Over at Michael Totten’s, he has a great post (which should be read in conjunction with the Benny Morris interview linked by Roger Simon) about what war is.
One of his commenters, Kimmitt, made this comment:
‘And some Americans get an awful lot of wood from the idea that we might be living in a time with a total war. I don’t even pretend to understand why.’
I commented in response:
Can I propose a corollary to Godwin’s Law??
All discussions of geopolitics are ultimately reduced to psychosexual accusations about those who may in any way support war.
I’ll suggest that we can call it ‘Kimmet’s Law,’ and note that fruitful discussion about issues of war pretty much ends about at that point.
I’d also suggest that Kimmitt and friends may want to make their points about the psychosexual defects of those who believe that force has it’s uses to a Tutsi or Bosnian Muslim. I’m sure the Dutch soldiers in Srebenca were concerned that they might appear overly butch as the Serbs came down the road, and that a careful explanation to the Hutu mobs or Serbian patramilitaries that their actions really came from a feeling of sexual inadequancy would have done the job in turning them back.
Well, psychosexual construals aside, the idea that we might be living in a time of total war is pretty nonsensical.
Total war means, I would think, the mobilizations of whole societies to a war effort backed by massive industrial capacity, and with mass-slaughter on an industrial scale.
Even if this war involves terrorist attacks which utilize nuclear bombs (say, via Pakistan), that’s a far, far cry from the carnage of WWII, or what we would have seen had the Cold War gone hot.
tm-
Note that I’m in support of the current, limited war, because I’ve come to the conclusion that the long-term result of not going to ‘limited’ war will be total war…
A.L.
I’m with A.L.
We are not at total war. And I hope I never see it.
If we do see total war from our side, it won’t be like World War II. It won’t require total mobilization of our society because technology makes it unnecessary. And the war would be short, brutal, final, and horrible.
TM
The Israeli’s are facing total war.The Pals clearly consider every Israeli to be a target,just as they consider every palistinian to be a soldier.People in uniform,people on buses,children in daycare are all fair game.
That’s total war.
That’s what we face,that’s what the mullah;s and imans mean when they call on all muslims to strike at the infidels.
They don’t see non-combatants because to them there is no such thing,there are only soldiers and targets.
And you and Kimmit are targets,along with all the rest of us.You’re good intentions,your politics,you’re fashionable guilt are irrelevent to them.
You’re eihter with them or against them.
Forget Kimmit’s dreaming; as Michael Totten suggests, this is serious.
The process Michael points to, currently proceeding rapidly, is the one through which Western democracies gird themselves to do terrible though necessary things. A central part of that process is satisfying ourselves that we did everything to avoid the large scale destruction of our enemies which must follow failure.
As Winston Churchill said about WWI: “All the horrors of all ages were brought together, and not only armies but whole populations were thrust in the midst of them…When all was over, torture and cannibalism were the only expedients that the civilized, Christian States had been able to deny themselves, and they were of doubtful utility.” In every war, once it starts we will find we acquire a willingness to do whatever we have to in order to win decisively.
In the case of WWII the United States was the slowest to catch on and mobilize against the threat, because it was the French and the British who were staring the Germans in the face, and we imagined we could sit back in complacency. This time it is the other way around. During WWII though we ended up closely allied with Europe, and this will also be the outcome this time.
We all have to hope that this can be turned firstly into a Cold War and then eventually averted, because an all out ‘hot’ war would be so terrible. At this stage, seeing the extent of the Islamist arabs’ hatred, I don’t think anyone can say for sure.
ZD, another cold war is not to be desired. For we are still paying the dividends of that conflict to this day. No, we must finish this, and finish this soon. Because if we don’t manage to fix the problems of the Arab world, or at least help the Arab world fix itself, then we will have but one choice. The proliferation of WMD makes it inevitable.
See the Belmont Club for that:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_belmontclub_archive.html#106401071003484059
total war, count me out.
I’ve seen Kevin Costner’s “The Postman,” to my great chagrin, and the aftermath doesn’t look all that great.
Mr. Totten,
I think we have the necessary patience. IMO your concern depends more on our reaction to a major WMD attack at home. I wrote this fourteen months ago:
http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20021128.asp
“… This is a tall order, even for the U.S., and questions are properly raised about American ability and willingness to see this through.
Which brings us back to the American people. Failure to defeat terrorism means further attacks at home, so lack of resolve is not an issue. Ditto for ability. Americans in general, particularly their Jacksonian element, tend to believe in using all available force when involved in a serious war, and being attacked at home qualifies as one. Walter Russell Mead said in Special Providence: “The only reason Jacksonian opinion has ever accepted not to use nuclear weapons is the prospect of retaliation.”
The United States will use whatever means are necessary to win the war against terror, up to and including genocide against whole countries and peoples. See the Autumn 1997 article by Polmar & Allen in Military History Quarterly for what would have happened to Japan had it not surrendered in 1945. The American people, unlike those of Europe and Israel, have a very tribal attitude towards enemy civilian casualties in a major war. Those concerned about fanaticism by foreign peoples are ignorant of American history and power. Japan was fanatical. A clash of civilizations involving the United States would be short, brutal and totally one-sided – significant portions of Asia and North Africa might be reduced to subsisdence-level agriculture and population levels.
That America is capable of genocide doesn’t mean it will happen. Its people made great adjustments and sacrifices to win the Cold War, and showed amazing patience, flexibility and inventiveness. America’s ability to teach a horse to sing should not be underestimated, but the differences between the war on terror and the Cold War should likewise be kept in mind. The U.S. was not constantly involved in military hostilities during the Cold War, and was never attacked at home. There may be a limit on American patience with prolonged military hostilities in the war against terror, though that prospect is unlikely and remote.
The greatest danger is that further major terrorist attacks in America might cause its people to erupt in Jacksonian fury, as opposed to repeated minor attacks which would result only in expulsion of all non-citizen Muslims. Genocide would require identifiable targets, though, so prior elimination of regimes giving terrorists geographic sanctuaries would do much to avoid the possibility …”
praktike,getting counted out isn’t an option,besides if you were able to sit that entire movie,you’re more than tough enough to deal with what’s coming.
A.L., Micheal Totten,
When it comes to WMD, it only takes one small faction on one side to start a quick total war with America. The faction that obtains and can plant a truck bomb nuke or a kilogram of weaponized anthrax spores in an American city.
Nuclear weapons are a 50+ year old technology. Weaponized Anthrax spores are a 30+ year old technology.
What was barely possible for one generation of engineers is merely hard for the next and is easy by the third.
The other side in this war is insane and the only reason 9/11/2001 didn’t involve a nuke is because Al-Qaeda didn’t have one.
The implications are clear. There can be no defense in this war. There is only offense to take down and reform terrorist spawning and WMD proliferating human tyrannies world wide before we get hit at home by a terrorist delivered WMD.
Both of you refuse to admit that this really is a total war. At the end of this trail we are on will be the complete “cultural cleansing” of America’s enemies in the Arab-Muslim world. The Arab world’s practices of Dhimmini treatment of non-Muslims, honor killing of “dishonored women,” tribalism, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and victim centered conspiracy theory excuse making will all have to be removed from their culture for America to be safe. They will be forced to change and become western.
If they would rather die than change, that too can be arranged.
Make no mistake, American war goals here are very much those of total war. The limited war means we are using now simply reflect our overwhelming power and our codes of morality in using that power. If our enemies demonstrate the means to use WMD in the USA, the code governing the use of our power will change in the ways Tom Holsinger has written about.
The argument has been made by Victor Davis Hanson that once war is joined then the morally correct thing to do is to end it as quickly as possible so as to minimize casualties and collateral damage. This is the “overwhelming force” argument.
By taking the slow but steady approach today are we avoiding total war now only to guarantee that we will have to fight it in the future? If so, should we move now to overwhelm and subdue our enemy? What is the risk of staying the course?
I ask these questions because the people we are fighting are willing to fly planes into buildings full of innocent people, blow themselves up in cafes full of families, and drive truck bombs into crowds of civilian men, women, and children. Do we have the stomach for another 30 or 40 years of this?
Steve,
It depends on whether that happens to us at home. We can put up with it for a very long time if it happens to someone else someplace else.
It’s up to the Israelis to decide if they would rather die themselves than destroy their enemies.
IMO the next big instance of genocide against Arabs will be by other Arabs. Right now Iraq’s Sunni Arabs are trying hard to be the first victims. If they fail, IMO the next most likely are either Syria’s ruling Alawite sect (@ 10% of Syria’s population – I think the Alawites are Shiites of some some), or some of the tribes of Saudi Arabia from intramural Wahhabi nastiness.
Once the Arabs start doing it to each other, it will be much easier for non-Arabs to help. Tough for the Arabs.
Of course the woody theory is all bunk. Our leaders are not at all like our other friends, enemies and acquaintances.
Back during the invasion you just knew there was a whole segment of the population getting off to Bill O’Reilly’s nutcase guests. To the ex-General advocating to shoot through the “little children being used as human shields” — because, after all, we’d be saving more than we’d be killing “in the long run”. And then there was the crowd that just got into the hardware, just couldn’t get enough canned profiles and cool CNN graphics of those M1 Tanks, Apaches, and whirring Blackhawk helicopters (wack wack wack wack…).
But it is of little consequence that these folks are consenting to their betters’ more comprehensive planning. The public mandate must be given shape, and this is done by wise policy makers and intelligent thought leaders — who are (somehow) gloved and hermetically protected from the base material they must work.
You may believe that reasonable men can differ in a civilized fashion. You could not possibly be mistaken in believing that Reason explains Western civilization’s motives. If it’s about Sex, Raw Power, Greed, Hate, Religion, or a call to Empire — well only our enemies are motivated so crassly. We, however, are above all that. Our motives pure. Our sight and our minds clear. We are practical men and women standing for all those great Renaissance values. Just doin’ needs doin’; whether it’s because our hands were forced, or because our foresight is long and 20/20.
Yes, I believe that too. Really, I do.
Aden-
Actually, I think people are pretty complex critters, no matter what social matrix they’re embedded in. And I’m a devout believer in the power of argument and discussion among those complex people as a way to come to conclusions about what to do.
A big part of the power of this society is the openess to argument from all sides, which lets us, possibly, do a better job of approximating what’s outside ourselves than those who proceed through divine inspiration, entrail-stirring, or other means of divining reality.
And as someone attached to argument, I have a damn negative reaction to verbal techniques designed to shut argument off rather then drive it forward. I don’t like it when people suggest that arguing for peace is treasonus; nor do I like it whne people argue that htose who argue against peace do so because of a psychological defect. Those aren’t meant as arguments, they are meant as argument-enders.
So no, I don’t think that our leaders, or me, or any of us have clean hands. I’ve often quoted Hoderer: “Purity is a matter for monks, clerics, not for politicians. My hands are dirty to the elbows. I have shoved them in filth and blood…” because that’s what people living in the world do. That’s one of the gifts history bestows on us.
A.L.
With respect to the Dutch troops at Srebrenica, I think it’s important to make clear that the decision to not interfere wasn’t made by the soldiers on the spot. The commanding officer pleaded for permission to interfere and was forbidden to do so by his commanders who were elsewhere.
Now would be a good time to sell your real estate in Islamabad, Damascus, Tehran, and Ryadh. I do not believe the majority of the muslims, who are only less crazy than AQ to a degree, will admit to themselves the abyss they are poised at until one or more of those cities vanishes into radioactive dust. It seems impossible to contact the Islamic world without stepping in Jew-hatred, ignorance, denial. All those poor crazy haters are so much more afraid of their leaders and their clerics than they are of us. And why not, after North Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War I, Somalia, etc., etc.? It seems to me that Mushareff has seen the light, but I am sadly convinced that the vast majority have not and will pay the ferryman in large numbers. Cry for the Arabs.
Total War, a freightening thought indeed! Yet, one that I fear may be in the immediate (3 to 5 years) future. UBL and Al Q. have reportedly threatened to nuke New York (probable? No!, possible? yes unfortunately) Should that happen (a dirty bomb, a nuclear device, chemical or biological agents, etc) I fear the West would rise up and strike blindly at all of the radical islamofaciast states – Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, maybe even NK should they deterimine from the radioactive debri that the device was manufactured in NK. This would inturn lead to Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, Palistine etc., to strike back and that would be the end of Islam. The middle east has weapons, bravery, and a strong culture, but they lack the resources to defend themselves against the determination of the West. Perhaps even the French and Germans would strike back at the Islamofasciasts also. A nightmare, but one well within the relm of possibility.
Man oh Man.
Talk about the heavyweights of the Blogosphere. This is the only Weblog I’ve seen where the comments section is better then the Blog itself. And that is going quite a ways considering the high quality material produced at Winds of Change.
Clarification: this is a compliment, please take it.
‘And some Americans get an awful lot of wood from the idea that we might be living in a time with a total war. I don’t even pretend to understand why.’
Only two reasons for getting a lot of wood. Either you have construction uses for it or you burn it for heat. To use that phrase to suggest sexual arousal in this context is just childish.
Here is the URL for a related article in City Journal:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_what_makes_a_terrorist.html
What Makes a Terrorist?
James Q. Wilson
“Until the nineteenth century, religion was usually the only acceptable justification of terror …”