Diana Hsieh, a hardline objectivist of the Big-O variety, thinks libertarians like Tom Palmer, whom she cites in an article on her Noodlefood site here, are losing their nerve if they worry about attacks on civilian targets in places like Beirut. She writes:
Obviously, wars cannot be fought without harm to civilian populations. Governments and their militaries do not exist in some separate dimension from civilians, such that they might be uniquely targeted by an invading force. Enemy governments are thoroughly integrated into the territory over which they rule, depending upon its wealth, hospitals, roads, factories, trains, farms, ports, industry, people, and more. That’s why quickly and decisively eliminating the threat posed by an enemy nation cannot but require the bombing of so-called “civilian” targets.
Moreover, without active support and/or tacit submission from a majority of the civilian population, no government could maintain its grip on power. That’s why the vast majority of the population of an aggressive enemy nation are not morally innocent bystanders. The sometimes-awful luck of genuine innocents in wartime, such as young children or active dissidents, is a terrible tragedy. However, the party responsible is not the nation defending itself but rather all those who made such a defense necessary, particularly the countrymen of the innocents complicit in or supportive of the aggression of their nation.
I am very troubled by that last paragraph. Hsieh seems to be saying that civilians in a country that is led by a brutal government are, unless they do everything to rebel, more or less complicit in the crimes of that government. Therefore, they have little or no excuse to complain if bombs come raining down on their homes.
This way of reasoning involves, by an ironic twist, to a sort of collectivist “guilt” shared across a whole populace. If a family living say, in Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany have not actively sought to overthrow those governments, then they are somehow not terribly deserving of our compassion (Hsieh, to be fair, seems to exempt children and one or two other groups from this).
I entirely defend Israel’s right to do what is necessary to defend itself from terror groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, and alas, its actions may lead, inevitably, to the loss of civilian life. I consider myself pretty much pro-Israeli and have nothing but contempt for the bogus moral equivalence drawn in certain parts of the media between the actions of the Israeli armed forces and terror groups. But I have a real problem with the line of argument presented here by Hsieh. The ends do not always justify the means, and as moral agents, it is surely right to minimise loss of innocent life as far as possible if that can be done. For consider this: if the western powers had really thrown off all moral constraints about foreign populations in the recent past, then much of the Middle East would be a radioactive wasteland.
This is one of the reasons I have little time for the more collectivist official objectivism line. Yes, I agree with the first paragraph but the notion that nothing short of suicide makes you not culpable in a government’s actions is just bonkers (and opposing an authoritarian state often is tantamount to suicide not just for you but for your loved ones as well).
I agree that if a war is just, civilian casualties are just a regrettable consequence that cannot be avoided and the prospect of them should in no way prevent attacks against legitimate targets which have any value to the enemy (but of course official Objectivism also reject Just War Theory as well according to their encyclical of July 21st)… but many of the most recent encyclicals from Ayn Rand Institute they give the impression that civilian casualties far from being regrettable consequence of legitimate war-fighting, they are to be maximised wherever possible because of collective guilt. In short the ARI seems to share the same view taken by the Islamic collectivists Hezbollah (who as a consequence simply shell Israeli cities blindly) that as entire nations are collectively culpable, simply killing civilians by design is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in and of itself regardless of ‘military’ values. Perhaps that is not the Piekoffian Objectivist position but that is the impression I am getting from them. The late Chris Tame, an objectivist through and through, never had much time for the ARI either.
Still the ARI is nothing if not consistent.
This is the hottest topic on the many blogsites I have visited over the past week. I can understand the concern, but I question the timing, and the location, of the debate.
Notice how this ethical handwringing over civilians and their fate in war only occurs when Israel goes on the offensive, or, earlier, when it is the US and her allies who take action militarily.
Notice, also, that the concern involves only Lebanese, or Palestinian, “innocents” in the commentary from one side of the conflict, while the Western side is supposed to, and does, agonize over all civilian casualties.
While I applaud the constant efforts of the US and her allies to minimize civilian casualties when possible, it is a form of self-restraint not engaged in, or demanded of, our opponents in this war.
There is no getting around the simple fact that the vast majority of our opponents’ populations actively support, approve of, and celebrate terrorist acts against the civilian populations of any western country, and especially the US and Israel.
For these same people, and their apologists in the media and political arenas, to then cry foul when the violence they unleash is turned back against them is dishonest, and consciously, deliberately dishonest, at that.
Every time I see all these tears, real and crocodile, for the “victims” of the terrible Israelis or Americans, I think back to that poor old man some terrorist a**hole pushed off the deck of the Achille Lauro in a wheelchair, or the school full of kids slaughtered in Beslan.
I don’t recall any of these tears, or apologies, for those actions from these same oh so delicate, morally pure people who now cry so loudly, especially when the media’s around.
Or, in the words of that old jingle, “You asked for it, you got it.”
Somewhat OT, but could be highly relevant to the current situation:
Courtesy Captain Ed(Link)
I do wonder if Perry has read Yaron Brooke’s article on just war theory and how it leads to less, not more justice and more, not less death. The point is that the ones responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians are those who make it necessary to attack them in order to protect the rights and safety of other innocents. Nothing in Objectivism requires or defends wanton attacks on innocents and it is disingenuous to so suggest.
Depends at the level of warfare we are. Europe had peace for 50 years due to the real threat of commiting mass civilian casualities. If Soviet Union started to pop nuclear weapons to London, Paris, Rome then Europe would be entitled to destroy Moscow and Kiev and Leningrad and this thinking about it just makes me creeps.
Also if the enemy wins anything from targetting our civilians we are also entitled to target their civilians if we have the same advantage.
Like about the gas use. If the enemy starts an operation with WMD and that makes it win a military advantage my side should use WMD if that is the only way to fight.
I also agree with veryretired this only happens when is Israel or USA do the shoting.
This is an absolutely appalling piece by a woman who is, quote frankly, delusional.
For a hard-liner though, her train of thought should not be surprising. She puts forth the exact same argument put forward by Sidique Khan in his video address from beyond the grave after the July 7th bombings- that most people are morally culpable for their government, because they voted them in.
This betrays a fundamental ignorance of domestic politics in various countries. In our instance, only a smidge over 20% of the population actually voted for Labour (a fraction of those voters returned our prime minister to office). So despite a minority of the population voting for them, Labour was given a successive term and various factions saw fit to hold the majority of people responsible for its actions.
She also forgets that many prospective governments don’t carry war-mongering in their election manifestos, so how is the average voter supposed to look into the future to foresee any wars?
Her point in relation to Lebanon seems void, personally. She discusses in the context of an ‘enemy government’, but last time I checked, Lebanon was not an enemy of Israel, despite the hostilities running between the two territories. The Lebanese government is not responsible for the independent actions of Hezbollah (although I’m sure there are some here who will desperately try to make a link between the two). It certainly did not carry out activity against Israel. Whilst we are all aware that the Lebanese undertook a commitment to disarm Hezbollah, we are as much aware that their army is nowhere near being in a position to do so, unless it fancy’s committing civil suicide.
Frankly, her blasé attitude towards a grave issue such as war is quite angering. She should give it some careful thought next time she decides to let her fingers fly on the keyboard.
Robert Speirs: Just War Theory does accept that civilian casualties are inevitable and the fact they will occur does not preclude attacking legitimate targets and it is preposterous of the ARI to suggest otherwise. What Israel is doing now in Lebanon would fit within a JWT definition of legitimate war without much difficulty. Likewise one must fight with the intention of gaining victory according to JWT, so it is NOT just a Catholic ‘soft option’.
What if civilians are forced to work for the state war machine in a weapons or aircraft factory. On the one hand they are innocent and almost certainly have no choice without repercussions on them and family, but on the other hand it does make them ligitimate targets.
They have no choice, the attackers have no choice, the only one who does doesn’t care about civilian life anyway. Lifes a bitch.
But that IS Peikoff’s position. He has called for using nuclear weapons in the Middle East before.
Opinions may vary but within the context of that article, I read that as Piekoff urging the use of nukes on Middle Eastern cities back in 2001.
I am, indeed, speechless that someone who I regarded as a an intelligent and informed commentator could make such a statement. I shall indeed join the ‘Verity’ types of this world in silent and seething outrage than to continue on here.
Speaking as a Jew of course ….
I shall indeed join the ‘Verity’ types of this world in silent and seething outrage than to continue on here.
What happened to her on here, anyway? I noticed she’s kept a low profile around these parts and has suddenly sprouted up on Iain Dale’s and Guido’s blogs…
What DID happen to Verity, by the way? I haven’t been on Samizdata in months and was surprised to see she isn’t commenting here anymore. Three months ago she accounted for roughly 30% of all comments posted…
I don’t see what’s so wrong with veryretired’s commentary. He’s remarking on the double standard at work in the reporting, not suggesting that Israel should indiscriminately kill every civilian in its path. I agree with him. I have, for example, seen very few references in the media or in the blogosphere to the atrocities committed by some of the hundreds of people that Hezbollah demands in exchange for the two soldiers it picked up. For example, Paul Greenberg is the only person I know to have mentioned that trading prisoners with Hezbollah would almost certainly mean setting this creature free. I don’t think it’s out of line to ask the media and the blogosphere to devote a few more lines to pointing out that Hezbollah is truly a gang of thugs with no regard for civilian life.
‘Samir Kuntar’.
Judging by his crimes, that’s an almost-appropriate name.
Is he considered to be the worst of them? How many prisoners could be considered to be in the same ‘category’?
I don’t know whether or not he’s the “worst,” but he’s certainly among the most notorious. His name is known because Israel has been willing to trade him in the past for fairly small potatoes, sparking controversy in the Israeli press.
Most of the prisoners generally covered in these demands were caught before they managed to reach their targets.
Naturally, there is also some controversy concerning people who are believed to be wrongly held.
I am unaware of a complete list of which prisoners Hezbollah is demanding this time, but I am under the impression that it is nearly all of them. Israel holds something close to 1,000 people believed to be active members of terrorist organizations.
Handwringing on all sides. Very commendable. Some puling & foot stamping too……..well.
I am sure that there are few who would disagree that unless Hezbollah is eradicated totally with utmost force & despatch it will be up & doing business again next year.
We have plenty of examples of half-hearted wars & the ‘let your enemy survive’ principle (Sun Tzu) has been exhausted with Islamic terrorists….to no avail.
Commenters here with laptop, claret & thesaurus are not (yet) engaged in a life & death struggle against a mortal enemy………..but unless you wake up & get your act together now you can be more than sure it’s only a matter of time.
The BBC in a recent article, admits they lumped dead Hez fighters in as “civilians”. The whole number of civilian casualties is of utmost suspicion to the most casual observer. If you are a reporter behind Hez lines and see a destroyed convoy with pieces men in black pajamas and Iranian uniforms strewn about, you will of course report that you saw dead women and children.
I also note that reports are now coming out of dead Iranian Revolutionary Guards being sent to Syria by the Israelis, for final repatriation to Iran.
What’s so special about civilians anyway? I puke every time I here newsreaders saying: “…there were (x) casualties, including women & children” Does no-one read history any more?
I’m not sure what there was in that passage to so enrage Julian, but I will readily apologize if either my meaning was obscure and offensive, or he interpreted it to mean something callous about possible Israeli casualties. (Otherwise, I don’t understand the “as a Jew…” comment).
I would hate to be the cause of someone leaving Samizdata, and hope that does not happen.
veryretired: As a Shropshire born lapsed Catholic I didn’t understand that either……….and there are those among us who I would not wish to have as a platoon commander if I were in the shit.
Making a moral choice often has undesirable consequences but that does not preclude us from making those choices.
I disagree with many of the things that government does with my money. I disagree with them taking much of it in the first place. Yet I continue to pay taxes with little to no protest. That does indeed make me at least a little complicit in what the government does with that money. It is a dilemma that Libertarians particularly have a blind spot for.
No one said that life was fair.
I will, once again quote what I consider to be one of the most profound statements from Heinlein’s works…
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
Rich
Serious question: Should Israel wait for a nuke from Iran?
Iran already threatned genocide to Israel. Is Israel entitled to attack Iran knowng the only solution to stop that threat is nukes that will kill thousands of iranian civilians?
Anywhere in the world – show me a country, show me an army, show me a war, in which two soldiers, or even civilian hostages, were abducted, and a war was waged against a country…
Hasn’t the man seen Troy??!!
It seems pretty silly to blame slaves for the actions of their masters.
On the other hand, it is a core principle of Democracy that the outcome of a proper plebiscite is the will of all the people, not just of those who voted this particular way. In that sense, all are responsible for actions of a duly elected government. To dispute this, and absolve citizens of a Democracy of any responsibility for their government’s actions, is to deny that Democracy has meaning (as the rule of the people, not just for the people).
In practice, we find outselves between those extremes. Do we consider Lebanese people to be more like citizens or more like slaves? The more we believe that Lebanon is a functioning (rather than make-pretend) Democracy, the more we should adduce responsibility for their government’s actions to its people.
I don’t think this is at all collectivist, except in the trivial sense that the relationship between a citizen and its polity is governed by collectively standardized rules (of citizenship).
If the Lebanese government did not exist, then I would be more inclined to grant victim status to those Lebanese who did not sympathize with or actively support Hizbullah. Yet there is a Lebanese government, duly elected by all its citizens, which duly and lawfully chose to admit Hizbullah to its ranks, and chose of its own will that it found it more advantageous to delay any attempt to disarm Hizbullah. I understand the calculation – the risk of a new Lebanese civil war was deemed more painful than the risk of a war with Israel triggered by Hizbullah. Yet having made this choice, the Lebanese government cannot now disclaim responsibility for the outcome. And, in my view, the Lebanese citizens cannot entirely escape responsibility for the actions of their government.
If you take the view that Lebanon is not a Democracy (its elections were a sham, and the Lebanese government is a dictatorship that oppresses its people), then those subjects (no longer citizens) are to be held blameless for the actions of their government (at least to the extent that rebellion is deemed grossly impractical). In that case, Lebanese citizens (again, except for those sympathetic to Hizbullah’s cause or actively assisting them) are victims not primarily of Israel, but of their own government which, being a dictatorship, is directly responsible for all that happens to them, and which, to the extent that it aided and abetted Hizbullah’s arrogation of its war-making powers, has become complicit in the present war.
In the final extreme, one might argue that everyone in Lebanon is a victim of Hizbullah dictatorship. If that were straightforwardly true, then all people in Lebanon (except Hizbullah supporters) were to be deemed victims of Hizbullah’s actions, and all of Hizbullah-land (erroneously called Lebanon) would be effectively at war with Israel, in the same way that Nazi Germany was entirely at war despite the number of oppressed people in its territory that wished it wasn’t so.
Not so easy, is it? While I’m far from saying that the Lebanese people collectively had it coming, I am assigning significant responsibility to them for the present war and its consequences – not collectively, but to each one separately as a citizen. It is possible to (attempt to) escape this responsibility by claiming helplessness under oppression, but this does not improve a Lebanese (not-so-)citizen’s claim on Israeli forebearance, but rather shifts the blame for their misfortune to the Lebanese government (or, depending on your assessment, directly to Hizbullah).
None of that, naturally, absolves Israel from observing the common rules for treatment of civilians in times of war. It means that bombing civilians as the miltary objective is off-limits, while civilian casualties in fighting military objectives are regrettable but legal (and, at least in principle, morally defensible).
And no, I’m not an Objectivist. Not as far as I know, anyway.
Cheers
— perry
Following Robert Spiers logic, The point is that the ones responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians are those who make it necessary to attack them, then there’s always an excuse, always someone else actually to blame, for the consequences of one’s deliberate actions.
There are echoes in all this of… We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. (not Robert Spiers)
Some quick responses: first, thanks Perry dH for linking to the Peikoff quote. I half-remembered that he wrote something along those lines before. The Official Objectivists are, at least on some topics, barking mad. Hsieh seems to be conducting a sort of online jihad of her own against the more tolerationist bunch at the The Objectivist Center, which is a far more easy going and friendly outfit, in my experience. (Full disclosure: I know Bob Bidinotto, George Thomas and a few others at TOC).
veryretired: no, now is the time to raise this issue, when it is actually happening.
permanent expat: it is not “handwringing” to wonder about the morality of bombing civilian targets or at the very least doing one’utmost to minimise such bombing if possible. You seem to regard 99.9 percent of the Meast population as guilty simply by virtue of where they live. Sounds awfully like a sort of collectivist guilt argument to me.
Prof. Roderick Long has the best commentary yet on the war. Taking Israel’s or Hizbullah’s side is not the right side. Take the side of the innocents.
By most reports, Israeli bombings of Lebanon are strengthening Hezbollah’s support among Lebanese civilians, while Hezbollah bombings of Israel are strengthening the Israeli government’s support among Israeli civilians.
So here we have (what are by libertarian standards) two criminal gangs, both blasting away at innocent civilians, and the result is to increase these gangs’ popularity among the civilians being victimised! A very successful outcome for both sides.
* * * [Long qualifies Hizbullah’s standing.]
As long as the people of the eastern Mediterranean continue to view this conflict through statist spectacles, Hezbollah and/or the Israeli government will continue to be the victors, while the civilian populace in both Israel and Lebanon will remain the vanquished and victimised.
Death to terrorists. Death to states.
– Josh
I think this issue runs deeper than just the West agonising over every civilian death, the direction of popular culture, media and politics is to agonise over all deaths, military or civilian, innocent or complicit. It is all part of the risk aversion trend that has steadily developed in Western societies in the post WWII era.
Not only does the government feel they have to protect its citizens from the consequences of their own actions, but they have convinced us that we should be protecting citizens of enemy and quasi-enemy states as well.
I don’t believe in collective guilt, and nor do I feel any when a Isaeli jet rains fire upon a Hezbollah rocket position in an appartment block causes civilian deaths. If Hezbollah want to talk like a state, that can suffer the same consequence as an enemy state.
Having said that, I don’t believe inflicting civilian casualties is an end in itself, and this conflict again demonstrates the limitations of air power in winning a conflict. Discriminate bombing is good at taking out war material and installations, but it will not eliminate the enemy. Only a ground invasion can do that, but again the risk averse nature of the West values soldiers more as lving human beings than as trained weapons. The death of a Western soldier is an afront to our sensibilities as much as a domestic road casuality, when clearly the two are entirely different.
Is he/she talking about Israel here? Surely the Israeli civillians are complicit in the agression of their government and deserve to be
blown upself-defenced? Funny how the same things never seem to apply to Israel isn’t it?Taking Israel’s or Hizbullah’s side is not the right side. Take the side of the innocents.
I understand your argument about it being hypocritical for libertarians to take sides in a state versus non-state collective conflict, but pragmatism prevails sometimes. You call for the destruction of both Israel and Hezbollah, and this is all well and good, but until you weed out collectivisation, some other state or collective entity will simply rush to fill the void, and they may be even less palatable than Israel for a libertarian.
What is there to not understand in those words, and what can possibly be objectionable about them? It’s the truth, plain and simple.
Pete, there is nothing objectionable about those words, but I still think to dismiss as “handwringing” concerns about bombings of civilian targets in Lebanon/wherever is silly. Of course, much of the coverage of the conflict is indeed one-sided, although it should be noted that even some of the usual blame-America/Israel-first crowd” have been taken aback by the rocket attacks on northern Israel and civilian targets in recent days.
A lot of my perceptions, and indeed distortions, of this topic spring from the fact that I was born and raised in South Africa in the apartheid era. I was philosophically opposed to apartheid, and such action as I took against it was limited to campaigning for and supporting the Progressive Party (as it was then). To a large section of South Africans that was “working within the system” and therefore being part of it, i.e., not innocent in their view. I was also conscripted into military service. I could have been a conscientious objector and gone to jail instead, or simply emigrated then. Those were options open to me, and anyone else living there. I had a choice to make and I made it, but I always had a choice. I don’t consider that I was innocent or totally helpless. What decisions I have made in my life, were in my perception then, and have turned out now, to be generally in my own best long term interest. Making sacrifices for the “common good” is still not my style. That is for collectivists.
Moralising on the rights and wrongs of what individuals do in support of or against regimes is for collectivists. South Africa today is no less racist then it used to be, but now its an “internationally acceptable” racism, going under such names as “affirmative action” with the “justification” being to “redress the imbalances of the past”. That is bad enough but there are no timetables or criteria to signal when that has been achieved. To the individualists, that is all equally racist and morally repugnant but collectivists always have a double standard, mainly because they are never logically consistent. Guilt and innocence are variables depending on who is doing the oppressing or liberating.
Individualists know that they always have a choice. They have a choice not to be there where the shooting or oppression is, (difficult to act on sometimes but not impossible). In today’s global economy voting with ones feet and with ones money is probably the most powerful of all votes. If all of us do that then oppressive regimes would collapse and all governments could only use positive incentives to attract labour and people.
To many people outside of South Africa making moral judgements about the people in it seems easy and clear cut. Inside it was not so. People generally try to act in their own interest and can only act in the environment they find themselves in. Some, can try to change the environment (politically or by revolution and force) and some can move geographical location to another environment. Some accept the environment (even if opposed to it) and make do as best they can within it, as to most of us in the highly taxed statist dominated countries in Europe.
It is a common observation that people are generally tribal in the sense that they blindly follow their parents and peers. This does not mean that they have to be or that it is inherently inevitable. People’s religion, outlook, economic and moral philosophy all depend mostly on what their parents thought. People still have a choice to make as to whether they follow their parents blindly or to rethink their paradigm. Whether the choice is conscious, or unconscious, it is still a choice. They are not that innocent.
By way of analogy I want to bring up another of the statist philosophies. The “nanny state” is predicated on the assumption that people are too stupid to look after themselves properly, which we as individualists know is a gross insult people in general, and a pretext for control by the political elite. The question of “innocent civilians” is similarly predicated on the assumption of mass stupidity and inevitable vulnerability. Are they too stupid to simply get out of the way and vote with their feet? Too stupid to see the consequences of their tacit or active support for Hamas, Hizballah or whoever? The World’s media seems to say they must be.
This post is unfortunately somewhat rambling, and this topic challenges me to rethink many of the thoughts I have on these matters and none have crystallised into a logically consistent point that I can lay out in a nice concise manner. I don’t see this discussion bringing clarity to many others either, but the thougths brought up are certainly interesting.
” It means that bombing civilians as the miltary objective is off-limits…”
That seems to be the consensus of all writers and commenters here. Deliberately targetting civilians is morally wrong.
It is hard to disagree with this. Yet…
At the end of WW2 civilians were deliberately targeted in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities. Two Japanese cities were A_bombed. Berlin was raped by the Red army AFTER it was conquerred.
All these acts clearly were “deliberate targetting of civilians”, yet I somehow cannot bring myself to condemn them.
Maybe we have to thank those acts for the 60 years of relative peace we enjoyed after WW2. Maybe the lack of bringing home the lesson of defeat to the German people after WW1 was the cuase of their support of Hitler, and the cause of WW2, and of 20 million additional victims (at least).
Germany and Japan were not democracies in any way, yet their militaristic governments clearly enjoyed the support of a majority of their citizens. It is true, in great part, that without the support of the citizenry no government can embark upon large scale military adventures.
As to Lebanon – seems Israel is targetting mainly Shiite areas and giving the population ample warning, so they can flee and civilian casualties be avoided.
The Shiites are the power base of Hizbollah, they give them shelter and soldiers, they elect them to the Lebanese parliament, they are the cause why the Lebanese army cannot disarm Hizbollah. The Shiites need to be taught what the Germans have been taught – that their actions have consequences.
Having said all this, I join everyone, and express my pious wish that there be no more civilian (or any other) casualties.
Whenever a country goes to War it should certainly only do so on the premise of winning!!
If the Allies of WWII had the restraints that are imposed today they never would have won the War against Nazi Germany.
Democracy entails responsibility! Civilian poplulations have to take full responsibility for their choices and when a government can be voted in by only 20% of the vote as one writer suggests here, that responsibility requires that the population should demand a change in the Electoral system…..silent discontent is tantamount to vociferous approval. Most people are NOT mind-readers.
The only way War can be won is to totally subjugate the civilian population into reviling the horrors of War resulting in a long lasting desire for peace in the majority of hearts. This happened to Germany and Japan. The War was clearly lost and the loss to the population so great that succeeding gererations saw no gain in future Wars. The European Union was the result of the horrors of WWII.
After subjugating, humiliating and almost eliminating ones apponent can then the hand of friendship be offered in rebuilding a society with strong ties to the victor. Again Germany and Japan are clear models of success.
The constraints of political correctness only prolongs the horrors that are yet to come. Kill and destroy until there is no resistance left in hearts and minds is the only way to long lasting peace. The contstant fear of instilling hate in future generations becomes reality only when half-hearted and unfinished Wars take place.
Mothers have to pay the price for instilling the wish in their children to go to War. And as for the innocent children with the slogans of their parents in their mouths, better they pay the price now then continue the cycle of violence in future generations. These are the hard facts of life. No-one is innocent and without responsibility.
To be considered a Human Being is not a birthright, it is a priviledge. A priviledge only gained from ones thoughts and as a consequence from ones actions.
Whenever a country goes to War it should certainly only do so on the premise of winning!!
If the Allies of WWII had the restraints that are imposed today they never would have won the War against Nazi Germany.
Democracy entails responsibility! Civilian poplulations have to take full responsibility for their choices and when a government can be voted in by only 20% of the vote as one writer suggests here, that responsibility requires that the population should demand a change in the Electoral system…..silent discontent is tantamount to vociferous approval. Most people are NOT mind-readers.
The only way War can be won is to totally subjugate the civilian population into reviling the horrors of War resulting in a long lasting desire for peace in the majority of hearts. This happened to Germany and Japan. The War was clearly lost and the loss to the population so great that succeeding gererations saw no gain in future Wars. The European Union was the result of the horrors of WWII.
After subjugating, humiliating and almost eliminating ones apponent can then the hand of friendship be offered in rebuilding a society with strong ties to the victor. Again Germany and Japan are clear models of success.
The constraints of political correctness only prolongs the horrors that are yet to come. Kill and destroy until there is no resistance left in hearts and minds is the only way to long lasting peace. The contstant fear of instilling hate in future generations becomes reality only when half-hearted and unfinished Wars take place.
Mothers have to pay the price for instilling the wish in their children to go to War. And as for the innocent children with the slogans of their parents in their mouths, better they pay the price now then continue the cycle of violence in future generations. These are the hard facts of life. No-one is innocent and without responsibility.
To be considered a Human Being is not a birthright, it is a priviledge. A priviledge only gained from ones thoughts and as a consequence from ones actions.
The esteemed Simon Jenkins ends his comment piece on the Guardian’s CiF site thus.
“I would sail the first Red Cross ship into Beirut harbour. But I would sink the first aircraft carrier.”
As HMS Illustrious is on its way to the region I assume that he’s packing his bags with his Silkworm manual ready to read on the plane. Just incredible. Loathing of Israel is now spilling over into outright treason.
Johnathan Pearce
Pete, there is nothing objectionable about those words, but I still think to dismiss as “handwringing” concerns about bombings of civilian targets in Lebanon/wherever is silly. Of course, much of the coverage of the conflict is indeed one-sided, although it should be noted that even some of the usual blame-America/Israel-first crowd” have been taken aback by the rocket attacks on northern Israel and civilian targets in recent days.
Taken in isolation then no, concerns about targetting civilians and civilian deaths is not silly. But I have to agree with veryretired that this concern is oddly absent when Jews are sitting there taking it. Israel pulled every civilian and soldier out of Gaza one year ago. Hamas showed its gratitude by using Gaza to shower Israel with 1000 missiles since. Since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has shown its gratitude by rearming to a frightening degree. Where’s all this talk of proportionality then? Where’s all this concern about civilians while the are taking? Nowhere, that’s where it is. Yet when Israel starts punching back the world’s concerned citizens contort themselves in agony. Well I don’t buy it. It’s all phooey.
Let’s be clear, Israel’s demands are no more than any other nation’s. They insist on no more than to have its existence recognised, accepted and to have secure borders. Much of the muslim world demands that Israel be crushed. And the we’re supposed to treat them as equals? Israel’s firepower is so overwhelming, and the provocation of Israel so great, that the continued and persistent leniency of Israel is astonishing. That something between 300 and 400 civilians (a figure which includes Hezbollah dead I believe) is a testimony to the restraint, control and decency of the IDF.
I can honestly say I haven’t seen the shock and outrage at katyusha’s aimed at Israeli civilians (as if attacking the IDF with the aim of bringing about genocide is acceptable!) in the last couple of weeks. Plenty of shock and outrage at a ‘devastated’ and ‘destroyed’ Beirut, much of which seems suspiciously free of rubble. No, it’s just the usual whine from the usual suspects whenever the Jews have the temerity to defend their civilians and borders.
The MSM is waging a dirty war against Israel.How sad that some people here are giving it their moral sanction.
I have just been reading Johnathan Yardley’s review of “Among the Dead Cities” by A.C.Grayling, and therein lies much food for thought. However, I have to agree, in principle, with commenters Christopher & Jacob.
Johnathan Pearce: I wish morality came into it; it simply doesn’t. Churchill’s rhetorical “Are we animals? are we taking this too far?” is the thought that springs to mind whenever overwhelming force is used to ‘make a point’……….in any circumstances. And no, I don’t condemn folk because of their geographic location; as I have reminded commenters here many times, this enemy has its fifth column inside our own gates.
This war is very different from those within living memory. It has been very clearly stated (Is everybody deaf?) by militant Islamists that their goal is total destruction of Israel & the death of Jews everywhere; the latter being Hitler’s goal too.
In his war against the UK & Empire it was not Hitler’s intention to wipe us off the face of the map; only to subjugate us. That is not an option for Israel.
I am not pro-anyone but the mortal danger of radical, militant Islam must be eradicated, even at the cost of the lives of complaisant bystanding civilians who, let it be remembered, received ample warning of coming onslaughts.
Pete – I assume that English is your first language so I find it hard to believe you did not read my words wrongly. I have repeatedly stated that I find the one-sided coverage of the conflict to be a joke. That is not what this article is about. It is about the morality or otherwise of mass attacks on civilian targets. You and others seem okay with that, and such attacks may be unavoidable. But I think it too easy for folk to fall into the trap that Hsieh has and brand whole chunks of the Earth’s population as “the enemy” who need to be given a hammering. That is not quite what I would associate with readers of an individualist blog.
But then I guess we get all sorts on the comments here.
johnathan, are you suggesting that individuals on an Individual Blog should conform to your mindset?
You might want to try keeping your condescending comments confined within the confines of your own conformist mind or else form a forum for “members only”.
Christopher, of course not. I am just making an observation, that’s all, as to the irony of an individualistic blog carrying comments from folk who think it is okay to wipe out whole groups of civilians. I don’t see anything condescending about that.
Johnathan Pearce
Touche. I said:
To be clear, deliberately targetting civilians not acceptable. But it is not a black and white thing. A battery of Katyushas is taken out by an F-16, let’s say. But that battery happens to be located next to an apartment block which is also destroyed in the attack, resulting in civilians killed. Does that constitute an attack on civilians? I say no, but body parts paraded for the cameras with emotional reports about innocent civilians being killed don’t shed any light on how these civilians came to be killed.
My beef is with the one-eyed reports of so many correspondents and here we disagree, because I have still to see the slightest evidence of the usual suspects being even a little concerned at Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians. Yet I still see reports of Israeli actions couched in anything from disapproval to outright condemnation without any of the same being levelled at the beasts whose only tactic is to kill civilians. And here comes the BBC, right on cue:
ISRAELIS ACCUSED OF ‘HUMAN SHIELDS’ TACTIC
The Israeli army has been accused of using Palestinian civilians as human shields in an operation in northern Gaza. According to the Israeli human rights group, B’tselem, six civilians including two minors were subjected to the illegal tactic during an incursion into the town of Beit Hanoun last week.
If true then it’s despicable. But we are talking about the BBC here so that’s a towering ‘if’ right now. Now I’ve seen hundreds of BBC reports from this part of the world over the years and not a single one has focussed on the use of human shields by Palestinains or Hezbollah. Not one has highlighted the placing of mortars and missile batteries in schools, apartment block and hospitals. Not one has mentioned the tactic of using ambulances to ferry men and arms. Yet each of these are common tactics used by the enemies of Israel. None of this lessens the suffering of genuine innocents in a war zone but until the media starts dealing Israel a fair hand I’ll regard much of the reporting as phooey.
As ‘patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel’, so is taking the moral high ground that of the apologist. We are witnessing a war ‘to the death’ and if Johnathan had a knife to his throat (or that of his new bride?) you would quickly see his principles go out of the window.
I have it on good authority that Verity’s absence can be directly attributed to Johnathan’s ‘mindset’. Pity. on both counts.
permanent expat, I am not taking the “moral high ground” as you call it, but stating some basic qualms of mine and others like Perry about what Diana Hsieh wrote. For the umpteenth time, I reject her idea that a whole population, in the millions, can be considered guilty by association and therefore be put to the sword willy-nilly. This is not exactly a difficult or tortuous argument to grasp, is it?
This has been a powerful topic with many insightful comments. It’s a pity that it will not be seen by the many who could benefit from the wisdom herein, especially those who are now directly involved and might have the most to gain.
For the record, the woman left after I chided her for telling another commenter he had no right to comment on certain political subjects, as if she was trying to edit this site. I lost my temper and told her how annoying she was. I probably should not have done so but she was awful, often rude to new commenters who were trying to find out a bit about what this site is about. I am not sorry she has gone, to be honest. Shame, she could be rather funny at times.
“At the end of WW2 civilians were deliberately targeted in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities.”
A reading:
(Memoirs of Gen. Curtis LeMay, cited by Richard B. Frank, “Downfall: The End Of The Imperial Japanese Empire”, Penguin Books, 2001, p. 67)
These are all very fine questions. For instance; in these contexts, is there a difference between “guilt” and “responsibility”?
You know what? Whenever I see a discussion like this, I’m haunted by Solzhenitsyn’s question very early in Vol. I of “Gulag” —
“Why did we not resist?”
He’s absolutely right to ask that. The central matter, to me, surrounds the implications.
” According to the Israeli human rights group, B’tselem, six civilians including two minors were subjected to the illegal tactic …”
I want to explain what the “illegal tactic” is.
In the course of an anti-terror operation the IDF surrounds a building where terrorists are believed to be hiding. Then there are two options: 1. IDF soldiers enter the building and risk being hit by the terrorists. 2. The buliding is brought down, risking killing innocent people.
The IDF used a tactic whereby it forced some Arab neighbour to go into the building and warn all people inside to come out and surrender before the building is demolished. It was supposed the terrorists won’t kill their neighbour.
This “illegal tactic” seems perfectly ok and humane to me (though I can see why some people might differ).
However, it was challenged in court by the Israeli group Be’tzelem , and the Israeli Supreme court declared it illegal, ordering the IDF to stop it.
I just wanted to make clear that when you read “ISRAELIS ACCUSED OF ‘HUMAN SHIELDS’ TACTIC”
the meaning is extremely different from the human shield tactic the Arabs use: stockpiling and firing rockets from the middle of a civil population concentrations.
In fact, the above headline is another example of intentional anti Israel bias of the BBC.
Someone please explain to me how a country like Israel can have a peace deal with Hizbollah? A terrorist organisation that has as its goal the eradication of the State of Israel.
And if you can’t explain that to me then I suggest you wake up and smell the Coffee.
It’s a simple case of “us or them”.
There is no peace possible with Islam or its adherants, moderate or fanatic.
Evil exists in this world. The only way to fight evil is to eradicate it…its that simple, and if one does not have the stomach for the fight, prepare to lie down and die doing nothing.
And by the way Johnathan, do I have to instruct you on the subtleties of the english language? I will not copy and paste here to prove my point….just read your own post carefully. I would say it’s pretty obvious.
You should count yourself priviledged that your article jostled me out of my mid-day siesta to sit here and write something…or would you rather it went unnoticed?
Johnathan: You don’t have an exclusive patent on ‘qualms’. No thinking person could agree with Tsieh’s hypothesis & I thought that could, from the outset of this discussion, be taken for granted. Obviously not from all the metashillyshallying. If the objective of this thread was to denounce Tsieh, it was completely unecessary, it was ‘seppuku’ on her part.
My qualm is that we do not appear to see the grievous danger we are in. Maybe when our backs are finally against the wall, as in the ‘Vorspiel’ being enacted in Israel/Lebanon, we shall come to our senses.
So, are you arguing that ALL Muslims must be wiped out? If not, what exactly?
Johnathan told her to ‘fuck off’. So off she fucked. I gotta say it’s not as lively round here since then.
I just wanted to make clear that when you read “ISRAELIS ACCUSED OF ‘HUMAN SHIELDS’ TACTIC”
the meaning is extremely different from the human shield tactic the Arabs use: stockpiling and firing rockets from the middle of a civil population concentrations.
I agree. They are using the same term for two very different tactics. However, I don’t think there’s anything remotely OK about the Israeli tactic (and no, it’s not verified that they are actually using it at all).
If the IDF officer said to some passing locals “If you would like to approach that building and ask the occupants to surrender then we will not have to blow it up, thereby saving the lives of the occupants”, and if the local said “no thanks, actually, I prefer to cower in my basement with my family”, and if the IDF officer then called an airstrike on said building, then I guess I wouldn’t have a huge problem.
But I think the situation being discussed was one where the civilians had no choice but to take part in the war as an effective way of reducing IDF casualties. This is not more reasonable than detaining random locals and interrogating them for intel, or making locals distribute your propaganda for you. Invading armies should not coerce local civilians into do anything. Ends do not justify means.
Fair point, of course. I don’t think there is much debate here as to how serious the threat is. You only have to Google old entries here (I wish we could sort our archives out, Perry) to see the dangers highlighted repeatedly. If I wrote about the dangers of militant islamism I’d be just preaching to the choir. Not much point in that. The really interesting point is what we do about it without losing sight of our principles.
Johnathan, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. I who have spent many months in Islamic countries never encountered ONE. I did however; meet people who disregarded the precepts of their faith.
There have been many posts on Islam in this blog where the subject has been beaten to death…I have nothing new to add to the many commentaries made on this Blog.
I am suggesting that the West is at War with Islam and should fight to win the War, irrespective of “civilian casualties”. When Terrorism becomes an Act of God by the perpetrators there is no distinction between a good or bad muslim.
Who are the “terrorists”? Are they only the ones blowing themselves up? NO. They are the Grandmothers, Mothers, Fathers, Sons and Daughters, Husbands and Grandfathers supporting the activities of Hamas or Hizbollah or any other name they care to choose.
People are not responsible for only their actions, they are also responsible for their thoughts….for out of these beginnings come the actions.
I see Islam as the biggest threat facing our Civilization in this the 21st Century. If destroying this threat implies killing millions of its adherants then my answer to your question is a resounding YES.
After much research and heart-rending introspection I see no other alternative…….what does one do with a rabid animal? Destroy it.
Humanity can only begin after a War….not during it. War is never humane and it is just pure hypocrasy to think that a War can be fought humanely. Fight to win or surrender. Those are the only options.
Well, Christopher does not directly answer my question, but the overall tone of his comments suggest a thirst to wipe muslims out. All of them.
Shameful.
Oh Johnathan…..losing sight of your bloody principles when you’re going to hell in a handcart!
What are we going to do about it, you ask. Good question. Perhaps ask someone with some experience? A maimed Londoner? A katushyad farmer’s wife? Mrs. Leon Klinghoffer?
Eventually we shall have to do what the Israelis are now doing. Even you must realize that.
Verity was rude….and funny…and spoke her mind without shillying…and she offended some….oh dearie me. My own sensibilities are often offended in these pages but I realize that, as you say, it takes all sorts…….but I suppose you will go to the slaughter with your principles emblazoned on your shattered arm.
Spot on, in my experince, which was growing up in a multicultural paradise in east London and knowing plenty of muslims. I wouldn’t put anyone’s money on a muslim being ‘moderate’ behind closed doors. But then, I don’tknow how a muslim can be ‘moderate’. Islam is simply not moderate. You cannot be a believer and be moderate. Until that is recognised the handcart will continue going to hell.
Is english your “first” language Johnathan?
I know most people don’t listen, but you Johnathan seem to fall into the category of those that can’t read.
I do not need impaired, self-styled journalists trying to make a personal interpretation of what I write. A little “secret reading between the lines” supporting their little agendas.
If you don’t like someones assessment of a situation, try taking a few deep breaths before you start spurting out moralistic, self-indicting puerile comments in public.
Encouraging healthy debate rather than stiflying it seems to me to be the more appropriate course of action for any serious Blog, or do what I suggested before; start one for “members only”.
christopher, okay, so you want to exterminate Muslims.
That is your “assessment of the situation”. As for encouraging “healthy debate”, all you have done is to expose yourself as a hysteric and a bigot. I’d be grateful if you left.
Johnathan: Your inability to see shades of grey doesn’t astonish me one bit. You are incapable of reading between the lines that some commenters make, such as the ‘kill all muslims’ remark. How naïve can you get? You know bloody well what Christopher meant but choose to make a literal interpretation. We are not all fools, Johnathan, and believe me if there’s shame to be alloted you should be given the biggest helping.
I am an ‘Aryan’ but can tell you that the Jews aren’t going to walk meekly into another & more drastic Auschwitz just to support your high principles. You are too self-righteous to see that Israel is fighting for your survival too. Frankly, I think they should make an exception in your case.
Childishly upset, you ask/tell commenters with whom you disagree to quit. As someone said: Wake up & smell the coffee!
What rubbish. I met plenty of them in Bosnia during the war.
Also Christopher, the question is not “should legitimate targets be attacked if civilians might be killed”, at least that is not the question being asked HERE.
No, Johnathan’s article was about people who seem to be saying that not that collateral civilian losses are a regrettable consequence of legitimate military action but rather that there was nothing regrettable about collateral civilian losses.
In other words rather than saying “I am sorry these people died but in war innocent people die as a consequence of either looking like military targets or their proximity to military targets” but rather “I do not give a damn if civilians die, nuke ’em all and let God (or Leonard Peikoff) sort ’em out”.
Perry: We all know whose side you had to be on in Bosnia. The Serbs were simply more murderous.
“Any man’s death diminishes me…..” Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Ayatollah Khomeini, Hitler………………….
Please let us not confuse our apples & oranges. If you can, unlike some others, accept some well-meant criticism: You should eschew barbecued sausage & mash; it’s obviously not good for you.
I met plenty of them in Bosnia during the war.
Yeah, and I’ve known plenty who seem like that too. Until you can’t hear them. No, this isn’t lazy bigotry, I grew up in an area with a high muslim population. I hung out with muslims, played football with muslims, studied with muslims and in my experience ‘moderate’ muslims are a damned rare breed.
Shame for what? For calling out a commenter who believes that millions of Muslims must die if that is necessary to crush their societies, destroy their religion? Is it “shameful” to argue for the minimisation of civilian casualties if that is consistent with defeating terror?
Is it “shameful”, to argue, as I have, that we must retain our status as beings ruled by long-term moral principles? What is shameful about that?
To get back to my original point, the idea of a collective guilt is one that I find abhorrent as it brackets an entire group on the same plane. You might as well describe the world as collections of dumb pack animals.
The choir will now sing number 666
“All things bright and beautiful…”
Johnathan: You are beyond the pale….I would be grateful if you left.
I have to say, having lived in the Middle East for three years, there are plenty of Muslims out here who come across as moderate. But when push comes to shove, and we all have to choose sides, those Muslims who side with the infidels are few in number indeed.
Stop any Arab and push his opinion on Israel’s existence. You can put your house on what his views are.
Perry that you met so many “moderate muslims” in Bosnia is really encouraging indeed:)
Armed with the Koran in english and an Arabic version online I sat with a muslim friend during the time of the cartoon controversy and went through certain passages of that illustrious document together.
He denied that the arabic version had anything to do with the english translation and said it was all lies.
This person was an Egyptian ballet dancer; how much more moderate can you get? So, of course no debate or even discussion of those beleagered passages was possible.
I read the article which sparked this debate, but no-where did I read that Diana Hsieh ever suggested that there was “nothing regrettable about collateral civilian losses”.
Similarily, no-where did I write “kill all muslims”.
Inference or reading between the lines is totally subjective and serious debate should always avoid misusing personal opinions as direct quotes.
And do you really believe that when politicians get up and say the platitude “We regret the loss of any innocent life” that that suddenly transforms the deed?
I was on the Croatian side. I also met Muslims and Serbs (yes, Serbs) fighting for Croatia with the šahovnica on their shoulders, either in the HV, HVO or a local militia.
I have no idea what you are talking about
I think that if someone does not in the slightest regret the loss of innocent life then they are suffering from a highly undesirable mental derangement. In fact it would regard that as an axiom.
My view is that a person who regrets an unfortunate loss which happens as a consequence of an action that must nevertheless be done regardless, is rather more mentally healthy than someone who is thinks such losses are either trivial or even desirable.
The fact people with both such positions might end up doing the same things may matter little to innocents being killed (or then again it might) but that is not really the point of the discussion.
Observing that someone who simply does not care if innocents die as a consequence of legitimate action is a person not to be admired sounds like a perfectly reasonable observation to make. I do not regard expressing regret for the loss of innocent life as a platitude just because I would not as a necessary consequence of that regret say the military action which caused the innocents to die was undesirable.
I have long thought that the true danger to Western or Anglophile civilization from the Islamicist challenge is not that they would ever be able to overwhelm us culturally or militarily, but that the relentless pressure and continuous threat of violence from their fanatics would tend to coarsen our own sensibilities.
By this, I mean some of what is happening on this thread, only magnified many times over.
By attacking, the Islamic terrorist has exposed fault lines in our culture, driving us to more extreme positions than those we would normally take.
Those who have less concern with the consequences of retaliating adopt ever more callous and dismissive attitudes. I feel this particular danger in myself and try to guard against it.
Those who have serious moral qualms about using violent methods in general, or who have a healthy mistrust of any state military action, not without good reason, find themselves arguing against actions that they can understand, but are a concern on ethical grounds.
And, as I see here in this and some other threads, harsh words and angry judgements are posted by those who, on any normal day, and absent the pressure of violent attack and the necessity of formulating a response both effective and reasonably moral, would be amiable disputants about ideas and problems of mutual concern.
As I have said before, the capacity of the West to enact horrendous consequences on the Islamic world is magnitudes above and beyond anything the terrorists could ever hope to achieve, and only our own forebearance from such action protects the Moslem populations of the world.
But the damage to our own culture from discarding those moral qualms completely, and indulging in our most vengeful and violent fantasies of retribution would be substantial, and continue for generations.
Rather than abusing and accusing each other due to disagreements and heightened emotions brought on by this situation, especially since we know very well the overall dilemna is not going to be resolved for quite some time no matter what we do or say today, I urge the various commenters here to be a little less certain that they have the truth in hand, and that the one arguing with them is deluded or morally suspect.
Terrorism threatens us as any danger threatens—it causes the usual social conventions that smooth our differences to be discarded in the heat of action, and impatient accusation replaces the attempt to find reasonable common ground.
Demanding uniformity of belief and allegience to doctrine has always been incongruous on a site devoted to the independence and variety of human ideas, and is out of place in this discussion as well. I long ago rejected the Objectivist camp, and the formal Libertarian Party, because they required just such uniformity and allegience, and I was unable to submerge my own cranky, contrary, and generally improper viewpoints to such discipline.
We can, and should, be able to agree or disagree without self-righteousness towards or ostracism of those whose opinions demonstate their own honest attempt to come to grips with some very difficult questions.
We all have enough faults, blind spots, and gaps in both our knowledge and our reasoning such that it is becoming to be less condemnatory, and more willing to accept the fact that not all will adopt the same approach, or arrive at the same end result.
The fact that we sincerely struggle with these moral issues, while it appears many of our opponents have no such misgivings, is a sign of strength, not weakness, of resilience, not fragility.
It is fanaticism that is brittle, not the careful debate of serious matters by thoughtful people in an open and respectful forum, which Samizdata here so generously provides us. It is a cause for celebration, not vituperation.
Pass the wine, and start another argument. I’m all in.
veryretired, as ever, the sanest man on this thread. I lose my cool too often, although I am not sure how to be cooly analytical in the face of folk who don’t say that loss of innocent life is bad, but deny the innocence at root. That way fanaticism lies. It scares the hell out of me. And I am sure Christopher is a good person, but his posts scare me.
I think Perry puts it perfectly.
By “transform the deed” I meant make killing morally acceptable in any form. I was not asking for a mental assessment of the fictitous politician.
Why do you both (Perry and Johnathan) always feel required to assert your deep felt need for moral authority? I know from your previous posts Perry that you for example, do not believe in God: then what may I ask are you planning on doing with your perceived little victories in here? Is there a Bloggers Heaven I am not aware of?
VeryRetired…..I have always admired your sensitive and eloquent posts in many discussions in here. You truly are the voice of reason and understanding. Thankyou.
Perry: Your bearded barbecue pictures….Saus & Mash in one…………Oh, never mind.
veryretired: You’re right of course so, as the wonderful Peggy Lee sang: “…..then let’s keep dancing, let’s break out the boooooze & have a ball, if that’s all there is.”
Christopher, as a lapsed Anglican-turned atheist, I certainly don’t need a “god” to tell me what to do. I certainly do think that human actions can be and should be constrained by moral considerations, such as the fact that in resisting terror and aggression, we should not cause any more harm than strictly necessary. So, in some contexts that might mean I would support, say, a mass bombing of a city if that was the only achievable way of halting a war that threatened to drag on for years and cause massive deaths. I think the US use of the atom bomb can arguably be justified on that basis. Dresden fails the test. And so on.
What bothered me about your posts earlier up and forced me to go red was the assumption that such constraints, such considerations, don’t matter. But I also think there is a broader point here. If we use massive force and still fail to achieve our goals, we will only make our enemies even madder, and badder. That is not just bad ethics, it is also dumb.
I am watching Channel 4 news tonight which is incredibly one-sided in its coverage of the war. You will get no argument from me that this is a disgrace
I have difficulty with the concept of ‘innocent civilians’. In most countries, armed forces are people who choose to put themselves in a position of increased risk for the good of the state (i.e. its people). Civilans are, excluding the old, young and sick, people who chose not to do so. I cannot see that the latter deserve more sympathy than the former.
make our enemies madder & badder.
You are surely having us on…..or has your wiring totally disintegrated?
If one takes the argument from abstract moralising and looks at the practicalities, terrorism is a tactic that uses our morals and revulsion of “innocent casualties” as a weapon against us. Terrorists targeting civilians, works spectacularly well for them and it works for them both ways. The Madrid train bombings was a case of total success. It caused the populace at large to vote a government out and generated fear. They happily use their own civilians as shields using our revulsion of “innocent” casualties against us again to protect them from unrestricted and immediate retaliation, and gain PR out of any “collateral damage”. My argument centres on taking that weapon away from them. That does not mean deliberately targeting civilians per sé, but not deliberately trying to avoid them either.
Terrorism is a case of war by proxy. In the case of Hezballah the Iranians supply the weapons but the local Shiite population certainly supplies the moral and some logistical support. I still claim they are not totally innocent. Their support of Hezballah is also given in the certain knowledge that they, as civilians, are not going to be direct targets of retaliation. Take that assurance away and they might not be so ready to support a proxy war on their behalf. We really need to take their strongest weapon away from them. They deliberately target our civilians. We should at least make their civilians pay a price for their cheerleading.
very retired,
[…]the relentless pressure and continuous threat of violence from their fanatics would tend to coarsen our own sensibilities[…]
With that I very nearly agree. But I don’t think it’s the threat of violence itself that has done it It isn’t very great. But it coincides with a period of extreme lability of mood in publics weaned on the welfare state, suggestible in the face of authority, and susceptible to panic by even the imagination of hardship. A virtual threat is more potent than a real one in such circumstances, and the broad antirational rhetoric of the Islamists is perfectly apocalyptic in tone: incomprehensible, but very sonorous. That offers an opportunity for our own fanatics, brutes, and powermongers (whether they characterise themselves as pro- or anti- war) to share in stirring the herd-poison.
Johnathan I agree with you completely. The only difference we have is my belief in a God of Love.
I like veryretired “feel this particular danger in myself and try to guard against it.” The danger being of hardening my heart…this is a daily battle.
Forums like yours offer people a chance to air their concerns and reflect and maybe even arrive at hopeful solutions. I and others i.e Verity are not the enemy. We are all concerned citizens of the World.
In the spirit of Veryretired let us all celebrate the freedom of the Internet; the last bastion of free speech which gives a chance for people from all over the world to speek directly to one another.
Let us not fight amongst ourselves looking for small differences and bantering about semantics, but rather share our common goal and dream for a more humane and tolerant world.
Dresden fails the test.
There are many who will say that Hiroshima & Nagasaki also fail the test.
The problem with such ‘after the event’ criticism is that nearly all those who make it were not around at the time. I was..and I can tell you that there was nothing but jubilation at every terrible strike against an enemy who sought to destroy us. Moreover we felt that ‘overkill’ would teach such a lesson that we would be safe from the then aggressors for generations to come. Few would contradict me if I opine that we were right.
Even those who took part in these ‘Vergeltung’ exercises were human, would you believe, and self-doubt & self-criticism are as much a consequence as when night follows day…..and yes, it is mixed with deep regret &, sometimes, shame.
Having beaten the breast about Dresden et al. we know that the terrible things we did were necessary. A democratic & war-hating Germany & Japan are the proof.
Younger armchair critics please take note…..and learn.
that said:))
I really don’t care if our enemies get “madder and badder”.
I know how to shoot very well too thankyou:))
Lovely post, Christopher, but our enemy does not want ‘a more humane & tolerant world’.
The tenor of your comment is quite thrilling: Peace on Earth & good will to all men. “I have a dream……..”
I know that expat, I just was in one of my placating moods, I just ate:))
Well, if Guy and I can very nearly agree, anything’s possible among those of good will.
Christopher:……………..think I prefer you in your unplacating & implacable guise;-)
well what will the reaction be when I propose:
1. Extracting a much higher tax on Muslims living in the
West.
2. Banning the posession and sale of all Korans.
3. Not allowing Mosques to be repaired or new ones built.
4. Denying Educational aid or Scholarships to Muslim
students.
5. Place all Mosques under 24 hour surveillance.
6. Denying participation in the Armed Services to all
Muslims.
It is milder than all out War:))
Christopher: I think you said that you had eaten; not that you had drunk more than you could reasonably handle;-)
Look with that six point plan, I bet I could get elected in the United States even though “I have inhaled”:)
I much prefer the Christopher Hitchens doctrine:
“I know from your previous posts Perry that you for example, do not believe in God: then what may I ask are you planning on doing with your perceived little victories in here?”
Wow. Me? I’m logging this one as a dead loser. Reason has no where to go with him. Fuggetaboudit.
, says Steve, well I don’t.
Remind me never to let you sit on a jury.
Permanent Expat, my wiring is fine thanks. Why don’t you actually argue your case rather than make inane comments?
While libertarians justly oppose applying collective guilt upon other libertarians, statists, being statists, believe in collectivism and collective responsibility. Holding them to their own standards, it is logical, therefore, to hold a statist society collectively guilty to a certain degree for the sins of their government.
If the agressor took power by illegitimate means and used excessive force to oppress the people, that is one thing: the citizenry are victims of their government. However I’ll note that Hitler, Moussolini, Chavez, Amadinejad, among other thugs, have been popularly elected to office. Their constituents therefore are collectively guilty of the acts of the leaders.
Hezbollah, according to Lebanese polls, enjoys widespread popular support in Lebanon, one reason the Lebanese government refuses, or is unable, to muster the political will to enforce UN Resolution 1559. The Lebanese governments sin of omission, motivated by popular sentiment, confers collective guilt upon the Lebanese people for their failure to disarm Hezbollah.
Up until the kidnapping, that seemed to be an entirely libertarian stance: libertarians are, after all, in favor of private security organizations rather than active duty professional militaries, and that they can be armed with any manner of military weaponry. Such a standard should be acceptable no matter what the nationality of the group. However, at the same time, such groups, if they engage in martial action against other territories or organizations, cannot complain if they are retaliated against. Nor can private individuals who support said agressive groups and enjoy the protection of said groups complain when they are bombed because their Private Protection Agency decided to park some missiles in the garages of said private individuals.
Lebanon can be said to be a semi-ancap state: where the private militias are stronger than the central government. The present conflict should be expected to be the result when groups in an ungoverned territory attack a governed territory. Some may argue that the problems are a matter of the groups failing to act in their long term rational self interest (rather, acting under orders from Iran and/or Syria) and failing to accurately forsee the consequences of kidnapping enemy government soldiers and dropping missiles on governed territory.
That is heavy shit you are smoking. Wow, a few hours ago you were calling for destruction of the enemy and damn the consequences for civilian life. Now you come over like a frickin’s New Ager!!! I cannot take this thread seriously any more.
That’s bollocks. According to you, I share the blame for Tony Blair being Prime Minister. Now while I’ll take it on the chin for the things I do, Blair being Prime Minister is absolutely nothing to do with me.
Capisce?
I am not asserting moral ‘authority’, I am just taking a moral position and putting my moral theory up for scrutiny.
That really makes no sense whatsoever.
I’ve actually found this comments section quite enlightening, in a strange way. It’s certainly reaffirmed my faith in the blog, after reading the responses from Jonathan, Perry et al. That’s not to say that I expect a uniform agenda from it, speaking with a single voice, but that it gave me the impression that it was.
For a while over the past few months, I felt as if the comments section were a bit of a no-go area, particularly for relative newcomers to the scene, such as myself. Comments ranged from being downright uncivilised and arrogant to reflecting values which I would not expect to be held by libertarians (ie, the “kill them all!” mentality). It certainly isn’t very pleasant to be scolded for your views, just because the person opposite holds opinions to the contrary.
Hopefully, knowing that certain elements no longer spoil my view, I’ll come back a bit more often 🙂
Deleted.
Pete_London: Are you, Pete_London, a statist? Do you believe in the authority of the majority vote to decide the policies of the greater collective? If you do, then you are, ever so slightly, personally responsible for what Tony Blair does. Of course, Tony Blair is personally responsible for what he does, but as the legal system recognises, there is such a thing as “several liability” in which each party in a collective responsible for a wrong of the collective is individually responsible for all of the damages.
It allows me to go after the guy who hit my car for all of the damages, even though my insurance company has paid me already, and my being paid by the insurance company cannot bear on the courts decision as to the liability of the party responsible for the accident. If a bartender served that bloke after he knew the guy was drunk, and let him drive, the bartender is also responsible for all of the damages, as is the bar owner.
I am wondering if anyone else has noticed that this plan recreates, in reverse, portions of the Koran’s edicts on Muslim treatment of non-muslims?
Now granted, it does not say the a Muslim’s testimony will be given half the weight of a non-Muslim, nor does it institute differing degrees of punishment for the killing of a Muslim vs. a non-Muslim, but it is close.
I think his post shows the essential problem that the West has in attempting negotiations with Islam: they will not treat us as equals, period. In western societies, muslim citizens get all the rights non-muslims do. In countries where the Koran influences law, which is almost all majority muslim nations, the reverse is not true. Remember, the Koran, the literal word of God in Islam, enshrines inequality before the law. Man above woman, Muslim before infidel.
To reform those socities, the law must change. To change the law, over twelve centuries of Muslim scholarship and the core Muslim view of the Koran must be altered. The Muslim world shows little sign of seeking that change on its own. Would it be easier, for the West, to force that change upon Islam, or to destory the religion utterly? And which choice would be more moral?
Perry, those Muslims you met in the former Yugoslavian territories, were they truly moderate Muslims, or people who came from Muslim families? Were they “Easter and Christmas” Muslims in other woirds?
I have long thought that the true danger to Western or Anglophile civilization from the Islamicist challenge is not that they would ever be able to overwhelm us culturally or militarily, but that the relentless pressure and continuous threat of violence from their fanatics would tend to coarsen our own sensibilities.
-veryretired
The problem with such ‘after the event’ criticism is that nearly all those who make it were not around at the time. I was..and I can tell you that there was nothing but jubilation at every terrible strike against an enemy who sought to destroy us. Moreover we felt that ‘overkill’ would teach such a lesson that we would be safe from the then aggressors for generations to come. Few would contradict me if I opine that we were right.
-permanent expat
I find myself inclined to agree with permanent expat, and to think that there are more important things to be concerned about that coarsening sensibilities.
It seems that each generation must learn some lessons anew.
James, I appreciate your remarks. In the past we have had the odd nutjob on the threads – usually banned after a while if they become unpleasant- but most of the folk here are worth engaging with in debate even though the language can get a bit salty. The libertarian world view stirs up the socialist left and the Blimpish right in equal proportions. What we have an example of here has been how people who might presume that we are their sympathisers differ profoundly on certain questions (such as whether there is such a thing as an “innocent civilian”).
Keep reading the site and posting your feedback.
I would define a ‘moderate muslim’ as someone who does not allow Islam to be the axis around which their world revolves, so an “Easter and Christmas” Muslim, as you say, are exactly what a moderate looks like (I prefer the term ‘birth, marriage & burial’ Muslim, just as I use that term for Christians… though I do get your point) I met large number of self-described Muslims of that ilk in the Balkans (and got drunk with a few of them).
Mike Lorrey –
Pete_London: Are you, Pete_London, a statist?
No.
Do you believe in the authority of the majority vote to decide the policies of the greater collective?
No.
If you do, then you are, ever so slightly, personally responsible for what Tony Blair does.
Well that’s cleared up then.
Pete_London agrees that it is wrong to say he is to blame for the policies of say, Tony Blair. I agree. Peter is not to blame. Similarly, many of the people who did not elect Hizbollah in the recent Lebanese elections (remember the “Cedar Revolution?”) are not to blame for the actions of Hizbollah and might therefore qualify for the moniker of innocent civilian.
Well that’s cleared that up then.
Well there you go Perry, we aren’t operating from the same definition of a ‘moderate’ muslim. I was drinking with a ‘birth, marriage and burial’ muslim at the weekend. He was in jeans, puffing away like a chimney, swearing, laughing, telling jokes, the same as everyone else in the pub. But I know that if the flag went up and we had to choose between enlightened Western liberalism or islam, he’d be jumping the other way from me.
That is not a ‘moderate’ muslim in my book, and I have never met a muslim who I can say with any certainty would jump the same way as me. I don’t care how many pints they may chuck back or whatever other trappings of western life they adopt. These aren’t touchstone issues. The touchstone issue for me is the West vs islam and where your instincts and loyalties lie.
Incidentally, this fella Kim, the Algerian muslim who drinks in the local, gets on with everyone, is laid back and not at all like those wacky muslims and drinks and smokes and all the rest of it, he thinks 9/11 was committed by Mossad and that Iran should nuke Israel.
James: How prissy. Heaven forbid that anyone should actually spoil your view; that would be just too awful. Johnathan’s thanks for your kind comment will ensure a lovely relationship.
Johnathan: You are quite aware that I have made, not argued, my case here many times. It may be flawed but, sifting through the logorrhoea & smokescreens, I have yet to be convinced otherwise. It is a pity that you have not yet realized that this is a wicked world in which noble principles, laudable though they may be, will not stop a nutter from cutting your throat.
If you believe that the Meek shall inherit the Earth, you are clearly not of it.
And what is your point? If a nutter cuts my throat, then the proper course is for said nutter to be arrested, convicted, and in a just polity, executed. That is not quite the same as arguing for flattening a town, is it?
My post was NOT about the dangers of radical terror, which are all too real and about which I have posted regularly, long before you started commenting on this site. It was NOT about the dangers we face, the tradeoffs that might be necessary. The post, as you know perfectly well, was about the issues involved in bombing large civilian areas and the need to minimise loss of innocent life without compromising security. To debate the point is not to be “weak” or “moralistic”.
Johnathan: In my comment of July 25th. 07:50 pm I stated clearly enough the very good reason for flattening cities & killing their inhabitants. Yes, it was awful….and it was then.
Human nature is a constant, Johnathan; the ‘overkill’ then had exactly the desired results: two aggressive countries to whom war is now anathema.
Both Germany & Japan are now peaceful, thriving (for the most part), democracies because they were totally & unforgettably shown the error of their ways. For that they paid a truly terrible price…as did we. There was no alternative then. Nor, Johnathan, is there now. If you want a relatively safe existence for the children you may perhaps have with your new wife, you should be aware that your present way of life was paid for by those who went before you.
Incidentally, this fella Kim, the Algerian muslim who drinks in the local, gets on with everyone, is laid back and not at all like those wacky muslims and drinks and smokes and all the rest of it, he thinks 9/11 was committed by Mossad and that Iran should nuke Israel.
Sadly, this is along the lines of what I find. I know plenty of Lebanese Christians even who “know” that Hariri was assassinated by the CIA, 9/11 was a Mossad job, and Israel controls the USA.
Yes you did, and a mighty unconvincing post it was too.
I know perfectly well about the price paid by my ancestors, thanks (as does my wife, a Maltese lady who knows what her island nation went through not just in WW2 but, like any Maltese person who studied history, at the hands of the Turkish empire). To honour the sacrifice of one’s elders does not give anyone, whatever their age or experience, a moral blank cheque to authorise indiscriminate use of terror bombing now. History is not an excuse.
Johnathan: To have learned some history is to your credit; to have learned very little from it is a tragedy.
Our ‘correspondence’ is clearly a waste of my time so please consider it concluded. Best wishes 😎
pe: I have come to different conclusions from history than you. That is all. Deal with it and accept it like a man.
Permanent expat: Heaven forbid the ‘Slims spoil your view, eh? Let’s just nuke them all out of the way… That’ll relieve your siege mentality for a while.
See, I just don’t understand why people like you can’t interact normally with people who might hold an occasional opposing view, in a civilised manner. Granted, you aren’t obligated to, but perhaps your sense of humility might benefit from it, knowing that people might respect you more for it.
My point was simple- this blog has been a bit unpleasant over recent times, particularly for people who are new to libertarian politics and philosophy. To have certain elements go about giving the impression that people with views contrary to their own weren’t welcome and that they were some sort of moderator of discussion for a blog that isn’t their property doesn’t give off the right impression, personally.
I’m perfectly happy with heated discussion, but when others make it personal and direct diatribes against each other, surely that can’t be considered to be healthy? It’s never going to be perfect, but rather than have carte blanche for that sort of discussion, surely it would be better to exercise discretion, otherwise there’d just be endless bridge-burning.
James: Are you telling me that I am unable to accept an opposing view? As I have no alternative that would make little sense.
My opinions, which are formed from a little experience in the theme of this thread, may & do offend the sensibilities of some. Johnathan, who holds opposing views, patronisingly encourages me to do what he himself cannot: ‘take it like a man’. Is that what you mean by ‘discretion’? I call it Chutzpah.
While I understand perfectly well that I am on private property, I am here, by the very nature of the animal, by invitation & assume that the contrary views I express are accepted, as I accept the views of others.
While Verity could be naughty at times, she was the life & soul of a party at which many are abysmally dull & blinkered. Instead of rapping her knuckles & chiding her a tad she was forced to depart. Our loss.
Oh, where in my comments have I suggested nuking Moslems? Please let me know.
……..and exactly where have I not interacted in a civilized manner given that I do not beat about the bush? Ditto. (Patronizing would appear to be endemic to this blog).
I am happy that you are ‘perfectly happy with a heated discussion’……….If you can’t stand the heat etc. Which is why I have concluded my kitchen discourse with Johnathan. Not the heat exactly but the inability to agree on suitable recipes. (Johnathan would probably use ‘receipts’)
I admit I wasn’t here to see it, but I don’t see how Jonathan telling Verity to “fuck off” in any way “forces” her to leave. His name is on the “principal contributors” list, not the “editors” list. Verity dished out more than her share of insulting posts. Yes, they were entertaining, but if she can’t take a simple “fuck off” in response then maybe it’s best she keep to herself.
Joshua, by the way, Verity has never been a principal contributor to the main blog apart from one fascinating post about her life in Mexico. She was often quite a laugh to read, but I also think she was barking mad and often soured the tone of these comment threads. I am not sorry she has left us, to be honest. I don’t like to think that I have badly upset someone but sometimes you just to tell it like it is.
sometimes you just tell it like it is………………Huh?
As long as we know.
Christopher
I can’t believe that a thinking human being would sign their name under a statement like this it’s utterly vile.
Am I the only person here who doesn’t see a direct line between this kind of disgusting hate speech and the rantings of Abu Hamza. If you go far enough one way you just come back round the other.
I don’t often use profanity but in this case – it’s well justified.
Cristopher, if you genuinely believe this shit then you’re a fucking Nazi.
Sorry – should have said “more than her share of insulting comments.”
Sorry, but I missed a small but critical typo at the end of Jonathan’s last posting. He wrote:
sometimes you just to tell it like it is.
I would be forgiven in thinking that he meant to write:
sometimes you just [have] to tell it like it is..
In my book, ‘have to’ simply means ‘must’ in this context so……it’s ‘Huh?’ in spades.
Sammy_Notts: I’m sure Christopher is capable of fighting his own corner and yes, in my opinion too, that was a tad over the top. I do remind you that militant Islamists….not Islam per se although it is complaisant…have stated often & clearly that they want Israel (et al) wiped off the map. Am I right in thinking that that would also involve several million souls? If Christopher is Jewish ( I have no idea) it would not be surprizing if he made such a statement, knowing full well that militant Islam is deadly serious. To dub him a ‘fucking Nazi’ out of hand without looking over the fence is a bit myopic.
Sammy is correct to be as outraged as I was, although I guess his language is a bit overheated. I would not worry about Christopher, he sounds like the sort of sad old codgers who probably get their letters to the Daily Telegraph turned down.
I wouldn’t worry about Christopher, he sounds like the sort of sad old codgers who probably get their letters to the Daily Telegraph turned down.
The mind simply boggles at the patronising arrogance of such a statement….but then one shouldn’t be surprized. The source tells you everything.
” I wouldn’t worry about Jonathan, he sounds like one of those effete young twits who thinks a c**t is something you were called at school.”
Try that one on for size.
And try this on for size, Expat. People who write claiming that we need to flatten half the planet to deal with certain threats deserve all the patronising abuse I can hurl at them. Do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself before I start deleting comments. That is no idle threat. I can and will put the boot in unless you desist.
Sammy_Notts
If I get Christopher wrong then he’ll come here and put me right, but do try getting over yourself and think for a second. Christopher stated that he regards islam as the greatest threat to out civilisation. It’s a view many others share. Now could he, do you think, be minded like some of the 1930s, who knew what was coming but failed to persuade others of the threat? Is there a chance he simply wants us to take strong enough action now in order to avoid even bloodier action later? If this was done when it should have been done, we wouldn’t have needed to destroy Dresden. When, exactly, do we take action, and what should it be? Or do we wait for Tel Aviv to disappear in a few years before saying “oops”? Be constructive, add to the debate.
Pete_London:
I tire of saying this. Militant Islam is a far greater threat than Adolf Hitler ever was. What should we do? I have no idea; I am content to leave that to cleverer minds than mine to think through. What should we not do? That I think I can answer: Ignore the threats that Militant Islam has made loudly, clearly and accompanied by action. Try to persuade this section of Islam that it is wrong. Pretend the problem is going to go away.
That will surely lead to the destruction of many & the subjugation of many more.
When to act? The answer to that one is crystal clear: Sooner rather than later. Later will be far bloodier & may not even be successful.
The lily-livered apologists will have none of this. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.
It’s never about the easy choices, it’s about the tough ones that define us. And this is a pretty hard choice.
Whatever happens, I just hope we have the responsibility and opportunity to put things right again. Of course, I can’t help but think of Christopher and Expat muttering angrily under their breaths: “I told you so.”
TWG
Is this the same Johnathan Pearce who, some comments back, told me to ‘accept it & take it like a man’ ?
One didn’t have to be particularly prescient to see his last comment coming. If he thinks that playing the second-rate preparatory school headmaster was impressive, it was. A star performance.
……….and yes, I am embarrassed, mainly for Samizdata & Perry, who should have known better than to let such patronising arrogance loose on his blog.
It was fun while it lasted. Johnathan can put his boot in..preferably in his over-extended incontinent orifice.
If this comment gets published then there’s hope for the berk. (If not, then I, at least, know that my assessment of Pearce is accurate)
Goodbye folks & good luck. You’re going to need it!
permanent expat
If you’re still around, yes, I agree with you on what is not to be done and that if we are to get on with the job in hand, then the sooner the better.
Touching on TWG’s point, it often appears to me that some people can only contemplate a choice between good and bad action, all too often the choice is between bad and worst. Chuck in the option of putting your head in the sand and wishing it away, you have the worst.
Given the magnitude, the sheer enormity, of the crimes committed by Nazi Germany, I would disagree. Hitler murdered tens of millions, the collectivist tyrannies of Mao, Stalin and the rest killed even more people. The great racial/socialist tyrannies of the 20th Century have clocked up such a massive body count that it is hard to see how radical Islamists, unless they get hands on nuclear weapons, can match that horror.
That of course is the key issue. But I see radical islamism as in some ways an offshoot of the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th, mixed up with religion and lust for conquest. I don’t see it as worse on a significant basis, and a key will be whether we hold our nerve and don’t fall prey to hysteria.
Johnathan.
That last post, ironic snicker,
Sounded like Polly Toynbee trapped in a lift.
You have no fans. Deleted.
Given that Militant Islam is why one of the largest mountain ranges on Earth is named the Slaughter of Hindus, I can see why many feel its threat is greater than Nazi Germany.
Considering that Pakistan called its atomic weapon the “Islamic Bomb” and that Musharraf represents the less militant wing of political thought in that nation, concern is warranted.
Musharraf allowed his scientists to spread knowledge about nuclear weapons across the Muslim world. His successor, espcially if he is assassinated, might be willing to spread nuclear weapons instead of just knowledge. In particluar, we must remember that Pakistan is building a breeder reactor which could produce enough plutonium for 50 weapons a year.
A single strategic device detonated in New York, or London, or Sydney by terrorists could equal the crimes of the Nazis in a day.
At this moment, the West can prevent that from happening. But to do so, we must either control every source of nuclear weapons on Earth, or render the Muslim world incapable of reaching us with a weapon. Or we must destroy the Islamic world.
Today, many in the West want to focus on controlling the spread of nuclear weapons, developing counters to ballistic missiles, and preventing terrorists from using our own transportation web from getting a bomb to us. As long as militant Islamic forces do not succeed in delivering a device, the group arguing that playing defense is enough should remain in control.
But does anyone here think that if any of the above cities disappeared under a radioactive cloud that no one in the West would call for the use of nuclear weapons to render the Islamic world incapable of a repeat performace? Would most?
This is the point that the author of the Belmont Club has tried to make. If a single Islamic nuke goes off in the West, many in the US and elsewhere will call for the destruction of all forces in the Muslim world capable of the act.
And Perry, I am not sure your “birth, marriage, death” Muslims would be Muslims if Islam did not forbid people to leave the faith once it is joined. And I am not sure how hopeful we in the West should be that these “moderate” Muslims could one day rise to the leadership of the Islamic world.
An aside – I am surprised so many Libertarians are willing to follow a live and let live policy with Islam, seeing as how most of its adherents were never given a choice about being Muslim, and the prescribed punsihment for leaving is death. If a person escaped a Communist nation, Communism did not demand that person’s family hunt down and kill him. Can the same be said of Islam?
Deleted.
Eric, the question your post begs is this: if a group lets off a nuke in a Western town, how exactly would vaporising a part of the world that we think might be responsible – key issue – help, apart from slake our desire to hit back? It would be too late by then. The whole point behind the pre-emption strategy of Bush is to prevent the need for such retaliation in the first place.
Folks, let’s be clear here: I have deleted – as is the author’s perogative- a few comments as they were abusive towards me. I will continue to do so if I am personally attacked.
JP
Man is driven by fear and pleasure. Even though the brains of fanatics may be wired somewhat differently, I suspect that if enough of them die off, the survivors should gain a dim awareness that pissing off the rest of us is not a good idea. And perhaps, just perhaps, they would stop and take a good long, look at themselves.
Reciprocal nuking may not be the right thing to do, morally speaking, but when survival’s at stake, there’s no limit to what people will do to ensure their own survival.
I want to survive. If it comes down to them or us, I’d rather us survive, by whatever means possible.
Johnathan Pearce
I think I understand now. We don’t take robust action now to both defend our way of life and make it clear that we will continue to do so, because we may make the bad guys ‘madder and badder’.
In the event of a western city being nuked, we don’t take out the bad guys because it’s too late then anyway.
Cringing, peacenik, pacifist nonsense.
You said retaliation would make no sense. But remember the MAD prinicple? If I can convince you that if you strike I will strike back tenfold, then that would hopefully restrain your actions. You must always convince the enemy that you can be more ruthless than they are. This was my understanding of what Permanent Expat was saying.
At the moment, the Islamists think the West are pussies! That’s another reason why we have to take the fight to the enemy, as the Israelis are doing now.
Pete, save cheap peacenik cracks for the genuine peacenics out there. I supported the Iraq war, Afghanistan ditto, etc, etc. I argued for such things long, long before you came along to this blog (5 years ago, my god). My argument on this thread and in my original post (do I need to remind folk again?) is this: should states observe any limits whatever on what they do in the event of a war, even if that means killing tens of millions of civilians? It seems your answer to that is a resounding “no”.
As Perry put it nicely above, the argument really boils down to whether you think civilian casualties, even if they are unavoidable and regrettable, should be minimised where possible, or whether they should be positively encouraged. This seemed to be the position of Christopher, which is why I regarded his comments as outrageous and bloodthirsty nonsense.
Pete D., the “MAD” principle was indeed mad, and it is our good luck that we faced a largely secular, and mostly rational foe – the Soviet Union – that did not dream of an afterlife. Not even the most rabid communist dreamed of suicidal martyrdom. It is not the same issue when we are confronted with cells of terror groups armed with nukes. Deterrence may have worked between certain states during the Cold War. It is a different situation now.
Of course, for deterrence to work, you have to show willingness to use overwhelming force. That is one reason why in fact it makes sense for Israel or anyone else to crush opposition if necessary, even if that means innocents get killed.
Jonathan, once someone has the material and skill needed to build one bomb, they can assemble hundreds given time.
If, say, Hizbollah detonates an atomic device in Tampa in 2012, how should the US respond? Target Lebanon? Iran? What if Pakistan has been seized by militant Islamic fundamentalists. Should they be added to list of potenial targets? What if the Norks sold Hizbollah the bomb? Should the US attempt to determine who gave Hizbollah the money, and target them?
Note that I did not say the use of nuclear weapons on Muslim countires was warranted now. However, once pre-emption has failed, what should we do? Once a pack of jihadists has vaporized or poisoned millions of civilians, how should the West respond?
Do you think stating now, that the West will not target civilian populations for reprisal will make portions of the Muslim world help the West in finding and destroying the jihadists? Do you think that a promise not to reply in kind will keep the jihadists from attacking in the first place?
If the answer to those questions is no, then I fail to see how taking an option, that the West is capable of carrying out, off the table helps anyone. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
Quite possibly.
To the latter question, again, quite possibly. We hammered the Taliban for sheltering al-Q. If there was clear and provable evidence that Iran’s leaderhip had attacked us via terror proxies, then we may have no option but to wipe that government out, even if that meant big civilian losses. It may be unavoidable. The question though is proving who was responsible. That is the hard bit.
I don’t think it smart to make any precise promises. The lingering threat of massive retaliation should always be there, in the background.
But my point remains: we should make it clear that we keep civilian casualties to a minimum consistent with our own security. That may mean we act in brutal fashion sometimes but never in a gratuitous way. What bothered me about some of the comments on this thread was a sort of blase attitude to wiping out millions of people.
Israel has the capacity (even without using its Atomic weapons) to kill hundreds of thousands of Lebanese Muslim Arabs and even the B.B.C. only claims that it has killed a few hundred civilians.
So there is clearly no deliberate policy of killing civilians – it is a matter of the Hez using civilains as “human shields” (for their missiles and so on) and also mistakes.
For those who claim that the cunning Jews can not be making mistakes (and, therefore, that any civilian killed must be deliberate) I would point out that Israeli troops have been killed by “friendly fire” – are the cunning Jews only pretending to kill their own troops by mistake?
What should be attacked is the deliberate targeting of civilains for the sake of “undermining morale” and other such.
I am sad to say that both the British and American governments followed such a policy in relation to German and Japanese civilians during World War II.
Such a policy was wicked (simple as that).
And one does not have to be a soft minded follower of Rothbard to say that (although I do agree that Murry Rothbard knew nothing about military affairs).
Tick Tick Tick
We lost 25,000 in two hours on the Somme.
Tick Tick Tick
Do you want to stand for something?
Or die for nothing?
For you will, if nothing is what you do….
RAB, interesting Japanese-style poetry remark there. Not entirely sure what point you are making, however.
As I think this thread demonstrates we humans by reflex have two responses to threat, either run and hide or kill the other. The West’s warfare technology now makes these options untenable. The contributors to this thread are in their different ways struggling with this stark fact. This thread shows how easily, even the best, revert to extreme but natural positions. I know it is banal to say that the identification of tactics and strategies to combat these tendencies it surely a priority.
It seems to me that much modern technology is actively reducing world tensions i.e. improved travel, communication, the Internet all showing us that cooperation rather than confrontation is the way to go. So jaw jaw and keep thinking. There is a third way or maybe a forth, fifth, sixth…..
David Roberts
David, indeed. I think my position is actually quite nuanced, actually. I think states have to defend themseves, they have to accept and face up to the loss of innocent civilian life that that entails, and there are obviously lots of different strategies that can and should be employed.
Jonathon, yes but the emphasis, more others than yourself, is on the resort to violence. This is a natural tendency in us all and must be fought! I think “Very Retired” said the same thing.
What I am trying to say is that ideas and knowledge are capable of pre-empting force. Has not the success of the West come from the application of rational thought. It seems to me that many who eschew rationality are likely to be antagonistic to the rational, who likes a smart arse?
The rational therefore, if they are so smart, must deal with it, rationally. Is not Mahatma Ghandi approach, which included an understanding of his adversary, instructive?
David Roberts
We have recently changed the nameplate at RAB’N’NESS Towers to-
DUNEXPLAININ.
In memory of an absent friend.
Mr. Roberts, I *do* understand our adversaries. Militant Islam wants the destruction of all non-Mulsim states, and wants to force the conversion to Islam, or oppression under its theocratic state onto all of humanity. Along the way they will revel in raping women and children, sawing parts of off anyone they catch, and hiding behind Muslim civilians to avoid the consequences of their actions. And they do ALL of this under the banner of their god, who promises them a glorious afterlife if they die killing infidels. Do you know how I learned this? I simply listened to what they said, and then took them at their word.
So how is Jaw-Jaw gonna help us with Militant Islam? They are supposedly *not* afraid to die. They do not see us as human, much less as equals. They do not believe that you, or anyone else, has any right to life, property, or anything other than submission before Allah.
Will Jaw-Jaw help us by getting the other members of Islam to help use fight the Militant people? The West has been jaw-jawing with them for DECADES. Unfortunately, the Koran says that a Muslim must side with a Muslim against a non-Muslim, even if he knows the Muslim is wrong. Besides, any long term, or wide spread help from “mainstream” Islam will come with strings we will not, or should not, accept. The abandonment of Israel, and the acceptance of the slaughter of its inhabitanats. Perferential treatment of Islam and Muslims ubder our law.
So explain, Mr. Roberts, how “ideas and knowledge” will pre-empt force, when our foes think our ideas are worth less than nothing?
And if non-violence is the answer, then why does India not act the same way towards Pakistan as its people did towards Britain?
Barring some truly brilliant idea on your part, “sir”, I feel safe in dismissing your posts as the worst sort of Utopian, touchy-feely tripe, with no connection to reality.
permanent expat: your right.
“am embarrassed, mainly for Samizdata & Perry”
[abuse aimed at PDH & JP deleted]
It sad really.
Eric, thank you for your response but my view is that violence begets violence. Those who live by the sword die by the sword etc. I and the many before who hold this view may be wrong, but I don’t think so.
The “teach them a lesson they won’t forget” approach, even if it ever worked, is very risky in the nuclear age. A possible outcome is extinction for mankind, which of course would be a victory for the religious fanatics who are sure they would be in heaven. The rest of us and our descendents would be no more.
A second possibility is that the “teach them a lesson they won’t forget” approach may, for some time, work, but I think past experience shows that religious fanatics thrive on persecution and bide their time until their god tells them to have another attempt to eliminate/convert the ungodly. And so round we go again.
I do not claim to know a complete answer but I am sure that wars and threats of wars will at best be a palliative. My faith is in human reason as our best hope of producing a lasting solution.
David Roberts
Mr. Roberts, what will you do when your adversary does not share your faith in reason? How will you reason with people who see torture and death as the appropriate treatement of infidels? Whose faith in the will of Allah influences everything, even how they act in combat? Whose faith leads them to maim, or murder their own children?
There is no culture on Earth more alien to that of the West than Militant Islam. None. Under NO circumstances will they accept your continued survival, if they have the means to end it. M.A.D. worked because: A) the Soviets believed the West would incinerate them if they started a nuclear exchange, and they wanted to live more than they wanted to kill the West; and B) the West believed the Soviets would respond exactly the same way.
The same is NOT true of Militant Islam. Their use of suicide bombers, and their continued rhetoric of elimination of Israel, who they assume has nuclear weapons, prove that they are glad to die, if doing so kills infidels. They want to kill you so much, they are glad to die if that is the price.
How do you negotiate with that? If you arrive to talk they will cut your throat, and if you are lucky, it will be the first thing they do, not the last.
As for this violence begets violence tripe. Let me ask you, what violence led Hilter in Czechoslovakia in 1938? Led Japan to attack Britain and the US in 1940 and 41? Led the Soviets to crack down on dissidents with armor in the Sixties? Evil people need no excuse, and Militant Muslims are evil, whether you believe in evil or not.
The only appropriate response to people like you is a Heinlein chestnut: “Anyone who clings to the historically untrue–and thoroughly immoral–doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The Ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more disputes in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”
Good Day to all here. It appears some people here have spent so much time in the civilized world that they cannot understand some of humanity does not belong to that world, and in fact hates it. I hope none of those people are ever forced to deal with the barbarians of our times, or their handiwork.
Eric, I am sorry that I have not been clear about the role of reason. I do not expect our opponents to be governed by reason. This ultimately is why I expect they will fail.
Reason allows us to respond appropriately and best to threats to our existence. I do not rule out violence, but it must be both appropriate, Jonathan’s original point, and effective.
This is my point: we will succeed because, using Jonathans word, our actions will be nuanced. The reflexive use of violence will almost always be counter productive.
To build on your SF theme, I as a teenager was inspired by AE van Vogt’s Null-A society on Venus, I think you can tell.
Mr. Roberts, you final post has made clear that I might as well be typing in Linear A. You seek a utopia, apparently unaware that the name means nowhere.
You speak of reflexive violence solving nothing, yet you speak and type in English because of reflexive violence. Had the reflex come sooner, perhaps the Nazis would not have had the chance to slaughter millions.
And that analogy, whatever you may think, is apt. Like the Nazis, our foes are fanatical. And like Hitler, their founder put his murderous vision of the world in print to share with us. And I fear, as happened with the Nazis, dreamers like will you refuse to take the Militant Islamists at their word, or see them as a threat. But unlike the Nazis, Militant Islam already has the blood of millions of innocents on its hands.
No amount of negotiation, would satisfy the Nazis. And no amount of negotiation will stop the Militant Islamists. You can change their minds, Mr. Roberts, whatever you might try. All you can do is isolate them or kill them. Isolation is hard to accomplish today. And waiting to long to kill them will cost us more than Nazis did.
I am done here. Mr. Roberts seems to think me a reflexivly violent man. And I think him a fool. There is nothing more to be gained from this discussion, for either of us.