« Go after German businessmen with ties to Russia, using the NSA | Main | Uber “here to stay”: three cheers for John Tory »

November 12, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dollops - Eric Doll

The conventional wisdom is that tribal peoples can't or won't adjust their behaviour to succeed in a pluralistic nation, but there are many examples - including Amerinds - of people, freed of their former rulers, jumping into modern times. The problem is not tribalism; it is coercion and lack of opportunities. Freed of the mullahs and tribal chiefs, Afghanis would do as people everywhere have always done - that is, look for opportunities for better lives. The West should have imposed secular governments on Iraq and Afghanistan and blown those countries open with accessible education and cell and internet coverage.

oldwhiteguy

interesting to read but I will make a brief statement. when you go to war destroy your enemy. leave him nothing. when he has nothing and begs for mercy show it. prevent the enemy from having any ability to wage war again by any means necessary.

Autoguy

Wow. Very interesting post, well thought out. Hmmm....
First off, what is the end game or goal associated with the conflict? You imply denying terrorists a firm base, and I would agree. Extensive studies show that many, if not most people in Pakistan hold beliefs completely in line with those international terrorists. Therefore those terrorists have a base in a (somewhat) developed nation. If you don't go after Pakistan, you can't eradicate them. I use Pakistan just as an example, but it is appropriate.
Next, if you engage in conflict to remove terrorist influence, you are assuming a necessary amount of ruthlessness to get this done. Will your conflict withstand the media campaign? If so, why not be more brutal? Those societies understand strength and operate on the principle of amoral familialism (tribalism), so strength and violence is their ruling precepts.
So, why go on the ground at all? Why not just take apart their society from the air, where our exposure is much less? You cannot eradicate terrorism from the air, but you can make it unthinkable to support those terrorists in any way. Because if you do, you're way of life will end in a shower of bombs. More brutal, yes. More civilian casualties, yes. Some media reaction either way. Less Western casualties.
The philosphy of war generally contends that the more brutal you are the less damage will be done in the long term. A prime example is Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I honestly don't believe anyone would ever consider bombing civilians as a way to prevent terrorism, but it illustrates the difficulties of what we HAVE to accomplish. None of this will be easy, none of it will be neat, but if we don't do it we will lose in the long run and Western civilization will be extinguished.

Alberta Dude

Saddam Hussein was a secular strong man and a counterweight to Iran. He should have been left in power. It was a terrible and costly mistake to remove him.

Autoguy

Dollops, I understand your point. It particularly worked after WWII, Japan being a prime example. The religion/culture of that country gave us (Westerners) the impression that they would never change. But they did. Why?
Because the strategic bombing campaign unleashed on Japan was the most effective, most damaging, most horrific bombing campaign ever. Even without the atomic bomb it was devastating. Japan was forced to rethink its values because the alternative was unthinkable.
I believe the same approach could work for Afghanistan for example. But as the people there have less than the average Japanese pre WWII, you have to do more damage. Push them back further. Maybe then they would wake up and throw off the mullahs.
Forcing western style systems won't work until the enemy is begging for the bombing to stop.

WiseGuy

During WWII the Geneva Convention rules allowed soldiers to execute captured spys on the battlefield, a spy being broadly defined as a person in civilian clothing, waging war. The reason for this was to discourage a combatant from donning civilian clothing so that he could hide amongst real civilians. Historically, this led to increased civilian casualties, for obvious reasons.
It seems our modern sensibilities have led again to increased danger to civilians, because we mistakenly think that summary execution of spys is a bad thing. Every terrorist in the world deserves summary execution.

The comments to this entry are closed.

e-mail address

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2008

Blogging Tories

  • Blogging Tories