Ahem…well, actually, I had in mind American deaths when I wrote that part. 
If you’ll recall, I questioned how many of these “100,000 innocent civilians” were actually innocent. I don’t feel I can take this number into account as I have no way of knowing how accurate or bogus it is.
Trujillo, Batista, Pinochet, Uguarte, Duvalier…any of these mean anything to you?..Samoza, Syngman Rhee, Pahlavi…let me know if any of this gets through to you…Cordova, Franco, Diem, Marcos…had enough yet, theres only about twenty or thirty more?..
Well, at least I understand your position better. Its based on ignorance.
C’mon, luci…you’re losin’ ground here. Better start coming up with something better than that. You might, for instance, try addressing some of my more salient points…like, you know, the cost/benefit ratio of saving populations from misery and murder while at the same time removing a threat to the U.S. and certain ME nations and establishing peaceful democracies so that others can flourish as well?
Democracies=Good. Democracies by and large don’t declare war on each other. All the significant wars I can recall over the last century or so involve democracies vs. dictatorships. Democracies do not go to war over the desire to grab someone else’s land or out of a testosterone-fuelled desire for power over their subjects.
Oh, wait…in fact, there are no subjects in democracies, are there? My bad.
His point was that our government has no problem backing murderous dictators when it suits the government’s short term goals. (notice I use the generic ‘government’)
Oh…well, I admit I haven’t looked at it like that. Still, I have faith in the desire of American government to try to do the right thing. I would say that probably rather than having no problem backing murderous (or more likely, potentially murderous) dictators, they have been viewed as the lesser of two evils in an overall, big-picture sense.
But thanks for the “elucidation.” (Too bad it’s namesake wasn’t able to convey it so succinctly and with such clarity.) 
Hey, I hope your boy has it going on! I really do. Better for me if he does, and all. I hope he’s got right on his side. (Actually, I hope he* gets* right on his side)
I’m just lacking that faith at the moment.
I understand. Just remember, no matter what happens, life for most of us will go on just as it has. If you were to eliminate news from your life and just go by what you experience personally on a day-to-day basis, I doubt that you’d notice any difference whatsoever were Kerry in the White House instead of Bush.
This is not to say I’m advocating ignorance, nor a turning away from national and world affairs…I’m just trying to put things in perspective. (If it’s any consolation, I was telling myself the same thing Tuesday afternoon when it looked like Kerry was going to be president.)
But it really is true. Almost everything in life that makes me unhappy on a day-to-day basis comes to me via electronics. So be of good cheer, much is still good no matter which of us is in error about the future.
Regards.
Nope. I think I’ll join 'luci and try to lecture some more ignorance out of you. I seem to remember that you take notice whenever I do that. And it’s a Sunday, so I’ve got the time.
Let’s begin with your little sketches of the Civil War, which you seem to think have some relevance to my refutation of your moronic (and I’m being nice with that description) thesis that “old school” wars, harkening back to the days before the term was used metaphorically by rhetoricians, have the common feature of destroying the enemy and taking over the country he is in. That’s what we’re calling “total war”, and neither Sherman’s march nor the Union’s collective prosecution of the Civil War came close to it.
You asked “what if” the South had pushed their advantage the first day at Gettysburg, thus prolonging the war? My answer is that the war would’ve then most probably have been prolonged. (Duh.) However, if Lee had turned toward Washington instead of fighting at Gettysburg, chances are he could’ve taken the city and possibly have won terms of independence for the South. Didn’t happen. By the autumn of 1864, as it actually happened, both sides were reaching the breaking point, where the perceived costs outweighed the perceived benefits. The war had been crippling to the Union, and ruinous to the South. But Sherman had taken Atlanta, and Lincoln’s Republican party narrowly won his reelection over the “peace” party of the Democrats, and Grant pursued Lee to the final Confederate breaking point in the cost-benefit analysis.
And yet, the army of Virginia was given terms which left them property (including their horses) and liberty. Hardly a destruction of the enemy. (Do you remember Lincoln’s retort to the question of respecting Confederates? “If I make an enemy my friend, have I not destroyed my enemy?” A canny cost-benefit calculation, that was. Too bad Lincoln’s assassination left lesser men who believed more literally in destruction to reconstruct the South.)
You cite Sherman as a vindicated proponent of total war and cite the Civil War as an example of a total war which did not include genocide, and yet a few paragraphs later make the startling pronouncement: “Total war is using any and all means to destroy your enemy, so in such cases genocide is pretty much implied.”
What was that you said about using authoritative language to mask stupidity?
Let’s look at your understanding of the Japanese surrender in 1945. You said “This was not a cost benefit decision. They had lost completely. Fighting to death wasn’t even an option as the emperor beleived they would be utterly destroyed by nuclear bombs without ever even getting to fight.”
As someone once said to me, wow. That sure is an attempt to say something that sounds authoritative and correct. Sounds like you really took the piss out of my cost-benefit thesis, eh? Actually, it’s bullshit. Even your next sentence validates my thesis: “There was no benefit to fighting on, only the cost of death.” Doesn’t exactly sound like “everybody we have, plus one”.
I spoke of “diplomacy, international policing, good will policies and economic leverage” working pretty well against conditions we oppose but which do not justify warfare. In reply, you present me with 9/11. Well, you’re certainly well versed in Rovian trump cards, aren’t you? One little problem with your trump there, fella; it’s not relevant to my point.
Tell me please, how total warfare could’ve been prosecuted and justified in 2000/2001 to have prevented the al Qaeda attacks on September 11? Seems to me maybe we needed more effective international policing instead of the Bush admininstration’s thoroughly blindered focus on nation-states. Have you read the 9/11 report? Remember how the conclusions of that commission spoke about inadequacies in our intelligence systems, and about inattention to the threat of al Qaeda? Do you remember that AG Ashcroft’s Justice Department list of top priorities before 9/11 didn’t even mention terrorism?
You say you’d like us to pin down militant Islamic fundamentalism, “destroying it with the best techniques available.” You stated your thesis in a chilling combination of ignorance regarding the limitations of military action, naivety about human nature, pathological callousness to the consequences of war and an incredible conviction that your incompetence is actually somehow cleverness:
Can you tell me how total war against militant Islamic fundamentalism is going to produce a reduction of anti-US militantism among muslims without, you know, killing most muslims?
How, for instance, are you going to “[d]estroy and attack everybody who engages in or supports the tactic” of terrorism? Good luck with that. You may find that’s not a fixed number of people. How’re you gonna bomb a terrist’s house without turning his neighbor against you? You gonna just kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? There’s a modern, non-rhetorical term for leaders and states which do that. We call them “war criminals”, and we hanged some of them about sixty years ago.
Your position contains no subtleties.
No, genius. It’s one of those “I destroy myself when I make more enemies than I can resist” kind of things.
Not true. In this election, 56,735,977 people voted against Bush. In 1992, 59,514,117 people voted against Clinton and a whopping 65,319,373 voted against G.H.W. Bush.
Both Clinton elections were three-way races so the smaller plurality of votes for those elections can’t really be compared to a two-way race.
More people voted against GWB than have ever voted against an incumbent prez in a two-way race than ever before.
Wrong. The money Saddam Hussein was paying to suicide bombers has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism… it was pure politics surrounding the Israeli-Palestine conflict, which I might add has very little to do with the fundamentalists who attacked US soil. If you are attacking a problem, you better know what the sources are.
The roots of the current virulent anti-American violence is rooted in Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabist ideology and draws people from other Muslim countries with a radical call to arms, which tries to pin the blame for the decline of Islamic civilization on the West. Of course, the latter derives much inspiration from the Israeli-Palestine conflict (but the suicide bombers are not Al-Qaeda proper) and a legacy of colonization and cold war, where these Islamic countries were pawns in the hands of the Soviets and Americans. In fact, the success of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in forcing the Soviets to withdraw galvanized their “movement”.
Now, over the 90s, and especially in the last 2-3 years, this extremist network, which was NOT operating openly in most Islamic countries is growing dangerously. Muslim rebels involved in regional conflicts are now aligning with this network, adopting the methods, getting financing etc. Good examples are the Chechneyan and Kashmiri rebels.
You simply cannot attack each and every country that has some % (and a MINOR % to boot) of citizens invovled in the network. Unless the governments are aiding and abetting this group (and Iraq sure WAS NOT), there is no motive to invade. You need to distinguish a global network from governments. You think Egypt and Pakistani governments enjoy having Al-Qaeda around? Even if governments were tacitly supporting AQ, and a case can be made that the Saudi royals are, there are other strong-arm methods available before the decision to go to war is made. What amazes me is that you support the war as you think it strikes at the heartland of terrorism… but the war is not being waged in Saudi Arabia but in Iraq. Limited resources? Then, don’t use that to invade Iraq… target other countries first!!!
It is also critical to understand that with regional groups aligning with Al-Qaeda, the solution is not to get distracted and instead focus on solving the regional conflicts. Otherwise, mindless ill-targetted violence like the current war in Iraq will beget more violence, and this cycle will end up like the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
The death toll from Bush’s war is in excess of 10,000 by the most conservative measure. The Iraqi infrastructure is in worse shape. The cost/benefit ratio is, so far, negative, with no realistic prospects of improving any time soon.
Which, as you know, it wasn’t.
How’s that working out so far? What gives you a realistic hope that Iraq will be both peaceful and a democracy any time in the foreseeable future? Just the taste of the Kool-Aid?
If only the evidence were that it was always true.
If those are your salient points, the ones you’re proud of, is it that you’re simply comfortable with both lying and being lied to?
Just a second, now, Elvis! Surely you know that martial law has just been declared in Iraq! What better sign of progress do you require than a declaration of martial law?
Freedom is on the lurch! Iraq has already been transformed from a despicable authoritarian regime into utter bloody chaos with some hope of becoming an authoritarian regime! There’s exactly 6, 234 foreign fighting Baathist dead-ender insurgents, and they are all in Fallujah, and as soon as we kill that last one, there will be no more. The survivors will come out of their destroyed homes to toss garlands at the feet of our heroes. The ones that can walk.
Oh! What a lovely war!
Except at one time, Saddam Hussein was one of those dictators that we supported.
The dictators we initially support-already named by the esteemed elucidator, ended up making things worse. Noriega, anyone? If we hadn’t supported these assholes in the first place, they would never have turned around and bitten us in the ass.
I really don’t mind being lectured, and I don’t mind arrogance. However, if you are ae going to be arrogant and lecture than it is incumbent upon you to know what you are talking about.
Sherman coined the term “total war,” to describe his policy and instituted it on his March to the Sea. This was the first modern usage of the tactic.
My information comes from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807120286/104-7093343-7152723?v=glance
You can read some specific cites regarding Sherman and total war here:
http://www.grossmont.k12.ca.us/mcdowell/wq/civilwarstories/topic_sherman.htm
(two lesson plans I found.)
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/h/05/eve/smts.shtml
I’ll give you a quote or two from these, though the fact that you are wrong should be fairly obfvious.
If you want to read more about Sherman and “total war” Google has 6,840 hits.
I want to respond to your whole post, because you’ve made an awful lot of errors, and sinced you’ve accused me of being “ahistorical” and have taken it upon yourself to “lecture” and “educate” me, I therefore think that it’s very important to go into excruciating detail about just how wrong and ignorant you are in your arrogant little historical essay.
So, before I go any further, what I’d like you to do is acknowledge your error concerning Sherman and total war.
Experience has told me that you’re not much on conceding points no matter how obviously wrong you are, but since the term was basically coined for Sherman’s march to the sea, I’m hopeful you’ll display some integrity.
Than we can proceed
Oh and I’ll toss in Wikipedia for you as well:
So I think we’ve established that point.
I await your concession on this point, and your apology for calling me “moronic” and presuming to “lecture” and “educate” me on this topic of which you demonstrably ignorant.
You’re arguing over an historical fine point, a matter of pedantic definition. The crucial issue regarding “total war” is the status of civilians. “Total war”, as practiced in the 20th century, regards civilians as auxilliary production units, support apparatus for military units, and hence, legitimate military targets. Which is to say, its OK if they get killed.
As a decent human being, I find this point of view morally repugnant. I urge you to reconsider.
There is no “war” with Iraq, not so far as any legitimate definition is possible. We were not attacked by Iraq, our motivation has been proven to be baseless. We are not engaged in a premptive war, our presence is nothing more than an attempt to enforce our will. This is aggression, always has been, always will be, and is no more morally defensible when we do it than when Germany invaded Poland.
We have abandoned any pretense of legitimacy, we are aggressors, and the people of Iraq have every right to resist us, whether they resist us in the name of Allah or simply because they don’t like us very much.
Note well, friend Scylla, that your declaration is at variance with our pretentions of liberation. You have set aside the diaphanous veil of legitimacy and defined our intentions as “taking over”. I can admire the brisk candor with which you express your opinion, much as I can admire a highwayman’s succinct “Stand and deliver!”
Since we are to abandon all notions of civility and humanity, what difference does it make if we call it “total war”, blitzkrieg, or a vigorous statement of policy. Dead people are just as dead, aggression is what it is, and we will fool no one with our lofty discussions of historical definition.
A war of aggression is wrong. We are engaged in a war of aggression. What other issues have any standing, next to that?
Not really. This is the primary basic point upon which Xenophon entered into this fray saying my statements were “moronic” and “ahistorical.” Following that he presumed to lecture me on the subject in order to eradicate my ignorance.
This is key to the points he is trying to make with me, and considering the stridency, arrogance, and the insults he made, I think it’s important we go into detail to demonstrate just how wrong he is, and what a basic ignorant flaw he has made.
But before we go any further I’d like to see how Xeno responds. I am hoping for graciousness.
Again Elucidator, not really. I play poker with some of the professors at the Army War College in Carlisle PA, and I’ve listened and particpated in discussions on the subject. Though I am not an expert, I am fortunate enough to discourse with perhaps some of the most qualified experts on the subject in the entire world.
The civilian aspects of total war is not the crucial issue of the subject. The crucial aspect is to prevent your opponent from having the ability to make war on you by viewing your opponent and all his infrastructure and connections as a single organism. In total war, killing opposing civilians is usually wasteful and stupid as well as morally objectionable. They are not “auxillary production,” they are particular aspect that must be considered in war. The strengths provided by a civilian population must be dealt with, and the weaknesses exploited. This does not usually amount to killing them because there are so many better things that can be done with them. Civilians really aren’t the focus of total war, though.
The problem is that you don’t know enough about the subject to know what I am talking about. Before you ask me to reconsider that what I’ve said is repugnant, I would like you to fully understand it first.
I am having a problem discussing this with you. Your opinions and assertions are so far out there and so blatantly false that I don’t know where to begin. You’re arguing from ignorance on this. I would respectfully suggest you need to can the hyperbole and understand what is going on and why before you proceed. Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack is a very unsympathetic book towards Bush, yet it does an excellent job of explaining why we are in Iraq and what exactly our thinking is. Woodward also points out the points that are in contention and perceived flaws.
However, if you think we are simply attacking Iraq like Germany attacked Poland, you’re really not qualified for the discussion we’re having.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if you play table stakes poker with Atilla the Hun, it is what it is. You try to claim my ignorance and cupidity renders any discussion on your part impossible, a claim so entirely fatuous I’m surprised you can keep a straight face.
Lets start with the itty bitty baby steps, and perhaps you can bring me along, considering that I am at least as smart, and about 20 years older as well.
If country B attacks country A without just cause, it is wrong. I feel quite comfortable with that concept, yes, I think I have a good enough grasp to proceed. How about you? Think you can absorb that?
So, if it is not too troubling for one of your Olympian intellect, might you sketch out, in words of less than ten syllables just what justification you think applies here? Certainly not threat of nuclear attack, they ain’t got none. Not threat of invasion, cause they are waaaaayy over there. (Take a minute to consult an atlas if you need to, I’m a patient fellow.)
If the Bushiviks claim that Iraq posed a direct threat to the US was not the justification for war, then why did they bother to make such claims? A bit of idle chit chat around the UN water cooler? And if, as ought to be obvious to the meanest intelligence, those claims are baseless, then what else have you got?
You yourself, after being dragged kicking and screaming over the Thanksgiving line, admitted that if the claims of WMD were groundless, then the war had no justification. Changed your mind? Were you wrong then, but right now?
Swear to Og, Scylla, if your dick were as big as your ego, you wouldn’t be able to stand up without passing out!
It’s not an insult. It’s not a new issue with you either. The Harken discussion with you was difficult since you were really not knowledgeable about the workings of the SEC and the Financial issues involved. That wasn’t the problem. The problem was your insistence that your viewpoint was correct in spite of this ignorance.
I will happily talk to you about things which I have some knowledge, but you have to play nice. I can’t teach you about these things if you are resistant, or using your ignorance as a shield. To discuss the ramifications of total war as regards the war on terror you need to understand what total war is.
It’s like discussing calculus with someone who thinks differential equations are bullshit, and doesn’t understand them, and is resistant to understanding. There really can’t be a meaningful discussion of calculus without agreement and understanding of differentials.
Now, if I have some knowledge on a subject and you do not, why not just learn about it and ask questions and understand without resistance? If you expect me to fill you in, I think it’s unfair that you provide resistance. On the other side, if you genuinely seek information it would be unfair of me to wield it like a sledgehammer or demean you for seeking it.
There are many subjects of which I am ignorant, and when I want to correct this I try not to be argumentative to those who seem to have an idea about what they are talking about.
If you ask me something straight up, I will try to explain it to the full benefit of my knowledge and abilities… including the flaws that it has.
Your age really isn’t an issue. Don’t make the mistake of the journeyman who claims 20 years of expertise while in fact he posesses only a single year twenty times.
No. That’s not good, IMO. Here’s why: “just cause” is undefined. For your premise to work “just cause” must be agreed upon by all parties, and it must be encyclopedic and totally comprehensive. Leaving that undefined as you have, one person may consider “just cause” to be that he has a large standing army and domestic problems and needs to get his populace focussed on a convenient enemy. In another person’s opinion “just cause” may never be satisfied.
It’s an almost impossible concept to pin down. Feel free to try and do it. You see the problem?
It is not that I disagree with you that wars should be just, it’s the difficulty in defining and achieving consensus at the term that makes it an almost possible variable except in very extreme situations.
Ok. The problem of course is that my justification may not be agreeable to you and since we don’t have agreement on a definition or circumstances that create “justification,” it’s going to be a pointless exercise.
We are"justified" in attacking Iraq because we accepted the responsibility of kicking him out of Kuwait the first time he attacked, and because we accepted the ongoing responsibility of policing him, and because he was uncooperative in reasonable measures placed to ensure that we would not have to kick him out again, because we were already in an active state of war with Iraq since 1998, we just weren’t trying to win it, and because he was our self-professed enemy, guilty of atrocities against his own people, and was potentially a hindrance and danger to us as we prosecuted the war on terror. We cannot afford to be full committed elsewhere in the region and have him choose that moment to defy us or invade somebody else. We had to start with him. Finally, it sends a message and hopefully provides us with both an example to those who engage in hostility against us and an example of a working democracy and ally in the region. Other reasons too, but you get the idea. It is an entire confluence of circumstances and events that makes ousting Saddam a good idea and a justified one.
John Kerry and Bill Clinton said the same things, Kerry most recently in the debates, So, if the Bushiviks did it, so did the Demoquats, but this was not the sole reason, as you well know. It was one of many reasons.
This is an innacurate representation of events. A lie. I do not like being lied about. I posted my concession on the particular point I made in GD when the Kay report came out, well in advance of the Thanksgiving deadline. I did so quite willingly and did come “kicking and screaming.” You were there and your statement to the contrary was a lie.
Finally, you and I have had the WMD discussion together at least a dozen times. If you do not understand my stance and cannot react to it without misrepresenting it at this point, I have no hopes for the thirteenth round