The G-Rated War: Blowing Smoke, Pipe Dream, or The Real Hashish?
October 3, 2001 7:36 PM Subscribe
The G-Rated War: Blowing Smoke, Pipe Dream, or The Real Hashish?
I want to spin antiwar arguments a slightly different way. Previous threads have been quite dim. This Cnn chat transcript focuses on the use of non-lethal weapons, the need to separate innocents from terrorists and separate terrorist networks from Islamic states, and the interviewee is as much as suit as they come. You could cut a diamond on that crew cut. I have several questions: 1) Is the US military actually going to use non-lethal weapons, or is this the new "smart bomb?" 2) Do the 'pacificists' among us consider this to be pacificist? 3) If you do favor peace over war, do you think this is a good compromise between peace and war, or is the issue by definition binary? More > >
I want to spin antiwar arguments a slightly different way. Previous threads have been quite dim. This Cnn chat transcript focuses on the use of non-lethal weapons, the need to separate innocents from terrorists and separate terrorist networks from Islamic states, and the interviewee is as much as suit as they come. You could cut a diamond on that crew cut. I have several questions: 1) Is the US military actually going to use non-lethal weapons, or is this the new "smart bomb?" 2) Do the 'pacificists' among us consider this to be pacificist? 3) If you do favor peace over war, do you think this is a good compromise between peace and war, or is the issue by definition binary? More > >
Two to three carrier groups, permission to use Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as military bases of operations, deploying a whole bunch of F-117s, F-16s, and B-52s in the local theater of operations.
Sounds like a whole bunch of potentially lethal means of striking that's being set in place. Doesn't sound like it matches up with Col. Alexander's estimation that this war is going to be fought with non-lethal weaponry.
posted by MAYORBOB at 8:05 PM on October 3, 2001
Sounds like a whole bunch of potentially lethal means of striking that's being set in place. Doesn't sound like it matches up with Col. Alexander's estimation that this war is going to be fought with non-lethal weaponry.
posted by MAYORBOB at 8:05 PM on October 3, 2001
damn it! i thought this was a 'grow hemp for war' thread.
nevermind.
posted by jcterminal at 8:16 PM on October 3, 2001
nevermind.
posted by jcterminal at 8:16 PM on October 3, 2001
do you think this is a good compromise between peace and war, or is the issue by definition binary?
I think this is the real problem with so many of the arguments I'm seeing, both online and off. It's turning into a black and white proposition, wherein anyone who opposes even the most egregiously violent retaliatory measures is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic, or an unrealistic peacenick.
There are certainly a lot of options to explore here between total war® and total passivity. Neither extreme seems sensible to me. And, well, thankfully, it looks like those in power are at least somewhat aware of the same(I'm hoping the buildup is more of a scare-tactic/backup measure than a portent of what's to come, though it is worrisome.)
But, most of the talk we're hearing(even from hawks like Rumsfeld and Cheney) is of small, targeted, special-ops stuff, with perhaps large scale ground action to follow later. And yeah, there will probably be some bombing involved in that, but hopefully limited to military targets only where possible.
That all seems reasonable to me(with reservations about the ground assault part, and any "mistakes" that result in civilian casualties), assuming everything goes according to plan. That's a very big assumption, though. And, If we do go beyond those narrow constraints, well, I'll place myself proudly in the camp of the un-American peacenicks as well.
posted by jdunn_entropy at 8:35 PM on October 3, 2001
I think this is the real problem with so many of the arguments I'm seeing, both online and off. It's turning into a black and white proposition, wherein anyone who opposes even the most egregiously violent retaliatory measures is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic, or an unrealistic peacenick.
There are certainly a lot of options to explore here between total war® and total passivity. Neither extreme seems sensible to me. And, well, thankfully, it looks like those in power are at least somewhat aware of the same(I'm hoping the buildup is more of a scare-tactic/backup measure than a portent of what's to come, though it is worrisome.)
But, most of the talk we're hearing(even from hawks like Rumsfeld and Cheney) is of small, targeted, special-ops stuff, with perhaps large scale ground action to follow later. And yeah, there will probably be some bombing involved in that, but hopefully limited to military targets only where possible.
That all seems reasonable to me(with reservations about the ground assault part, and any "mistakes" that result in civilian casualties), assuming everything goes according to plan. That's a very big assumption, though. And, If we do go beyond those narrow constraints, well, I'll place myself proudly in the camp of the un-American peacenicks as well.
posted by jdunn_entropy at 8:35 PM on October 3, 2001
There are a couple reasons, jdunn, why the black/white imagery is a good idea. We don't want to be left with another Vietnam. And while I think a full-scale war in Afghanistan is fruitless (the russians learned this the hard way.)
What I'm trying to say is this: we cannot go into this conflict half-hearted. The use of the world "war" both demonstrates the commitment of the United States and it's allies and tells of how determined we are to bring the terrorists to justice.
Finally, on the criminal justice issue, what if the Taliban simply refuses to hand over bin Laden, or again denies that they know where he is? There is only one thing that regimes such as the Taliban have ever responded to (and feel free to check any version of history that you want): force.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 8:55 PM on October 3, 2001
What I'm trying to say is this: we cannot go into this conflict half-hearted. The use of the world "war" both demonstrates the commitment of the United States and it's allies and tells of how determined we are to bring the terrorists to justice.
Finally, on the criminal justice issue, what if the Taliban simply refuses to hand over bin Laden, or again denies that they know where he is? There is only one thing that regimes such as the Taliban have ever responded to (and feel free to check any version of history that you want): force.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 8:55 PM on October 3, 2001
I am not aware of any non-lethal weapon which is deployed now which could reasonably be used in this theater. The only non-lethal weapons currently available are intended for use in urban areas for dealing with unarmed civilian protesters; they are not efficient enough or fast enough to be used against armed opponents without suffering severe casualties to our own troops.
The problem with them is that they do not incapacitate; they are primarily area-denial (such as crowd dispersal). They drive an enemy out of an area but leave him able to fight. For a riot, that's good enough; if you break up the concentration of rioters, the riot ends. If you're fighting against someone who's shooting back and killing your people, it doesn't play. When you fight a war, you don't do it to take ground, you do it to destroy your enemy's ability to fight. Once you've done that you can take as much ground as you want. But if you take ground and leave him able to fight, you just have to fight him again tomorrow -- and the next day, and the day after that. If all you do is to shove him around, and lose some of your own people each time without seriously affecting his ability to resist, then you will lose.
I am not willing to suffer higher casualties among American troops just in order to spare the sensitibilities of American pacifists.
The kinds of non-lethal weapons we're talking about are firehoses, non-lethal gas, painfully-loud sirens and concentrated energy weapons.
There do exist non-lethal weapons which are fast, reliable and do incapacitate an enemy without killing which could easily be deployed. For instance, blinding lasers work great. But the enemy is permanently blinded; this isn't temporary incapacitation. (This happens to be a violation of international treaty.)
Forget about non-lethal weapons. They're a pipedream.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:10 PM on October 3, 2001
The problem with them is that they do not incapacitate; they are primarily area-denial (such as crowd dispersal). They drive an enemy out of an area but leave him able to fight. For a riot, that's good enough; if you break up the concentration of rioters, the riot ends. If you're fighting against someone who's shooting back and killing your people, it doesn't play. When you fight a war, you don't do it to take ground, you do it to destroy your enemy's ability to fight. Once you've done that you can take as much ground as you want. But if you take ground and leave him able to fight, you just have to fight him again tomorrow -- and the next day, and the day after that. If all you do is to shove him around, and lose some of your own people each time without seriously affecting his ability to resist, then you will lose.
I am not willing to suffer higher casualties among American troops just in order to spare the sensitibilities of American pacifists.
The kinds of non-lethal weapons we're talking about are firehoses, non-lethal gas, painfully-loud sirens and concentrated energy weapons.
There do exist non-lethal weapons which are fast, reliable and do incapacitate an enemy without killing which could easily be deployed. For instance, blinding lasers work great. But the enemy is permanently blinded; this isn't temporary incapacitation. (This happens to be a violation of international treaty.)
Forget about non-lethal weapons. They're a pipedream.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:10 PM on October 3, 2001
By the way, Saudi Arabia has said we cannot launch attacks from their territory. We have permission from Pakistan but probably won't use it heavily. We are in the process of deploying four carrier groups. Two (Carl Vinson and Enterprise) are already there; Theodore Roosevelt is moving in from the US and KittyHawk is coming in from Japan. KittyHawk is primarily loaded with helicopters to support air-mobile troop deployment (likely Marines). The other three have a normal complement of jets, about 70 each plus perhaps 30 other aircraft. In addition to that, we have deployed B-52's, B1's and B2's to England and to Diego Garcia (which are both about the same distance from Afghanistan). It's possible we might get permission to use Turkish airbases, which would be much more convenient.
Also, the cruisers and destroyers and submarines in the carrier battle groups are capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:21 PM on October 3, 2001
Also, the cruisers and destroyers and submarines in the carrier battle groups are capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:21 PM on October 3, 2001
There are a couple reasons, jdunn, why the black/white imagery is a good idea
Well, I'm of the opinion that black/white imagery is almost never a good idea. It's that kind of thinking that led to this whole mess in the first place. We've got to rise above it at some point, if it's ever going to stop, or even slacken.
There is only one thing that regimes such as the Taliban have ever responded to (and feel free to check any version of history that you want): force.
Which is exactly the reason I'm not out in the streets protesting for peace in our time. Ideally, I'm totally with the pacifist contingent, but, I'm enough of a realist to know that the particulars here probably aren't going to allow for a non-forceful resolution(Ideally, I'd like to see them put on trial, and this treated as a crime, but I don't think they(Al Qaida, the Taliban, etc) are ever going to allow that to happen.) So, force it probably is, sadly. But, there are widely divergent degrees and definitons of force to deal with here. Force need not necessarily equal all-out-war against an indefinable and hidden enemy(and resulting indiscrimminate death and destruction.)
What I'm trying to say is this: we cannot go into this conflict half-hearted.
Debate and dissent do not equal halfheartedness and disloyalty. They are what ultimately serve to separate us from the terrorists/dictators. We abandon our pluralism and tolerance of disagreement at our own peril. We may appear divided, and it might take us a little longer to reach a consensus decision in this way, but it should at least lead to a much more thought-out and humanistic one than the alternatives.
posted by jdunn_entropy at 10:51 PM on October 3, 2001
Well, I'm of the opinion that black/white imagery is almost never a good idea. It's that kind of thinking that led to this whole mess in the first place. We've got to rise above it at some point, if it's ever going to stop, or even slacken.
There is only one thing that regimes such as the Taliban have ever responded to (and feel free to check any version of history that you want): force.
Which is exactly the reason I'm not out in the streets protesting for peace in our time. Ideally, I'm totally with the pacifist contingent, but, I'm enough of a realist to know that the particulars here probably aren't going to allow for a non-forceful resolution(Ideally, I'd like to see them put on trial, and this treated as a crime, but I don't think they(Al Qaida, the Taliban, etc) are ever going to allow that to happen.) So, force it probably is, sadly. But, there are widely divergent degrees and definitons of force to deal with here. Force need not necessarily equal all-out-war against an indefinable and hidden enemy(and resulting indiscrimminate death and destruction.)
What I'm trying to say is this: we cannot go into this conflict half-hearted.
Debate and dissent do not equal halfheartedness and disloyalty. They are what ultimately serve to separate us from the terrorists/dictators. We abandon our pluralism and tolerance of disagreement at our own peril. We may appear divided, and it might take us a little longer to reach a consensus decision in this way, but it should at least lead to a much more thought-out and humanistic one than the alternatives.
posted by jdunn_entropy at 10:51 PM on October 3, 2001
i just think that if you respond with violence (lethal or not) it can only lead to more violence. If you think ben laden is guilty (you need MORE proof to condamn any little thieft than to bomb a country ....) then you should fight him - not the country where he lives : it'll only HELP him, as all population will definitly think us *is* the big bad one - not its religion : it'll only create MORE extremists, and more people hating the states ....
i know it's not THAT easy, but by reacting like "we'll bomb everyone", you're just acting as THEY did and it can't be any good
posted by aureliano buendia at 8:45 AM on October 5, 2001
i know it's not THAT easy, but by reacting like "we'll bomb everyone", you're just acting as THEY did and it can't be any good
posted by aureliano buendia at 8:45 AM on October 5, 2001
The point of this war is not retribution or punishment, it's prevention. The goal of it is to minimize the number and intensity of future attacks against us or our allies.
That means we don't just attack those that we can prove already attacked us, we attack those who have the potential of doing so in future.
We're not fighting bin Laden, we're fighting against organized international terrorism. Without support and toleration from rogue nations, its intensity and severity will be drastically diminished, so we have to convince every nation on earth that the price of tolerating such terrorists is too high, in the form of preemptive attacks by the US. To do that it will be necessary to make an example of one or two, and Afghanistan will be the first.
People have criticized the bombings of Libya and Sudan by the US, but it's instructive that after those attacks, both nations got out of the terrorism business.
The idea that our violence will cause future violence is unquestionably naive; our enemies are going to keep attacking us whether we fight back or not. Given a choice between their people dying or our people dying, which is the only choice we have, I vote for them. "Nobody dying" isn't on the ballot; our enemies will see to that.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:57 AM on October 5, 2001
That means we don't just attack those that we can prove already attacked us, we attack those who have the potential of doing so in future.
We're not fighting bin Laden, we're fighting against organized international terrorism. Without support and toleration from rogue nations, its intensity and severity will be drastically diminished, so we have to convince every nation on earth that the price of tolerating such terrorists is too high, in the form of preemptive attacks by the US. To do that it will be necessary to make an example of one or two, and Afghanistan will be the first.
People have criticized the bombings of Libya and Sudan by the US, but it's instructive that after those attacks, both nations got out of the terrorism business.
The idea that our violence will cause future violence is unquestionably naive; our enemies are going to keep attacking us whether we fight back or not. Given a choice between their people dying or our people dying, which is the only choice we have, I vote for them. "Nobody dying" isn't on the ballot; our enemies will see to that.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 9:57 AM on October 5, 2001
"That means we don't just attack those that we can prove already attacked us, we attack those who have the potential of doing so in future.[...]The idea that our violence will cause future violence is unquestionably naive; our enemies are going to keep attacking us whether we fight back or not. " yes but terrorists say so as well ...
"People have criticized the bombings of Libya and Sudan by the US, but it's instructive that after those attacks, both nations got out of the terrorism business." actually they didn't ... maybe cnnn told you they did, but we know for sure they are still active - some of them even joined ben laden crew ... it just created more anger towrds the us :-/ ... more children died, dot. That's the only valid point.
posted by aureliano buendia at 4:49 AM on October 10, 2001
"People have criticized the bombings of Libya and Sudan by the US, but it's instructive that after those attacks, both nations got out of the terrorism business." actually they didn't ... maybe cnnn told you they did, but we know for sure they are still active - some of them even joined ben laden crew ... it just created more anger towrds the us :-/ ... more children died, dot. That's the only valid point.
posted by aureliano buendia at 4:49 AM on October 10, 2001
« Older Canadian feminist delivers good third world rant. | Race For the Cure Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Having said that, even a cursory survey of human history shows that force is ubiquitous, and frequently manifests itself in violence. This is regrettable, but the ethical question is what are the legitimate ends of the use of force?. (This applies to the force used to order US soldier to do stuff as well as that used for "defence" and "offence," but that's a side issue.) If force is necessary to order, then what force can we agree upon to achieve it?
Having said that, I feel secure in rejecting military response in this case. I am not asserting a universal principle. It may be the case that self-defence is an ethical use of force, even if it becomes violence. However, attacking Afghanistan, even ousting the Taleban, is not self-defence. "Strategic" or "preemptory" self-defence is a weak euphemism for what is really retaliation (assuming it involves collateral casualties) against a much smaller and poorer society.
That was a lot to say against an option that will only be part of the overall US action---bombing. But bombing appears to inevitable, and it really sickens me.
posted by rschram at 7:53 PM on October 3, 2001