Excellent post by Michael Totten, entitled History and Total War. I would suggest you do not miss it.
This goes along with Thomas Friedman's most recent column, which we discussed here yesterday. We face a terrifying foe, and we underestimate it at our peril.
The fanatic Muslims have been at war with us for years. They always knew their enemy, and they fought against us, doing damage and killing us in drips and drabs for years. And we only just now are noticing it. It took September 11 for us to realize it. Not to be an asshole, but I had realized it years before - (uhm - CAN YOU SAY BOMBING OF WORLD TRADE CENTER IN 1993?? Jesus CHRIST). The people I read and respected also realized it years ago. But nobody was really listening. Bill Clinton didn't even visit the World Trade Center in 1993 after it was bombed. Can you believe that?
I couldn't. Doesn't he get it? That was an act of war. On our soil.
Unfortunately, I am not the Secretary of War or Defense or Secretary of State, or SOMEONE in a position of authority, otherwise I might have pointed out the realities of the situation to the powers-that-be.
Aragorn says (sorry for the ROTK reference) to Theoden who falters in the face of violence, "War is upon you."
This is the situation we have found ourselves in now. We have acted with enormous restraint, we have not nuked Mecca, we have gone out of our way to not target the civilians. We drop food down onto Afghanistan, as we prepare for war with those hiding out in the country. We have held ourselves back. Saddam is alive. Saddam gets his teeth checked. He was not torn apart limb from limb.
But still and all: war is upon us, and we have finally woken up and realized this.
Nobody wants war. Or anyone who does want war is a lunatic. But this is the dilemma we face, now, this is the new challenge of the world.
Totten writes:
We’re still arguing about Iraq after the fact. And sometimes this discussion seems so petty. Compared to other people and ourselves in other times, we are spoiled. The Holocaust informs my view, but what we have suffered is nothing - nothing - nearly as bad as that.Posted by sheilaEven if you opposed intervening in Iraq, surely you realize that some moral good has come out of it; a tyrant is gone. And we didn't need to nuke Baghdad to get him out.
The perceived immorality of our action may weigh heavily on your soul. But it’s nothing compared to what we might have to face if our goal of limited war for democracy fails.
I remember reading about Bin Laden's declaration of war against us back in the mid 90s and thinking "Well, we might as well kill him."
Democracies don't go to war on a whim, though. And according to Mansoor Ijaz, when Bin Laden was offered up by the Sudan, Clinton was more concerned about how much evidence we had on him.
Posted by: Bill McCabe at January 9, 2004 4:00 PMIt is our greatest strength as a nation that we, in general, hesitate - before using all of our power. But this very fact is used against us. Like in Mogadishu - when the men of the city hid behind women and children, knowing that American soldiers would hesitate.
They counted on us to behave morally - they counted on us to have certain things that we would not do -
Yes, they use human shields and our civilized nature to their tactical advantage. I'd rather that not change. I prefer to be better than them, and I wouldn't want to have the ability to shoot through women and children without hesitating.
Posted by: Bill McCabe at January 9, 2004 4:13 PMI totally agree.
We wouldn't be the nation we are today if we let go of that restraint.
Posted by: red at January 9, 2004 4:16 PMGetting back to Total War, my earlier point wasn't intended to say that I condemn this or that. In Mogadishu, there were times that you HAD to shoot through the human shields to save your life and the lives of your comrades.
There are many things Americans (and others) have had to do in times of total war that were distasteful but necessary. I would have rather than the historic abbey of Monte Cassino not been leveled, or that a quick Japanese surrender permitted the cancellation of the second atomic bomb mission, but the situations required that these things be done.
Posted by: Bill McCabe at January 9, 2004 4:20 PMAbsolutely.
Well - also - it seems to me that we have learned lessons from the past. We are able to look at how we behaved in wars in the past, and analyze what worked and what did not.
We are far from perfect - but we do have a healthy amount of self-criticism in this country, especially since Vietnam - and we are able to adjust, admit mistakes, change. Other countries are completely unable to do that, because there's no free speech ... or for various other reasons.
Posted by: red at January 9, 2004 4:24 PMWe have hesitated enough for the time being. We have to rid the world of a few of the threats before we can get complacent again...if that can even happen.
Posted by: Easycure at January 9, 2004 4:42 PMI have to say that I disagree with the implied message of "Even if you opposed intervening in Iraq, surely you realize that some moral good has come out of it". This implies to me that the ends justify the means, which is not what I consider moral. Yes, I am glad that Saddam is gone, and I initially was a supporter of the action in Iraq, but what has happened since then has caused me to believe we made a grave mistake. There are many other evil leaders in the world, and it is not our duty nor our right to simply root them out when and where we choose.
Posted by: Ron at January 11, 2004 12:05 AM