Thomas Sowell Knocks One Out of the Park

[Werewolf]

We need to have rules limiting the use of violence by the state.

OH YEAH! By all means let us limit the horrors of war and make it all nice nice.

Do that and it becomes more palatable. Losses become more acceptable. War as an option gets used more because it really isn't all that bad.

After all we've limited the use of violence haven't we?

I don't know who said it, some general probably; but he said something to the effect of:

It is good that war is so terrible lest we become too fond of it...

Who ever said it was one smart cookie. He got it.

[MicroBalrog]

Do that and it becomes more palatable. Losses become more acceptable. War as an option gets used more because it really isn't all that bad.

Which countries are more likely to start war and to throw hundreds of thousands of people into the meat grinder? Western countries, with their detailed rules of engagement, guided missiles and self-destructing mines? Or places like Iran and Syria?

[Werewolf]

Which countries are more likely to start war and to throw hundreds of thousands of people into the meat grinder? Western countries, with their detailed rules of engagement, guided missiles and self-destructing mines? Or places like Iran and Syria?

Countries ruled by old men who never served and never fired a shot at an enemy or were shot at by an enemy.

Countries ruled by politicians looking for votes they'll get by fighting a popular war.

Make war cheap and less violent and it becomes a viable political option.

Make the consequences of war so horrible as to be unthinkable and countries will figure out other ways to resolve their problems. A good example of that is the USA and USSR never directly fought each other and the one time they confronted each other they both came to their senses in time to avoid armageddon. The Japanese found the thought of a single bomb destroying whole cities so terrible that their plan to fight to the last man, woman and child was scrapped. The Confederate States of America capitulated to the Union not in small part because of Sherman's march to the sea and the resulting devastation inflicted on a nation whose very soul was the definition of honor and honorably fought war.

Note that the US has not been attacked by Islamic Terrorists since the US retaliation after 911. Whole nations going down and regimes removed - too terrible for them to consider conducting another attack (which IMO they had the will, money and means to carry out otherwise).

War should be horrible or it becomes palatable. Instead of being the last option it becomes option 3 or 4 or maybe even option 1 or 2 if it becomes civilized .

[MicroBalrog]

Note that the US has not been attacked by Islamic Terrorists since the US retaliation after 911. Whole nations going down and regimes removed - too terrible for them to consider conducting another attack (which IMO they had the will, money and means to carry out otherwise).

And yet the US did this without carpet-bombing cities, without taking ten men hostage for every US soldier killed and executing them, without decimation and drawing-and-quartering and chemical weapons. American soldiers did not burst into Iraqi nursing homes and execute the staff. These things did not happen.

Israel crushed her enemies in 1967 without going into Damascus and leveling the city. Israeli pilots are taught to refuse orders to level cities or blow up hospitals. Despite all of those inane rumors about us trying to kill off the Palestinians en masse, we do not in fact do that.

We can defeat the enemies of the West without resorting to these methods.

[wquay]

Countries ruled by old men who never served and never fired a shot at an enemy or were shot at by an enemy.

Countries ruled by politicians looking for votes they'll get by fighting a popular war.

Make war cheap and less violent and it becomes a viable political option.

Make the consequences of war so horrible as to be unthinkable and countries will figure out other ways to resolve their problems.

WWI and II were considered "unthinkable" by many, yet they still happened. I'll take my chances with several small wars over one unthinkable one.

"Total war" is a relatively recent innovation made necessary by democracy. For most of Western Civilization's history, war was limited in scope and conducted by professional soldiers. The world seems to be moving back in that direction.

[longeyes]

Limited in scope and conducted by professional soldiers?

That seems to ignore the ravages of "collateral damage."  It certainly ignores what happened to many women and children in the wake of battle, and not long ago, quite recently as well.

War, when serious, is about destroying the DNA of your enemy.  We can pretend otherwise, of course.

[MicroBalrog]

Combined coalition casualties in IRaq for the entire duration of the conflict are 4700 troops. Iraqi civilian, security forces, and civilian casualties combined are estimated at slightly under 100,000 people (including people killed in ordinary street violence). The most optimistic casualty count for WW2 is 50 million dead on both sides, combined.  WWI adds 16 million deaths.

Note: The number of casualties in Iraq, for all participants, is less than 1% of the casualty count of WWI.

Yet people say war becoming limited is a bad thing!

[BrokenPaw]

All of this talk about how war becomes viable and more palatable as it becomes less violent reminds me of the Star Trek (Original Series) episode A Taste of Armageddon.

As sad as it is, I can't say I'd be surprised if, at some point down the road, some handwringing do-gooder proposed that, since terrorists were going to kill people anyway, why don't we just do it for them, so that it's not so gosh-darn violent, and if we do it for them, they'll stop doing it to us.  Right?  Right?

For such a cheesy and campy show, there are a few really prescient things in Star Trek.  Less in the later series, of course.

War should be avoided whenever a true peaceful solution exists.  What some people don't realise is that there are times when there is no peaceful solution.  When there is not, and war becomes the only choice, it should be prosecuted with extreme force. 

War limited in scope (as in, "the boundaries of the theatre are here and here") is a Good Thing.

War limited in scope (as in, "we will only use Nerf bullets so that no one gets killed because then people might think we are a bunch of Big Mean Meanyheads") is unconscionably stupid.

-BP

[MicroBalrog]

War limited in scope (as in, "we will only use Nerf bullets so that no one gets killed because then people might think we are a bunch of Big Mean Meanyheads") is unconscionably stupid.

So, bomb the entire city the enemy leader lives in, rather than drop a guided bomb on his palace? Kill women and children? Draw and quarter people with IFVs? That's how the Russian Army does it. Their official doctrine calls for artillery preparation strikes on residential neighborhoods and bombings before any invasion of a city occurs.

There are situations, no doubt, when total war is called for. But not all war calls for it.

[BrokenPaw]

So, bomb the entire city the enemy leader lives in, rather than drop a guided bomb on his palace? Kill women and children? Draw and quarter people with IFVs?

If you'll go back and read my post, you'll note that I said that it was good to circumscribe the scope of war by limiting the theatre.

So no, bombing an entire city rather than guided-bombing his palace would be stupid. 

However, that said, it is the terrorists (er, Insurgents...er...Indigenous Peoples Who Are Rightfully Angry Because They Have Been Downtrodden By Corporate America) who have made this a conflict that is impossible to prosecute in a conventional way.  They do not wear uniforms.  A sniper on a rooftop is just a peaceful citizen by the time he stashes his rifle and gets down the stairs.

A defense-only strategy cannot hold forever against a determined adversary.  So in order to effectively defend ourselves, we must attack.  But our resolve weakens when innocents are killed and innocents are killed because our adversaries know that we cannot tell the difference between a non-uniformed combatant and a bystander.  And they know that our resolve weakens when this happens, and that is why they do it. 

They hide among their own innocent people, knowing that those innocents will be killed, because that is their strategy.

So what shall we do?  Do nothing about a car careening toward a Marine base, because it might just be high-spirited youths out for a joyride through Beirut, ha ha, good times?  Or use force in our own defense, knowing that it may lead to innocent casualties, and regretting that fact, put pressing on because in the end, more lives will be saved than if we do nothing?

-BP

[MicroBalrog]

I have never stated that the US should not kill the terrorists. It should kill as many terrorists as it can. More dead terrorists is better.

However, that said, certain tactics that are needlessly cruel or carry out an unnecessary risk to civilians - like firebombing cities etc. etc. - should be avoided where possible.

In my view, the United States Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy are doing an outstanding job out there. I do not think there is a need to shift to some form of 1940's ROE, nor that there is a need to issue Nerf guns. IT is true - like many real veterans will surely comment here - that in some ways modern ROE is too respective. But in general, and my opinion is worth as much as you paid for it, I think the US Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy are doing an excellent job in Iraq.

Why is it that saying The United States of America is doing a great job such a great horrible thing to say?

[longeyes]

So, bomb the entire city the enemy leader lives in, rather than drop a guided bomb on his palace? Kill women and children? Draw and quarter people with IFVs? That's how the Russian Army does it. Their official doctrine calls for artillery preparation strikes on residential neighborhoods and bombings before any invasion of a city occurs.

There are situations, no doubt, when total war is called for. But not all war calls for it.

If you don't kill the ideas that pose a mortal threat, you have won nothing.

That is something we are learning, slowly and painfully.

[roo_ster]

So, bomb the entire city the enemy leader lives in, rather than drop a guided bomb on his palace? Kill women and children? Draw and quarter people with IFVs? That's how the Russian Army does it. Their official doctrine calls for artillery preparation strikes on residential neighborhoods and bombings before any invasion of a city occurs.

There are situations, no doubt, when total war is called for. But not all war calls for it.

Part of the problem with overly-restrictive ROEs and smart munitions is that the folks' whose army you just slaughtered many times don't feel defeated due to the much more limited incidental damage.  It is one thing to defeat an enemy on the field of battle and destroy his war materiel.  It is an entirely other thing to break the will of the population to support continued irregular operations after being defeated in the conventional manner.

Sort of the difference between Union Armies licking Rebel Armies on the periphery of the South while killing Rebel soldiers by the thousands and Sherman going through Georgia, SC, NC, and VA like a buzzsaw.  He killed very few Rebel soldiers (and even fewer Rebel civilians), but destroyed the foundation of their civilization.  The horrific casualty lists were not nearly as effective in breaking the will to fight as having Union soldiers free slaves and destroy infrastructure.

I'm not saying we ought to turn entire cities into rubble with the inhabitants still in them, but no small amount of damage ought to be done to give them an idea that we are willing to do so if necessary.

[Balog]

The Brits in Malaysia had a pretty good way of dealing with this sort of thing. I guess the 50's are too long ago to remember, eh?

[guns and more]

Balog, Wiki hosts a list of known Guantanamo detainees. There's quite a few that were arrested in various countries where America is not fighting. Now, they may still be guilty as sin of various evil acts, but the principle of "we caught them on the battlefield" doesn't really apply if you're arrested at an airport in the UK.

Wiki is a collection of opinions. You can add input to Wiki. Therefore, it may not be true.
I find it hard to believe that an innocent muslim was just walking down the street, when he was snatched up and found himself in Gitmo.
Sounds like a creation of the weepy left. "We must turn them free, and let them live in the US."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I believe it's true that not all of the people at Gitmo were battlefield captures.  I've seen other (non wikipedia) sources say the same thing that Wiki says on this, namely that some of the Gitmo residents were picked up far away from the combat zones in Iraq of Afghanistan.

I'm not sure why it matters either way.  "Caught them on the battlefield" isn't (and ought not be) the sole criteria for determining residency in Gitmo.

[richyoung]

Nazi spies were'ntt "caught on the battlefield", either.  Still danced a jig at the end of a rope, and rightly so...

[MicroBalrog]

Nazi spies were'ntt "caught on the battlefield", either.  Still danced a jig at the end of a rope, and rightly so...

Yes, and fair trials were normally involved.

IT is generally the defenders of Gitmo that bring up the fact many inmates were caught on the battlefield as a justification of the fact they get tortured, don't get proper legal defense, etc. And it's true as far is goes that if you're caught at a battlefield shooting at Alled forces there's no need for a trial to prove your terrorist identity.

But if you're caught at an airport in the UK, then maybe some form of evidentiary standard is in order.