J-Pod and Genocide
A couple days ago I linked to an Op-Ed by John Podhoretz claiming the perhaps our greatest mistake in Iraq was that we failed to systematically target and slaughter Sunni males between the ages of 15 and 35. Along with many other bloggers, I argued that any serious consideration of such a course would be tantamount to advocating a policy of genocide.
In response to these accusations, J-Pod claims that the purpose of his column "was [to show] that there are measures entirely closed off to us because of the nature of our civilization and that this puts us at a unique disadvantage when fighting a stateless foe of unique ruthlessness." J-Pod does not lament the fact that we have in sense been forced to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, but at the same time he wonders how we should/would proceed if it turns out that the only way we can defeat Islamo-Fascism is by perpetrating pitiless acts of inhumanity.
I'm not sure I'm convinced by J-Pod's attempts to clarify his position. While on the face of it it seems clear that J-Pod doesn't think we should immediately start subjecting Iraqi or Lebanese cities to Dresden-style bombing raids, I think he's standing on a pretty slippery slope here. J-Pod has been nothing but clear in his belief that the likes of Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Iran, etc., pose as great a threat to Western civilization as the Axis powers once did during the 1940s. Naturally then, he has been a strong advocate of the idea that Islamo-Fascism is a military problem, and that the only way to defeat it is via the application of massive amounts of military power - hence his affinity for labeling an appeaser anyone who thinks our aims in the war on terror would be better served by getting out of Iraq or pursuing a policy of diplomatic engagement with Iran. Yet in addition to reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the terrorist threat, the problem with such a Manichaean mindset is that the longer and tougher the struggle against terrorism becomes, the more difficult it will be for J-Pod to maintain the kind of cognitive normative barriers to brutal action that he appears to now applaud. Were there to be another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil or were the situation in Iraq to reach a point where U.S. soldiers start dying at a rate of 15-20 per day instead of the current rate of 2-3 per day, I think its fair to say that J-Pod would be advocating the use of far more - not less - violence.
UPDATE: Having re-read this post and found it less than satisfying, I decided to re-write the last few lines in an attempt to clarify my position.
In response to these accusations, J-Pod claims that the purpose of his column "was [to show] that there are measures entirely closed off to us because of the nature of our civilization and that this puts us at a unique disadvantage when fighting a stateless foe of unique ruthlessness." J-Pod does not lament the fact that we have in sense been forced to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, but at the same time he wonders how we should/would proceed if it turns out that the only way we can defeat Islamo-Fascism is by perpetrating pitiless acts of inhumanity.
I'm not sure I'm convinced by J-Pod's attempts to clarify his position. While on the face of it it seems clear that J-Pod doesn't think we should immediately start subjecting Iraqi or Lebanese cities to Dresden-style bombing raids, I think he's standing on a pretty slippery slope here. J-Pod has been nothing but clear in his belief that the likes of Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Iran, etc., pose as great a threat to Western civilization as the Axis powers once did during the 1940s. Naturally then, he has been a strong advocate of the idea that Islamo-Fascism is a military problem, and that the only way to defeat it is via the application of massive amounts of military power - hence his affinity for labeling an appeaser anyone who thinks our aims in the war on terror would be better served by getting out of Iraq or pursuing a policy of diplomatic engagement with Iran. Yet in addition to reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the terrorist threat, the problem with such a Manichaean mindset is that the longer and tougher the struggle against terrorism becomes, the more difficult it will be for J-Pod to maintain the kind of cognitive normative barriers to brutal action that he appears to now applaud. Were there to be another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil or were the situation in Iraq to reach a point where U.S. soldiers start dying at a rate of 15-20 per day instead of the current rate of 2-3 per day, I think its fair to say that J-Pod would be advocating the use of far more - not less - violence.
UPDATE: Having re-read this post and found it less than satisfying, I decided to re-write the last few lines in an attempt to clarify my position.
posted by Kingston Reif at 6:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home