Klarinet Archive - Posting 000482.txt from 2001/09

From: jim & joyce <lande@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] Re: Barbarian Terrorists
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 22:59:51 -0400

Since we are talking Pearl Harbor, lets remember that in
1941, there were many on both sides of the Pacific who
thought that war was inevitable. Viewed that way, the
attack was partly tactical (impair the U.S. ability to
attack Japanese interests) and part strategic (discourage
the U.S. from a war). It was a partial tactical success.
Our attacks were delayed, although not nearly as much as the
Japanese hoped. Had the fuel dump in Hawaii been destroyed
or had we failed in the battle of Midway, the war in the
Pacific would have been much longer. The attack, of course,
was a strategic failure. It altered our war objectives and
likely our conduct in ways that had horrific consequences to
ordinary Japanese. Would we have dropped two atomic bombs
if Japan had issued a formal declaration of war without
immediately attacking any U.S. installations and then only
attacked in the Philippines? I don't know.
I make no defense of Japanese imperialism or racism.
They deserved to be opposed, as we did before Pearl Harbor.
War was no surprise to us, only the timing and the targets.
However, had we not opposed Japan, they may not have
attacked us, but untold horror may have fell on Asia.
I don't doubt that there are groups in the world who
feel similarly to the Japanese war planners. They may
somehow believe that this attack will produce some tactical
or strategic advantage. What are the terrorist's war
aims? I don't know.
I have heard politicos talking about a "crusade against
terrorism." Many in the Islamic world remember five
crusades in which the 'Christian World' fought to eliminate
Islam and Judaism from the middle east. OK, the aims were
conflicted and often muddled. However, if putting to the
sword every man, woman and child in a city is a form of
terrorism, then the first Crusaders were among the worst
terrorists of their day.
Many Arabs believe that there has been a thousand year
fight against the west to gain and preserve their own
culture and lifestyle. (Never mind that for hundreds of
years their oppressors were the Turks.) For the last 30
years, Israel, with our support, has waged a gradual
campaign to displace Palestinians from large parts of the
West Bank. There are many in the Islamic world who believe
that the United States and the west have waged a cultural
war against their brand of Islam, and who view many Arab
governments as little more than occupation forces for the
West. We have American soldiers on Saudi soil. The Saudi
ruling class is one of the great kleptocracies of our
times. How can a country with such vast oil holdings be so
many billions in debt. Bin Laden calls them as a corrupt
servant of the U.S. Viewed in that context, we are the
aggressors. Who knows what the the terrorist's war aims may
be. They may seek total destabilization of the region. We
may help them.
Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. In World War
II, did bombing Dresden have a tactical military objective
that justified the immolation of tens of thousands of women
and children? I have heard opinions both ways. It did not
meet the strategic objective of scaring the German military
into surrendering. Or was it just pay back?.
How many Dresdens will it take to scare Bin Laden and
his ilk into never attacking again?
Since Viet Nam, our foreign policy debates have included
a discussion of "exit strategy" and "end games." These are
not debating points. They are things that must be
considered. We need resolve, but we don't need hot headed
rhetoric. If the terrorist is a hydra, we cannot defeat him
simply by chopping off heads.

jim lande

---------------------------------------------------------------------