Will Bombing Cities Work?
Kevin Drum: "In a war like the one we're in, the tactics of conquest are the only ones that will work, but conquest itself is both unacceptable to us and conterproductive to our long-term goal of engaging moderate Muslims--a goal accepted by both liberals and conservatives alike as key to long term victory."
What tactics of conquest is he talking about? "...in a war of liberation, you are expected to liberate. You are emphatically not expected to raze entire cities at the cost of thousands of civilian lives."
In a way Drum fudges on whether massive destruction will work or not. He says matter-of-factly that it is the only thing that will work, then argues that it will be counter-productive in the "long term."
We probably all need to think about this, regardless of what happens in Iraq in the next few weeks or months. Let's assume for a moment that the pro-war crowd are right about a couple of things. Not only is Islam itself spreading, but radical forms of Islam, linked to arbitrary government and terrorism. In 1900 there were perhaps one or two mullocracies: "Turkey," or the Ottoman Empire, which was constantly referred to as a sick man, etc.; and maybe Egypt.
By 2000 there were many mullocracies, and they were a growing threat to the West. (I should have added Jordan to this list). One big catalyst to "Arab unity" was the mujahadeen war in Afghanistan in the 80s; it seems that virtually no one in the West gave any thought to what the aftermath would be of arming and (loosely) uniting these somewhat disparate forces, especially if they actually defeated the Number 2 power in the Cold War. The West is an easy target for resentment and hatred because it is both infidel and wealthy. The U.S., at least, is almost unbelievably powerful in conventional military and technological terms. Therefore radical Muslims will target the U.S. and the West as a whole (when they are not blowing up Saudis and what not).
What do we do about this? This I think is Glenn Reynolds' question, and that of a lot of pro-war folks. If not Bush's approach, which seems like a dog's breakfast at this point, then what exactly? This is a question not only for Kerry, but for many of us, including, if I may say so, Jimmie Chirac and me. (I guess I'm thinking of The Shining: "If ... I may be so bold sir").
For the sake of our security, it seems that we need to win hearts and minds. Drum joins those who say: we can't use force except in small efforts (let me guess: "surgical strikes"?); diplomacy and old-fashioned police work, along with spending some of the $100 billion (or more) going in to Iraq on foreign aid, etc.
But what if this actually doesn't work?
And by the way, is it true that the massive destruction thing doesn't work? It worked in both Japan and Germany in World War II and the aftermath. The survivors, who had lost many loved ones and been creamed by aerial bombardment including, of course, atomic bombs, had in fact given up all loyalty to the militaristic regimes that had started the war. They were ready for liberal democracy. (Machiavelli might say they were stupefied, and hence ready for anything).
Maybe the difference today is that no one Arab/Moslem country can be decisive? There is a whole huge world out there, or different worlds, Arab overlapping with Moslem overlapping with Third World Asian? If so, Drum and others may be right; massive destruction in one spot will only infuriate folks in a lot of other spots.
|
