, we're not even fighting the NVA at Khe Sanh. We are fighting a disgusting, dirty, "political" war, that really, is like every other war in human history - with the exception of the last three centuries. It is a war of massacre and counter-massacre.
When you read Caesar, or Tacitus, or Thucydides, or Xenophon, or William of Tyre, or Polybius, or Machiavelli, or Guiccardini, or anyone who has set down to write history, which for much of our past has meant military history, you find that until the end of the Thirty Years War, and even, really, beyond, for every battle there are dozens of sieges, raids, massacres. All of these are horrific atrocities. But even after battles, you hear about how Caesar brought Vercingetorix to Rome for his triumph - and had his opponent strangled at the climax.
How, how can you possibly tell me that engaging in war today will not lead to a break down in what we call these laws of war? Do the insurgents follow the laws of war? No. And guess what? They're *winning*. We call them cowardly and weak. They respond that if you want to fight us, you yourself must become cowardly and weak.
*THIS* is why I cannot stand liberal interventionists or neoconservatives or nationalists or militarists. This is why we should have stayed out of Iraq. Because when you *do* fight that kind of war, you have two choices:
You can act like your dashing manuevering or skillful planning or glorious cavalry charge or honorable duel between armies matters a damn. And you can lose, like every conventional army since 1945 has when up against an unconventional foe (see footnote).
Or you can fight the war you can fight. You use assasination, bribery, and calculated torture while never showing your boots on the ground - or extreme, utter brutality that would make Stalin blanch and Hitler find Jesus. You can become the same as your enemy. Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
Oh, and in addition to that, my friends, you still, in the end, will probably lose.
*note* The two exhaustively-quoted-on-NRO exceptions are Malaya and Kenya. However, Malaya was a success because the Communists were from the minority Chinese population, which meant they could never control the countryside, since the Malayans themselves were more than willing to help the British. Also, the British left IMMEDIATELY after, as they said they would.
Meanwhile, Kenya was a success only after the British used the harshest methods possible - KZ lagers - and even then, they only really beat the Mau Mau by giving Kenya independence and getting the HELL out of East Africa. The current violence in Kenya, moreover, demonstrates the fact of ethnic divisions in Kenya which the British could and did utilize since the Mau Mau were from only one tribe (the Kikuyu if I remember correctly)
(Ps: does anyone know the best type of nonprescription cough syrup? my doctor in NY can't prescribe any of the serious stuff for me, because I go to school in Chicago :( this would be great help!)
PS: jbryan, you asshole, I never said I supported that.
Moreover, it's Cicero, and I think he knows what he's talking about. So fuck yourself with that.
FYI - this amendment was swamped when it was voted on in 2006. Leahy, the chief sponsor, added a scaled-back, but still effective, version of this ban to the FY 2008 Defense Appropriations. That bill passed with every Democrat voting for it (although the Presidentials, including Clinton and Obama were absent on the campaign trail) and the President signing it. I don't think I've seen anyone report that this has subsequently passed into law.
PS: jbryan, you asshole, I never said I supported that.
Then maybe you shouldn't use expressions that encourage precisely such support? Call me an asshole all you like, but you chose your words, not I.
If you bother to read my post, you'd know I'm against the invasion and the occupation, and that it is in the *nature of war* that during a time of war laws will increasingly fall by the roadside as the pressure to end it becomes greater.
Unless you're utterly retarded, you ought to know this isn't the same time as supporting the end of civil liberties, etc.
This is why we shouldn't go to war in the first place, unless we're prepared to suffer the consequences.
PPS: jbryan, I apologize, and I think my large post explains why I used that quote. :(
It's about hegemony, Clinton is for continue to foster the illusion that the US can sustain it's post WWII hegemony, and Obama wants to strike a more conciliatory tone.
As for Robert Powell, anytime an Iraqi child dies, a dollar goes into his pocket. When people say 'gee, I think it's maybe a bad idea to invade other countries for no reason leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands,' Robert Powell's livelihood is threatened and he disingenuously claims that people who object to these policies 'just don't understand things' or have 'forgotten the 90s.'
We understand Powell, we just don't think killing brown people so you get rich is a terrific idea.
Don't you mean "again''em"?
Greg,
No worries. I think your larger post gave a much more informative look at where you're coming from. Hope you find something to help with the illness.
Also, iirc, Clusters were originally for infrastructure strikes against Soviet airstrips.
Is that correct?
So it's pretty disgusting to use something that's designed to rip up concrete against people.
I doubt Obama is against using cluster bombs against massed military targets. I doubt Clinton is for using cluster bombs against dispersed or individual military targets in civilian areas.
But here is the difference: Clinton is afraid the Republicans/Media will pull the quote (which Matt actually does here) about cluster bombs, that that would be spun as weak, or pro-terrorist, and thus says she is for cluster bombs.
Obama also knows the question is dumb, that his "against cluster bombs" will be pulled out of context and used to paint him as weak, pro-terrorist. Obama is not afraid of that (wants to have that conversation during the general) and thus says he is against them.
Obama is the first candidate since, maybe Mondale, that doesn't cringe at the Liberal word or discussion of liberal policies. He doesn't always go all the way (decriminalize marijuana not legalize), but he doesn't run away like Dukakis, Gore, and the Clintons
In the absence chicken soup, I'd prescribe something that's at least 25 percent alcohol, or 86 proof; climb into bed, and knock yourself out. As for who's best suited to lead because of which bombs they favor – I'd say neither. Bombing is a failure of leadership. Period. It's a worthy argument, but I'm sure you'd agree, an esoteric one – in light of what criterion already exists, by which one might determine which candidate would make a better commander in chief. Some bedside reading: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Hillary supports waterboarding as well as other forms of torture. What more do you need to know?
I am assured that there is no difference whatsoever between Obama and Clinton, except that Clinton is better. By pointing out real policy differences Matt is only showing that he is a brainwashed Obamabot, not a rational person who would vote for Hillary.
Greg, if you've got flu and a bacterial infection, over-the-counter stuff won't really do much. Doctors do exist in Chicago, so go see one and see if you need an antibiotic. This "my doctor is in NY so I can't get drugs here" business is silly.
I already have the antibiotics. It's the cough syrup (since it has opiates) that he can't prescribe.
Obama's against 'em, Hillary Clinton's for 'em.
No, Hillary voted against a ban on 'em. In Yglesias-land, to vote against a ban on something is to be "for" that something, is it? Presumably, you would vote against a ban on adultery. May we therefore assume that you're "for" adultery?
If Hillary's critics had more substantive arguments against her, they wouldn't have to resort to this kind of dishonesty and misrepresentation to try and win converts to their position.
No, Hillary voted against a ban on 'em. In Yglesias-land, to vote against a ban on something is to be "for" that something, is it? Presumably, you would vote against a ban on adultery. May we therefore assume that you're "for" adultery?
I don't think the U.S. government should be in the business of regulating private behavior between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. On the other hand, regulating its own weaponry does seem like a task to which the government seems uniquely qualified...
And hilarious to hear Mixner quibbling over semantics. You're the same Mixner that insisted Obama's unqualified "The United States must never torture" as open enough to wiggle room interpretation that we just can't be sure what he means, correct?
There is no. way. ever. to minimize collateral damage in the kind of war we're now fighting. We are not fighting the Russians at Fulda Gap. Hell, we're not even fighting the NVA at Khe Sanh. We are fighting a disgusting, dirty, "political" war, that really, is like every other war in human history - with the exception of the last three centuries. It is a war of massacre and counter-massacre.
YAWN! Don't you have any new material? Just endless repetitions of the same old anti-war drivel we've been hearing for five years?
If you really believed the war is as bad and unjustified as you pretend to believe, you and your fellow travelers wouldn't keep trying to pump up your sense of self-righteousness with this ritualized preaching to the choir.
Mixner is right: Hillary is not "for" cluster bombs, she just didn't do anything against them when given the opportunity. Likewise, it can't be proven that she's "for" the Iraq war, waterboarding, keeping our Cuba policy insane, antagonizing Iran, etc. She just never takes the opportunity to oppose these things. And the duplicitous Obama does. Who does he think he is, anyway?
You're the same Mixner that insisted Obama's unqualified "The United States must never torture" as open enough to wiggle room interpretation that we just can't be sure what he means, correct?
Obama could clear this up quite easily. Why don't you contact his campaign and ask him to publicly promise that as president he would never, ever, EVER, under any possible circumstances, order, authorize or approve the use of torture for any purpose whatsoever, not even to prevent an imminent catastrophe.
Of course, the reason Obama, like all the other candidates, has never made such a promise is that it does not reflect his position. He hides behind ambiguous statements about "policy" and "the United States" to try and fool rubes like you.
I don't think the U.S. government should be in the business of regulating private behavior between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes. On the other hand, regulating its own weaponry does seem like a task to which the government seems uniquely qualified...
I'll hazard a guess that Matthew wouldn't vote for a ban on adultery whether it involved his own body or anyone else's, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
Obama could clear this up quite easily. Why don't you contact his campaign and ask him to publicly promise that as president he would never, ever, EVER, under any possible circumstances...
He said never. I'm not sure changing that to "never ever ever with a cherry on top" really alters the meaning much.
I'll hazard a guess that Matthew wouldn't vote for a ban on adultery whether it involved his own body or anyone else's, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
I'm trying to understand your point here, but I'm failing miserably. I guess I'm too much of a rube. Could you explain how the government's lack of authority to regulate private human interactions ties into the government's complete authority to regulate its own purchase, development, and deployment of its own weapon systems? Thanks much, smart guy.
rant:
Forf@cksakes, cluster bombs are a serious and horrifying problem so let's stop fooling around.
Even if we can dismiss moral idiots like Fred and robert powell out of hand (they're clearly stuck on a childish level of moral development that doesn't allow them to emphasize with persons outside their tribe - it's most likely not their fault but rather a deficiency similar to that exhibited by autists) and even if we consider the amendment in question a tentative step in the right direction, it's clearly not enough to make much of a difference.
It consists of a totally unenforceable promise not to use these weapons near civilians and a weak technical restriction on the weapons themselves (only 1 % dud rate). Israel dropped an estimated 4 million bomblets (supplied by the US) on Lebanon in the recent war, of which 1 million are estimated to have been duds. Even if we could enforce a dud rate of 'only' 1% (I'm leaving aside the promise not to use these weapons near civilians, since I simply cannot see how anybody could make sure were any army would drop their bombs) that still would have resulted in 40.000 unexploded land mines in a country as small as Lebanon.
These mines have a life span of sometimes decades - they're still lying around, maiming and killing people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The same goes for Iraq. 98% of the victims are civilians, often children simply running around the neighbourhood picking up objects. We talk about torture a lot (which is good) but these weapons afflict the physical inviolability of millions of people. Criticizing Clinton for not even having the heart to vote for this tentative and timid amendment is fine, but let's not kid ourselves: the problem is much bigger and the only solution is to consider them banned weapons tout court.
/rant
He said never.
He said "the United States." What does that mean? U.S. law? U.S. policy? U.S. interrogators? Any U.S. government official? If you're not afraid of the answer, or of not getting an answer, why don't you ask him the question I asked.
While you're at it, you might ask him what he means by "torture." There's no consensus as to what the word even really means. It's often defined in terms of "severe pain or suffering." But how severe? What's threshold of severity does the pain need to pass to qualify as torture? Who decides? Good luck getting a clear answer on that from Obama.
Ok, I was totally wrong for going after jbryan before (again, sorry, mate), but *sigh*, Mixner, you asshole, did you not understand anything what I said?
Col. John Boyd said this far better than I could ever hope to, but there are three levels of strategy: moral, mental, and physical. He, according to everyone I know who heard the man speak, would often shout out "IN THAT ORDER!" after listing them.
The sort of precision bombing we engage in to minimize collateral damage is effective on the physical level of strategy - it kills our foes without killing too many bystanders.
This, furthermore, is also effective on the mental level - any rational human being knows that we can potentially put a Hellfire into their bedroom if we can find said room.
However, it is a complete failure on the *moral* level of strategy. I explained why earlier, but I shall do so again, using a quote from the War Nerd:
"So this DIME was born out of the twisted logic of Gaza, where the IDF is trying to kill one or two guys wandering around the most overcrowded stinking ghetto on the planet. Arabs at that, who can't stand to be more than an inch from anybody they're talking to.
So they had a dilemma to deal with: How do you kill Arab (A) without hurting Arab (B)? DIME, that's how! One minute they're all touching each other and yammering at 150 decibels, which is their way of chatting, and suddenly Arab (A) is as gone as Elijah, along with Arab (B)'s arm up to the elbow. But hey, the good part is that aside from that little body-mod, Arab (B) comes out relatively ok. He's just going to have to favor the other arm when he plays ping-pong.
At this point a small smelly Asian guy in a sweaty sheepskin coat at the back of the DoD research-and-development briefing stands up and asks with a shy smile, "Excuse me please, should one not also kill Arab (B) rather than leave him alive to avenge his friend's death? Should one not kill all the children of this beach picnicker rather than let them grow up dreaming of avenging their father?""
The point is that killing the bad guy is never enough. Because, unless he is Ted Kaczynski, unlike in Disney movies and action flicks, the bad guy does not exist in a vacuum. He has a family, he has friends. He also has public opinion. Van Creveld (I keep referencing him because he is *the* best military historian, and I love Mt. Scopus) explains that even if an adult is justified in defending himself against a child who attacked him with a knife, if he keeps beating the child longer, others watching are going to be disgusted. And, in fact, the adult will probably get sent to prison, despite the fact he was not the initial attacker. This is *exactly* what those we seek to attack via "precision bombing" or other boondoggles want. There is no such thing as minimizing collateral damage. Every action we take has a consequence, and if we ever, once, took the time to weigh the consequences of our actions, we'd know that the only way to win in a place like Iraq is to act like the nastiest, most ruthless bastard in town.
Note: that "smelly little Asian guy" is Genghis Khan. And as a disclaimer, I don't share the War Nerd's proclivities for extremely un-pc depictions of Arabs, Asians, etc. At the same time, he's very interesting, and essentially in agreement with guys like van Creveld.
Cluster bombs have been used since the 2nd WW. They are now a standard ordnace option in warfare for artillery, rockets, missiles, gravity bombs. All the major powers have them and have no intent of getting rid of them unless they can hid behind the skirts of a larger military power.
Even nukes use the strategy. A MIRV missile is nothing more than a guided cluster bomb.
But as for Obama - it is naive of him to just favor a mindless ban on their use in civilians areas when we face an enemy that shelters it's tanks, AAA, and soldiers in cities while using civilian neighborhoods to launch rocket and mortar attacks from. Attacking enemy concentrations with cluster bombs is far more accurate and less endangering of civilians - with 2 such JDAMS or MLRS rockets - than with 40 500-lb bombs dropped from a B-52 or 50 105 mm shells. The reason is that clusters are meant to take out people and armor, not buildings. Nor are troops sent into likely ambush to take out rocket and mortar launchers in civilian neighborhoods a sane alternative if you end up squandering & sacrificing many extra American lives purely to save enemy civilians..
They may penetrate a roof with their blast, but not to the 2nd floor. They produce few casualties other than people caught in the open - and smart Arabs and Afghans and folks like Brits before that, knew enough to duck into houses if they suspect a bombing is coming.
And kids all educated to stay away from unexploded ordnace as naturally as they are told to stay away from wires that could be live or walking out in the road without looking..
Ironically, we went with cluster bombs in a "deal" with the international community concerned about our use of napalm causing lives of misery to enemy that survived its use - long after the war is over, from scarring, permanent pain, and pulmonary problems..We would end napalm and use cluster ammo instead.
We have cooperated with the international groups, except the far Lefties - in seeking to reduce the dud rate of bomblets and equipping our cluster assemblies with precision-guidance packages that make CBUs less likely to stray into civilian areas. There are also strict ROE (rules of engagement) for use:
Only when an ememy target in a civilian area is specifically identified, only when other alternatives are not available, and where the enemy concentration poses an unacceptable risk to US troops or allied friendlies.
Israel got into trouble two summers ago when they violated the ROE they said they'd follow for such weapons exported to them. They didn't. But then again, the people the Left loves, the Jihadis, were launching high explosive rockets into Israeli cities long before "cluster bomb places that might be hiding missile batteries" passed from any Israeli's lips.
Greg - what the hell are you thinking? Those kids, in the other room. Are they going to thank you? You've just killed their father, who unlike many in the 3rd world, probably has a decent job as a side effect of being a wanted man. And because it's the 3rd world, we're probably talking a lot of kids. Every single one of them, for the rest of their lives, will hate you. Every time you kill, you create implacable enemies. Even worse, if you got the wrong Muhammed H. Smith, you've made enemies of not just his family, but his village, since, hell, they kinda knew old man Abdul was up to no good, but Mr. Smith was just a plain old regular guy.
Not true. History shows that societies cannot afford to bask in eternal hatred. After war is over, they move on, unless adults carefully nurture and cultivate that hatred. Then you end up with the Palestinians, now a degraded, misled, miserable society so consumed with hatred it is unable to create, unable to plan, unable to flourish.
Every time you kill, after a temporary rise in motivation in the enemy? The more you kill or maim, the less implacable enemies you have. Worked for the Romans, worked for the Arab Hordes that conquered from Spain to India in under 100 years. Worked for the Mongols. Worked for the Bolsheviks. Worked for Britain in countless wars. Worked for us in WWII, where we killed on battlefields and cities until there were less and less implacable enemies each day - and those survivors in the Soviet Union, Italy, Germany and Japan were not implacable enemies soon after the War. Same thing happened in Vietnam and our Civil War. You are sitting on rubble, no time or energy is left for hate if you wish to rebuild.
To the extent the Pals defy this, is because they haven't paid a high enough price given there goal of Jewish extermination. Even the Iraqis now seen to be rejecting "implacable hatreds" and eternal war.
Chris, the reason we in the US don't have to bask in eternal hatred is that genocide, population transfers, and most important of all, disease killed nearly every man, woman, and child between the Atlantic and the Mississippi, and, similarly, between the Sierra Nevada and the Pacific.
Our tribe won.
The Palestininans are another matter, but don't go saying that eternal hatred didn't allow you to live where you do.
It wasn't pretty, and it wasn't nice, but that's history for you.
Cluster bombs are like all other bombs: their purpose is to maim and kill. Fretting about them is a little like fretting about partrial borth abortion. In both cases the alternatives still involve dead people.
Mixner's standard approach is to conflate anything with whatever is under discussion, then wander off into "moral equivalences" between those two subjects.
In short, he's a moron.
Chris Ford is a Ku Klux Klan member who's only mission is to kill anyone with a different color than himself.
In short, he's a moron.
Just for the record, I'm an ex-bank robber (for two months out of my 43-year-old life (at the time, 58 year old life currently). Just to save Mixner, Chris and SLC from bringing it up - as if it somehow matters.
Greg is correct in his assertions. He's evidently familiar with 4th Gen War concepts and personalities.
"we don't use napalm" - Actually we do, we just don't call it napalm, and technically it's slightly different from napalm - except it still burns the crap out of people. There's no doubt it was used in Fallujah in 2004 and used against the international rules of war.
I'm not some "softy leftie" as Ford might term others. I have no objection to putting a bullet in the head of any identified enemy, armed or not. Or blowing them up. However, I know the difference between indiscriminate murder and combat. The US military does not, and has not for generations. Most of the military tactics used in war for the last few centuries - actually probably forever - do not.
Actually 4th Gen War results in fewer casualties and less damage than any war to date. A few "terrorists" blow up some people and make it plain they cannot be defeated, and eventually their enemy gives in and leaves. Works well unless the enemy is the genocidal type.
My own view is that I always wanted to put a bullet in the head of Norman Schwarzkopf, then hang a sign around his dead neck saying "Now THIS is precision targeting!"
As the old martial arts master in the "Destroyer" novels used to say, "Armies create problems by killing many, when the solution to all problems is to kill one - the right one."
This is how "war" should be fought. 4th Gen War is coming closer to that ideal.
The Israelis are currently thinking about targeting the heads of Hamas. What I can't understand is why Hamas, instead of using stupid suicide bombers and home made rockets, isn't targeting the heads of Israel. I mean, if you can get a suicide bomber into Israel, you should be able to get an assassin in there. Nobody's security is so good that they can't be taken out.
Every time a Palestinian gets killed, kill an Israeli official or some Zionist freak.
I mean, the leaders of Hamas should know that sooner or later the Israelis are going to try to kill them. I know that most governments tend to avoid assassination plots because they all know they're all equally vulnerable. But still, Hamas should know that they're never going to influence the leaders of Israel by killing Israeli citizens. The people in power in Israel don't give a damn about Israeli citizens any more than Dick Cheney gives a damn about four thousand dead US soldiers in Iraq.
You have to identify and kill your enemies. The original Russian "terrorists" specifically targeted the members of the Russian state - not random civilians. Terrorism only became associated with attacks on civilians when various state-sponsored and ethnic groups got into the act - including the Zionists in Israel in the 1940's.
All war should be "Spec War". And as Dick Marcinko has said, "The only rule in Spec War is that there are no rules." But it's incorrect to engage in pointless violence that does not take out your enemies.
You can't win a conflict if you don't kill - or at least outwit - your actual enemies.
You have to have mines to keep the North Korean Army north.
You have to keep cluster bombs in the arsenal in case North Korea decides to go south, minefields or not.
Comments closed February 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Another reason to vote for Hillary.
Posted by robert powell | February 9, 2008 12:02 PM