Would Attacking Iran Be Worth It?

[D'rok]

The US is hardly monolithic. The Liberal/Conservative split has all sorts of jagged edges and there are camps within camps within camps. Isolationism is very much a part of many Conservative beliefs. Imperialism is very much a part of some Liberal camps.

True. But sweeping generalizations are fun to make.

I don't think that the US so much wants to reshape the rest of the world as to get them to stop annoying us. Too many of us seem to see "freedom" as some sort of panacea for all that ails a country or region.

I agree that it is impossible to attribute one specific motive or attitude to America as a whole...but I also think that some influential folks in the current administration really do want to reshape the world, and they want to do it militarily. The label "neo-conservative" gets tossed around a lot to the point of meaninglessness; I think a better label would be "neo-Hegelian". They have adopted Hegel's historicism but have subtracted his notion of "Spirit" (self-conscious dialectical becoming of the Absolute World Spirit of Freedom, realized in History as violent struggle and manifested as the Nation-State) and replaced it with ideology. (This is courtesy of Kojeve and Fukuyama). In this view, liberal democracy is the final victory in the battle of ideas and it is good for both America and the world to hasten its inevitable universalization - and this should be accomplished through military power. In other words, they see liberal democratic freedom as some sort of panacea.

I really think there are such "true believers" in the current administration, but I readily admit that it would be a mistake to assume that this explains everything - or even very much at all - about American foreign policy. Not only that, but classical realists (Iraq Survey Group for example) are starting to reassert their views. However, it does dovetail nicely with America's history of exceptionalism and self-perception as the "shining city on the hill". (Manifest Destiny, etc.)

They are not prepared to administer governments in other places and really don't want to deal with all those wierdos.

This is part of the tragic irony I was talking about. Successful transformative hard-power empire requires the British model of conquer, rule and colonize; or the Roman model of conquer, hands-off rule where local civil structures of authority remain mostly intact, and Roman allegiance enforced by locally garrisoned legions. In Iraq, America has not committed to either of these approaches but has instead made a mish-mash of both that has resulted in disaster. I think that this is an indication of the American distaste for empire in conflict with its own imperial ambitions.

It is nothing at all like any kind of imperialism the world has ever seen. Ironically, the US economic and media juggernaut is reshaping the world without the military raising a cap pistol.

Yup. And this kind of soft-power soft-empire would be further advanced by retreating entirely from hard-power empire.

I don't think so. What it takes is time and a lot of argument. War seems to be the thing setting them back, and Total War would probably mean Total Downfall, ironically (again) because the US really does have a strong distaste for tyrants. Once it becomes apparant that we are becoming tyrants, support for our military operations drops sharply, as it has in the Iraq war. If I found my country was going to engage in Total War, I'd fight for the other side. I think a lot of Americans would.

I should have said that successful military conquest and transformation requires commitment to something like Total War. I agree that there is more than one way to achieve transformative goals...and time and argument (read: Diplomacy) are the methods I think should be favoured. You (monolithic America) have great arguments on your side, and your general distaste for tyranny speaks volumes about your character. We (monolithic non-American West) want to see you out there in the world arguing, not bombing. (Although we do understand that military action is, on occasion, necessary and unavoidable). (Generalizations for purpose of rhetoric only)

Ah, if it really were that simple. It will never be a choice of one way over the other. It will be a kludged-together mish-mash of various of the stronger American traits. Who knows what it will look like.

That's what makes it so interesting and fascinating. America-watching is something of an informal national pastime in my country.



P.S. Please don't bomb Iran.

 

[Damien Evans]

If you want to talk about post hoc, fallacious buffalo crap, you just laid a steaming pile.

The bomb was a weapon used to fight and end a war, but if one is to use your post hoc buffalo fewments, the entire war the Americans fought against Japan, which killed an order of magnitude (plus) more Japanese than the two A Bombs, was an immoral act. I fail to find it immoral to kill a load of people quickly, but moral to kill that many or more over an extended period of time, and quite possibly kill an order of magnitude more over a further period of time by extending a conventional war.

Atrocity? Nope, not even close, it was a simple air raid, conducted under the laws of war, with weapons that were at hand and not unlawful by any measure or code.

Japan and the US were in an all out, total, industrial age war, the likes of which you have not experienced, nor I, a war driven by a purpose and emotive element that is not suited to Ivory Towers. This was two nations at war, completely mobilized, it was not two baroque era armies playing King's Blood Chess.

You want to talk about about the Bataan Death March, fine, we'll discuss immoral.

Agreed.


DR

I was going to post a reply, but you've already covered it all

 

[Damien Evans]

Well over 300,000 people died in the atomic bomb attacks, including about 3000 Japanese-Americans. Only a small percentage of the casualties were soldiers. The US had a total of only 420,000 deaths in all of WWII, most of which were millitary. Of the some 11,000 civilian US deaths, as many as a quarter of them died in the atomic bomb attacks.

Yeah, I'll discuss "immoral" with you if you like.

the highest figures i have heard for the atomic bomb blasts list a total of 200000 dead, where did you get 300000 from?

 

[D'rok]

Why did the second bombing happen? These are the basic reasons:

- snip -

In response to this post I'd like to just say....




...nice avatar.

 

[Darth Rotor]

True. But sweeping generalizations are fun to make.

P.S. Please don't bomb Iran.

Please, someone stuff a sock in the mouth of Norman "Godwin Man" Podhoretz, and his "The Case for Bombing Iran." He is rabble rousing, as of 30 May, for bombing Iran sooner, not later.

In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force—any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938

Chickenhawk much, Norm? Silver Bullet much?

He seems to have failed to get the mess that pre emptive war has made in Iraq. Maybe the looming 40th anniversary of the Six Day (preemptive) War is getting the Israeli Hawk Jingoism Juice flowing in Norm the Podz.

DR

 

[Corsair 115]

In response to this post I'd like to just say....

...nice avatar.

Though I am in full agreement with this sentiment, the other areas I outlined are worthy of some response I should think.

 

[D'rok]

Though I am in full agreement with this sentiment, the other areas I outlined are worthy of some response I should think.

Well...you have a much greater knowledge of the events than I do, so I'll assume for the sake of argument that your exegesis is correct. But besides giving a lot of detail, I don't really see what you are adding to the debate. You have just given a long and detailed post-diction that rationalizes the atomic attacks and justifies directly targeting civilians. I'm not sure I could have constructed a better example of exactly what I was talking about. Based purely on post-hoc reasoning, you used the same train-tracks moral dilemma that I described to justify the nuclear choice, and you have thus quite convincingly absolved America of guilt for a horrendous act in a horrendous war.

Post-diction is not prediction. I'm not really all that interested in second-guessing the choices made by American commanders at the time - in my comfy armchair I cannot possibly imagine those kinds of circumstances and pressures. What I am worried about is using this kind of post-diction to predict what will happen if Iran goes nuclear and to justify military intervention. Someone as well-spoken as yourself (note: I am not implying that you personally would do this) could quite easily construct a worst-case-scenario about a nuclear-armed Iran in order to justify an attack as a lesser and necessary evil. In fact, this sort of rhetoric is actually being used. (See DR's example). Add some fiery Periclean oratory to the mix, and presto...popular support for more war.

 

[The Atheist]

Darth Rotor

D'rok the Lacone










This is one of those occasions when I'm really disappointed at not being able to have a good swear, because your contribution to this debate is just out####ingstanding.

There are so few people able to see the actual consequences of attacking Iran or use of nukes that you really do stand out as bastions of sense.

Well played.

 

[Azure]

We are also forgetting that the U.S. killed far more people by simply doing large scale (blind) bombings of cities that was much more devastating than the two nukes that hit Japan.

QFT.

A lot of people have forgotten about the fire-bombings.

 

[Corsair 115]

You have just given a long and detailed post-diction that rationalizes the atomic attacks and justifies directly targeting civilians.

That was in response to your position where civilians could not be considered a target. I wanted to lay out the opposing case which demonstrated that civilians can be considered a legitimate target. And I have not seen you actually refute that reasoning, other than to say killing civilians is bad.

Based purely on post-hoc reasoning, you used the same train-tracks moral dilemma that I described to justify the nuclear choice, and you have thus quite convincingly absolved America of guilt for a horrendous act in a horrendous war.

Why was the action horrendous? Was it horrendous only because it was civilians killed? Is that the only criteria by which something is judged horrendous? Does the number of dead soliders qualify in making something horrendous?

You have taken the position that the bombing was immoral, but you have not fleshed out your objections beyond the "hurting civilians is bad" view. My post was intended to challenge you to think more deeply about that view, to get you to put more concrete reasons to it. I laid out a case for why attacking civilians can be considered legitimate and therefore morally acceptable; I was hoping that you might offer detailed rebuttals to those reasons to better support your view.

What I am worried about is using this kind of post-diction to predict what will happen if Iran goes nuclear and to justify military intervention.

Note that I haven't taken any position as yet in this thread in regards to taking action on Iran; I saw the historical aspect to the thread and wanted to remark on that particular aspect.

Admittedly, by the time I had done so the thread had veered back to the discussion of the current situation rather than the historical angle.

 

[President Bush]

It's simple: no military, be it ancient, medieval, or 20th century, can exist without the support of the civilian and civilian economy. Who is it who supplies the soldiers, sailors, and airmen? Civilians. Who is it who grows the food that feeds the military personnel? Civilians. Who is it who builds the ships and aircraft and tanks and rifles and bullets which the military uses? Civilians. Who is it who mines the resources needed to build the implements of war? Civilians. Who is it who supplies the water and power needed to run the factories? Civilians. Who is it who operate the trains needed to move the resources to the factories? Civilians. And so on.

Given the above, civilians are indeed a legitimate target in a war, but an indirect one.

Legitimate?

Rape and associated violence against civilians (women, men, girls, and boys) have been widely employed as weapons in the multiple regional and civil wars that have plagued the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Such violence was noted in cross-border hostilities in 1991 but became more frequent in1994 in the context of regional conflicts stemming from the Rwandan genocide and the pursuant exodus of Rwandan civilians and armed groups into eastern DRC. Fighting continued and grew in the two waves of conflict—known locally as World War I and World War II--that followed in 1996 and 1998, involving seven countries at one point. Perceived as a particularly effective weapon of war and used to subdue, punish, or take revenge upon entire communities, acts of sexual and gender-based violence increased concomitantly. Attacks have comprised individual rapes, sexual abuse, gang rapes, mutilation of genitalia, and rape-shooting or rape-stabbing combinations, at times undertaken after family members have been tied up and forced to watch. The perpetrators have come from among virtually all of the armies, militias and gangs implicated in the conflicts, including local bands that attacked their own communities and local police forces. According to a doctor at Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, many victims in that area reported that attackers would encircle villages and rape the women publicly and collectively, including children and the elderly.

Victims of sexual violence range in age from four months (a very recent case of attempted rape in Ituri) to 84 years of age. The effects of rape and mutilation are far reaching. In addition to the often-debilitating physical and psychological harm caused to the estimated tens of thousands of victims, the deep cultural taboos surrounding rape have instilled a sense of profound shame and humiliation in both victims and the families unable to protect them, effectively shattering communities throughout the region.

The effects of rape and mutilations are far-reaching. Community leaders willing to speak out noted that the frequent and extreme brutality committed with impunity during wave after wave of armed occupation resulted in the disintegration of the moral and social fabric in many localities. Social stigma has left large numbers of rape victims and children born of rape rejected by their families and communities. Many cases of HIV and other infections remain untested and untreated. Fear of going to fields and markets, sites where rapes often take place, has resulted in spiraling malnutrition and economic loss. Widespread criminal impunity and inadequate local and regional governance leave communities without means to reduce the violence.



http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:w4kc9ke5_xwJ:www.peacewomen.org/resources/DRC/USAIDDCHADRC.

There's more than one way to keep expendable civilians from growing food, supplying resources, and providing water to the bad guys.

 

[D'rok]

That was in response to your position where civilians could not be considered a target. I wanted to lay out the opposing case which demonstrated that civilians can be considered a legitimate target. And I have not seen you actually refute that reasoning, other than to say killing civilians is bad.

You might be confusing me with Tricky. He (she? sorry) was the one who was making the strongest statements about targeting civilians. (Although I also do not approve of that tactic). I'm of the more general and, I think, non-controversial "atomic weapons are monstrous" school of thought.

 

[D'rok]

Hmmm...I just noticed I made a really big blunder in one of my posts that I can no longer edit to correct. So...because I'm anal-retentive, I'm doing it in a new post.

Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2655263#post2655263
"Iraq Survey Group" should be "Iraq Study Group". The Iraq Survey Group was the body set up by the Bush administration to find WMDs in Iraq when Hans Blix "failed" to do so. The Iraq Study Group was the James Baker led classical realist policy task force. Big difference. My bad.