I've seen many viewpoints and opinions in the past few weeks, and I find some of the ideas presented to be....interesting. One opinion stated over and over is that attacking civilians in war is bad. Why do people make this assumption? I'm not going to say that I believe that attacking civilian populations in a time of war is proper or improper. However.... ....if it was unacceptable before (a suspect preposition), the military targeting of civilian populations was made acceptable on some levels with the irrevocable precedents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This brings us to the inescapable conclusion that, if terrorism is a form of war, and the targeting of civilians can be acceptable in times of war, then terrorism is a legitimate form of political expression. The only question remaining is the legitimacy of the political opinions being expressed. Terrorism and collateral damage in war (which I think is sometimes intentional) are designed to have an effect on people. They are not random, but strategic in nature. The point is more to exact a psychological rather than a physical cost, to the point that the opposition loses tolerance of the entire situation and wants to go home. What I am pointing to is that political psychology is very important in how this situation is approached. The use of phrases such as "crusade" and "infinite justice" show an insensitivity to these needs. The Cold War effort was very successful in the United States specifically because it could be cast as a Christian moral crusade against "godless" Communism. Anti-atheism (and some misplaced anti-Semitism) played a great role in creating an intense effort. The psychology required for these time has a more international flavor to it. Those stuck in a Cold War mentality will make mistakes by drawing upon an imagery and language which reflects a Christian crusade. A different level of political rhetoric is needed which specifically appeals to Islam without being too blatent a form of propaganda (and, yes, what I am advocating is basically the use of propaganda.) The original letter calls for continuing "the tradition of great spirit that allowed for the rehabilitation of Germany and Japan after the Second World War." People have posted saying that we need to look at long-term solutions. Consider the solution. In Germany (well, the Western part, at least) and Japan, we took away their guns and told them to go play with other toys, as we took care of their security needs, allowing them an opportunity to grow without a military-influenced government. I think of that periods of time when the U.S. lacked a standing army and when individuals with mostly civilian, or at least unimpressive military, credentials held high office. Those were significant times in the building of America. Any military action which overthrows the Taliban (or Saddam Hussein) should have an eye towards reconstructing the country, with an eye towards the political psychology of the region. I'm not concerned with who rules as much as by what methods. I might prefer a socially repressive theocratic democracy over the morally decadent monarchies which dot the Middle East. They may be more unpredictable and less bribable, but, in the long run, they are better for the interests of the people of the region.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST