VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

Again the Hydra myth. This is a nonsensical argument adopted, with vigor, by the Left.

The number of terrorists is, clearly, finite. Otherwise, all of the predictions that that the "Arab Street" will rise in response to invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would have credibility.

For every terrorist you stomp down with your Big Boot of Democracy, Bill, two more will pop up.

Extremely violent responses on our part will lead to extremely violent responses on their part as well... and we are a much bigger target than they are.

Perhaps we should, I don't know, do two things at once: try to stop terrorism by going after known terrorists, and trying to figure out what WE are doing to encourage all this hate towards us. To imagine that the US is not at all responsible for the events that are taking place today would be folly.

Cycloptichorn

No more nonsensical than, for instance, the "flypaper theory" of drawing terrorists to Iraq so that the US military can kill them in one, big bunch.

Quite true, the number of terrorists is finite. But then the number of Viet Cong was also finite, as are the numbers of Chechen rebels, Shining Path guerrillas, and IRA gunmen. Determining that there are finite numbers of terrorists is hardly a revelation. The hard part is reducing that finite number down to a point where it no longer poses a problem.

As joe points out above, it's pretty easy to make an argument that if we kill all of x, therefore all of x will be dead. Occam does a similar move above too. We ought to be ruthless with bad guys. Sure. But how do we spot them? They are of suspicious complexion? Abu Ghraib demonstrates how wrong 'justice' can go when folks get too eager to get them bad guys.

Take Salem. One of the predictable (or it ought to have been) consequences of that happy bit of history revealed in subsequent research was that the folks charging witchcraft just happened to charge other folks whose property lay adjacent, and whose property then came under the ownership of the accuser.

Did it ever occur to you that if the entire world would have united in telling Saddam we've had enough with his BS, that perhaps he would have listened?

O'Bill,

Quote:

Did it ever occur to you that if the entire world would have united in telling Saddam we've had enough with his BS, that perhaps he would have listened?

Can you imagine the sort of reponse that this would have gotten had it been posed by an antiwar liberal?

I think you, especially, would have jumped on it.

Ironic.

blatham wrote:

As joe points out above, it's pretty easy to make an argument that if we kill all of x, therefore all of x will be dead. Occam does a similar move above too. We ought to be ruthless with bad guys. Sure. But how do we spot them? They are of suspicious complexion? Abu Ghraib demonstrates how wrong 'justice' can go when folks get too eager to get them bad guys.

Take Salem. One of the predictable (or it ought to have been) consequences of that happy bit of history revealed in subsequent research was that the folks charging witchcraft just happened to charge other folks whose property lay adjacent, and whose property then came under the ownership of the accuser.

What is this suspicious complexion stuff? Have you heard someone shouting "kill the towelheads" on this thread? I haven't.
I meant no implication of racism here. It's a problem of ascertaining guilt or reasonable grounds for assuming the possibility of guilt. As some 70or more percent of those in Abu Ghraib were deemed later to be innocents, then the question arises as to what criteria were in place such that American soldiers (or Brits) might have arrested and held them without recourse of any sort? We know now that simply speaking negatively about the occupation could be grounds. Abu Ghraib, while it does show a severe failure in oversight,
The failure is clearly more than just one of 'oversight', as the various memos out of the Justice Department and White House staff reveal, or the denial of Red Cross access reveals, etc. Please read Ignatieff's piece that I linked above. is never the less a much friendlier place to do time than it was last year, don't you think? That makes a very lousy example considering the activities that used to take place there.
You justify here by comparing treatment under American forces to treatment under Sadaam. How far do you wish to take this logic? Would it have been OK if American's cut off three fingers rather than a full hand? Would it be OK if it was only a penlight stuffed up Iraqi assholes instead of a lightstick? Or OK if half the numbers of prisoners (some 70% innocent, remember) were stripped naked and threatened with dogs or chewed on by dogs? There are always justifications for inhumanity available. And adoption of them leads to legal and social codes which your constitution sought to avoid, recognizing the tendencies in human behavior to fail in precisely these ways.

You appear to be confusing two different issues here, anyway. Are you really under the impression that increased pressure on criminals mandatory increases abuses against innocents? Do you do any subtracting for the innocents that won't be victims of our targets in the future? (Saddam and his sadistic children). I'll grant you that bad things will happen during this like every war, but will ask you to stop short of comparing the men and woman protecting you and I to the misguided morons that burned "witches".
Bill...the comparison is to be found in my paragraph above, not in witch burning and the Iraq project. I brought up the Salem history to demonstrate why justice institutions are necessarily slow and careful and why we have learned to put the burden of evidence upon the accuser. Where we shortcut justice institutions, we are putting ourselves at risk of turning back the gains in civility, fairness and caution which a lot of history has shown to be necessary, because we are all such imperfect creatures. There is, with almost no question, NO significant evolution in our noggins for some fifty thousand years. We are the same people who rode out of the steppes hacking off childrens' heads, or who delighted in watching some English thief drawn and quartered, or who watched smoke rising from the chimneys in Auchwitz. All that protects us from such community behaviors are our institutions. Some might point to the church and others, like me, will point to a long and hard-fought battle that has culminated in a body of English/American jurisprudence.

As for setting ourselves up as the sole arbiter of good and evil and voice defining justice... open your eyes. Saddam was already found guilty by the world for committing undeniable crimes. All we've done is revoke his probation. We were hardly alone and the only folks who need be ashamed are the ones who stood by and watched us do the work. Did it ever occur to you that if the entire world would have united in telling Saddam we've had enough with his BS, that perhaps he would have listened?
This is an argument about whether the war was justified, or whether other options might have been more productive. I didn't think it justified at the time, and events have unfolded in the way many of us thought they might, which is, not happily. The US had no special ownership of either wisdom or goodness. Nor has it any special claim to 'evil' or to selfishness. It's a mix of things, like all states. But once again, read Ignatieff's piece. He agreed with you on the justification for war (his grounds were humanitarian), but he has wise things to say about arrogance and American exceptionalism. That's a failing in the American psyche and it is a danger.

joefromchicago wrote:

No more nonsensical than, for instance, the "flypaper theory" of drawing terrorists to Iraq so that the US military can kill them in one, big bunch.

Not really, but in any case, the Flypaper Theory is neither a stated objective of the Administration, nor a particular favorite of the Right, whereas the Hydra Theory is repeated by the Left ad nauseum.

And you are saying here...what?

Actually, determining there is a finite number of terrorists is quite a revelation to proponents of the Hydra Theory.

Obviously, it is a hard task to eliminate the finite number of terrorists, but that doesn't argue against attempting it.

I meant no implication of racism here. It's a problem of ascertaining guilt or reasonable grounds for assuming the possibility of guilt. As some 70or more percent of those in Abu Ghraib were deemed later to be innocents, then the question arises as to what criteria were in place such that American soldiers (or Brits) might have arrested and held them without recourse of any sort? We know now that simply speaking negatively about the occupation could be grounds.

You justify here by comparing treatment under American forces to treatment under Sadaam. How far do you wish to take this logic? Would it have been OK if American's cut off three fingers rather than a full hand? Would it be OK if it was only a penlight stuffed up Iraqi **** instead of a lightstick? Or OK if half the numbers of prisoners (some 70% innocent, remember) were stripped naked and threatened with dogs or chewed on by dogs? There are always justifications for inhumanity available. And adoption of them leads to legal and social codes which your constitution sought to avoid, recognizing the tendencies in human behavior to fail in precisely these ways.

Bill...the comparison is to be found in my paragraph above, not in witch burning and the Iraq project. I brought up the Salem history to demonstrate why justice institutions are necessarily slow and careful and why we have learned to put the burden of evidence upon the accuser. Where we shortcut justice institutions, we are putting ourselves at risk of turning back the gains in civility, fairness and caution which a lot of history has shown to be necessary, because we are all such imperfect creatures. There is, with almost no question, NO significant evolution in our noggins for some fifty thousand years. We are the same people who rode out of the steppes hacking off childrens' heads, or who delighted in watching some English thief drawn and quartered, or who watched smoke rising from the chimneys in Auchwitz. All that protects us from such community behaviors are our institutions. Some might point to the church and others, like me, will point to a long and hard-fought battle that has culminated in a body of English/American jurisprudence.

This is an argument about whether the war was justified, or whether other options might have been more productive. I didn't think it justified at the time, and events have unfolded in the way many of us thought they might, which is, not happily. The US had no special ownership of either wisdom or goodness. Nor has it any special claim to 'evil' or to selfishness. It's a mix of things, like all states. But once again, read Ignatieff's piece. He agreed with you on the justification for war (his grounds were humanitarian), but he has wise things to say about arrogance and American exceptionalism. That's a failing in the American psyche and it is a danger.

Surely you recognize that during war you have to be a bit more efficient than the court system allows?

Damn it Blatham. I only recently mastered nested quotes, now you go all colorful on me? Why don't you just go ahead and use some girly font or something while you're at it?

The abuse at Abu Ghraib is something to be ashamed of. The presence of innocent people there who may have only spoken negatively about the occupation is not. I admire your sense of fair play but you have to understand sometimes protections of individual rights have to take a back seat to protection period. During periods of martial law for instance, there may be a curfew... and you don't want to violate it. If one of our troops instinctually thinks a guy is a threat and instinct says detain him, then detain him. That's just prudence. It is a temporary solution to a temporary problem. Once things settle down; I'll agree with you that personal freedoms are monumentally important. Right now nothing is more important than keeping the peace process moving and if that means arresting some innocent people temporarily, so be it.

No, I don't justify anything by that comparison. I point out a bit of hypocrisy that many anti war folks refuse to recognize. If not for the hated Bush's invasion, not only would there still exist poor treatment at Abu Ghraib, but it would be 10 times as bad. Pointing this fact out is in no way akin to justifying the abuse that has taken place on our watch. Can you see the difference?

Granted that special situations and circumstances may arise where valid, or at least arguable, claims might be made as to temporarily bypassing normal procedures. Any civil disaster seems to fit into this category, or war, or insurgency. The debate that ensues will be one which looks to how far it is prudent to stretch normal rules. As it happens, the Supreme Court came down with findings today on the subject of prisoners' right to legal recourse before US courts. In the most important matters, they have not sided with the administration (check AP for data and link to findings). What does this tell us? Well, something we knew already...that both the military and this present administration hold a set of notions which probably is not congruent with the values of the Constitution or legal precedents. This finding was expected by many court observers (there has been some very good discussion at Slate, if you care to look at it). One function of this court and other courts is to act as a bulwark against some of our worse tendencies when we gain power, as you know, the balance idea. It may well be that one variance of policy philosophy between you and I relates to how much power ought to be in the hands of an administration. I am automatically suspicious of any address to 'efficiency' as that is precisely the same claim made by any autocrat as to why normal rules are 'quaint' (to use the White House counsel's word). I understand this isn't clear cut, but I wish to err in the direction of denying such powers so much as possible to an administration.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

No, I don't justify anything by that comparison. I point out a bit of hypocrisy that many anti war folks refuse to recognize. If not for the hated Bush's invasion, not only would there still exist poor treatment at Abu Ghraib, but it would be 10 times as bad. Pointing this fact out is in no way akin to justifying the abuse that has taken place on our watch. Can you see the difference?

Yes, I can see the difference. But still, it functions as a justification. The behaviors and policies which led to Abu Ghraib ought best to be considered independent of anything that happened in that building earlier. To view it in this light is not hypocrisy, it is merely holding ourselves to our own standards, and disallowing the failure to match those civilized standards to be diluted by viewing them in relation to another irrelevant standard (what Sadaam did).

Two comments:

1. To the extent that the administration has ever had any theory or objective, it endorsed (if but for a brief moment) the "Flypaper Theory." Or, at any rate, that is one of the explanations given for Bush's infamous "bring 'em on!" challenge.

You have yet to offer a link that established the Flypaper Theory was Administration policy, but, in any case, you've also not explained why you contend it is a nonsensical strategy.

2. If the "Hydra Theory" has been repeated ad nauseum by the left, then surely you would easily be able to find multiple sources for this contention. I'd settle for three.

Well, we can start with Cyclops' comment on this very thread:

"For every terrorist you stomp down with your Big Boot of Democracy, Bill, two more will pop up."

Then we can move to:

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:59 am Post: 604414 - Will Bin Ladin's death effect the level of terrorism? AU1929

No matter who is responsible for the Madrid attacks, they are a reminder that in its fight against terrorism the United States faces a task reminiscent of Hercules's fight against the Hydra, the monster that sprouted new heads for each one severed. From the bombings in Morocco, Indonesia and Turkey last year, to the more recent suicide attacks in Iraq and Pakistan on the Shiite holy day of Ashura, it is clear that since the Sept. 11 attacks we have misunderstood the nature of global jihad..

And from there we can check out

NUMBER ONE

and

NUMBER TWO

and

NUMBER THREE

and

NUMBER FOUR

I know you requested only 3, but my cup runneth over, and I'm sure I would have relatively little trouble coming up with another 6.

That we should take no comfort in the knowledge that there is a finite number of terrorists, just as the knowledge that there was a finite number of Viet Cong did nothing to win the Vietnam War.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The Viet Cong were not fighting America alone, and the number of Islamic terrorists in the world today is almost certainly a fraction of the total of the NVA during the Vietnam War.
In any case, it is not a matter of taking comfort, but in recognizing that killing terrorists is not counter-productive as the Hydra Theory would hold.

To say that there is a finite number of terrorists now, and to use that as evidence that the "Hydra Theory" is flawed, is akin to saying that there is a finite number of people in the world now. That is very true, but then that provides merely a snapshot view of the world. Even the proponents of the "Flypaper Theory" believed that terrorists would be able to recruit more members to their ranks.

I don't see the kinship at all. The Hydra Theory holds that it is counter-productive to kill terrorists because with each killing two or more new terrorists will take the place of the one killed. This, for all intents and purposes, creates an infinite pool of terrorists.

This is quite different from the Flypaper Theory which may recognize that, for now, terrorists can recruit new members to replace some of their fallen, but holds that killing so many in one place will not only directly diminish their ranks but eventually retard recruitment. The Hydra Theory is certain that there is an inexhaustible number of angry Jihadists who are willing to sacrifice their lives. This is its largest flaw, and it is based on prejudice. The Muslims of the world are not a seething mass of religious fanatics, willing to climb over one another to give up their lives to destroy the infidels. It's the same prejudice that supports tireless, but inevitably incorrect, predictions that the Arab Street is going to explode with each new American provocation.

If life was so meaningless to them when compared with their political and/or religious zeal why is Iran the only Middle Eastern country (and not Arab by the way) to have a popular uprising within the last 50 years?

Nor does it argue in favor of ignoring the roots of terrorism and the realities of counter-insurgency warfare.

Of course it doesn't. Who has suggested that it does? Eliminating the existing number of terrorists through killing is not the only required approach in the war against terrorism, but it is a major one.