Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

historian Howard Zinn:

the technology of war has reached the point where inevitably, 90% of its victims are civilians, and many of those are children, so that any war, whatever words are used to justify it, is a war against children.

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/ ... 03zinn.cfm

After This War

I agree wholeheartedly with the world view expressed in this article, with the idea that "war cannot be humanized, only abolished". War is a short-term 'fix', and always breeds yet more war. The war-as-a-drug analogy is a pretty good one.

When I hear military technicians talking about calculated mass-murder in detached, or 'clinical', or even beneficial ways, I can't really fathom it. No doubt most of them would challenge the selected quote and argue that technology has made war more efficient and less deadly overall-- 'tidied up' the process. They could pull out charts and graphs to support their claim-- again, everything theoretical, everything by the numbers. But what is the real 'gain' in 40,000 Iraqi dead with today's technology versus, say, 70,000 dead with yesterday's? We've still pursued a murderous war and occupation which ultimately will not solve the deeper problems of the region.

Zinn apparently allowed one possible exception to his call to abolish war in general-- intervention to stop genocide. This makes some sense. It's not that the military will never be needed-- for self-defense and humanitarian-type efforts in a truer sense. Western foreign policy is far too militarized in general, and not interested in solving root problems. And its attendent wars are increasingly the vehicle of imperial aggression, dressed up in all manner of virtue and honor, because very powerful and persuasive people stand to profit immensely from it.

Zinn has the right vision. An impossible dream, it seems.

yet one wonders how can one define that exception allowing humanitarian intervention? on the one hand, it seems that everyone, including the Clinton admin., dropped the ball in thecase of Rwanda, by not intervening to stop the genocide. but on the other, couldn't, and doesn't, Bush invoke the charm of humanitarian intervention in claiming to have liberayted the Iraqi people from Saddam the dictator? everyone complains that Bushj has switched his story -- first it was weapons, now it's about bringing 'democracy' to the region -- but would it have been any better if Bush were to have justified his aggression in terms of democratization from the get-go? of course, Zinn speaks of stopping atrocities, not spreading democracy, as a possible justification for war. and yet, he questions the legitimacy of U.S. engagement in WWII. what would be a clearer instance of justified intervention than that? presumably, he is critical of the way, the manner that we conducted the Second World War, and timing of operation, rather than the decision in the abstract.

Yeah, I'm not sure how exactly to read Zinn's comments about WW2, other than he objected to methods or extent of involvement, though he agreed with with the basic cause(es).

As for genocide intervention, you raise an important question. How do we decide whether such interventions are truly necessary and justified? We can't trust self-interested politicians to decide for us. We need independent and effective world consensus. Perhaps the UN should play a stronger role. The UN needs to be restored to a place of respected authority. It angers me greatly that the UN succumbed to internal corruption in the Oil for Food debacle, which undermined its credibility at a critical time. This gave the Bush crew leverage (they claim) to stiff-arm the UN and perpetrate their own high crimes.

I don't have every answer. Start with the basics. Genocide intervention should apply only to an ongoing, active, systematic campaign of genocide. Rwanda and Sudan are two likely recent examples. Saddam was a tyrant, but I don't think Iraq's situation in 2003 was systematic genocide. Perhaps Saddam's Iran-Iraq war atrocities, his slaughter of the Kurds, etc., may be considered genocide, but that all occurred 20 years ago, when he was backed by the US. Maybe the answer isn't always crystal-clear, but we must make a more sincere effort at it, and move away from blind, flag-waving trust in 'noble government policies'.... That much is clear, at least.

When I hear military technicians talking about calculated mass-murder in detached, or 'clinical', or even beneficial ways, I can't really fathom it.

it is done this way out of necessity...there is a price, though

Western foreign policy is far too militarized in general, and not interested in solving root problems.

fully agree...but what if the root cause is the lack of democracy and gender rights?

Yeah, I'm not sure how exactly to read Zinn's comments about WW2, other than he objected to methods or extent of involvement, though he agreed with with the basic cause(es).

the genocide facts weren't known until well into the war

Genocide intervention should apply only to an ongoing, active, systematic campaign of genocide. Rwanda and Sudan are two likely recent examples.

if you don't have boots on the ground in the form of military forces, then the genocide is over before you can get there

Western foreign policy is far too militarized in general,

it is not like you to pull your punches, but

but

I think the statement would ring more true if ut read, Tge foreign policy is far too mitltarized in general. Not trying to suck up to that putz jimbo but nobody here says it better than him. With the exception of you and LR.
oh god, i cant even type any more let me try that again. The foreign policy of the United states of america is far too militarized in general

Knip Madelaine Albright not my idea of a hot babe, she is no Mistress Condi but she called this Gulf War Two a spade. It was a war of choice. Just like Vietnam. Our national interest was not at stake. We had the oil, plenty of Iraqi oil pumping to fuel our suv's. Cheney just thought the United States was not getting its fair share of the loot.

shake hands with the devil
one of these days if i can't stand it anymore
when i start feeling like a german jew with an iron cross in 1938, I guess I will show up in Nova Scotia and beg for asylum, fro shelter from the storm

seven fort am and I am stoned again

sail on sailor
jt

Ok knip.... I think I'll try out that cryptic answer style of yours.

it is done this way out of necessity...there is a price, though

"Out of necessity". That's the point. That's essentially what the article writer is challenging, I think.

fully agree...but what if the root cause is the lack of democracy and gender rights?

What if it isn't? Been there, tried that, it seems.

the genocide facts weren't known until well into the war

Not sure how this directly applies to my comment.

if you don't have boots on the ground in the form of military forces, then the genocide is over before you can get there

How long does it take to get "boots on the ground", compared to the average duration of modern genocidal campaigns? Are you suggesting we camp out in all potential genocide zones? What is your main point here, and will you allow that your statement might be an exaggeration?

How long does it take to get "boots on the ground", compared to the average duration of modern genocidal campaigns? Are you suggesting we camp out in all potential genocide zones?

this idea is not very far from the trend of US military bases and clandestne prisons as forming a global imperial police state. Humanitarian intervention is just a phone call away. just dial 9-11.

this idea is not very far from the trend of US military bases and clandestne prisons as forming a global imperial police state.

Yes. Therein lies the problem.

Has a doctrine of sketchy unilateral 'preemption' (I prefer the word 'aggression') and prolonged foreign military occupation ever been very successful, historically?

Ok knip.... I think I'll try out that cryptic answer style of yours.


Quote:
it is done this way out of necessity...there is a price, though


"Out of necessity". That's the point. That's essentially what the article writer is challenging, I think.

sorry for the crypticism (is that a word???)...it was early and i was in a hurry...the point i was trying to make (rather poorly) was that military 'techinicians' speak in these cold detached terms because it is necessary when decision-making...that is not to say that emotion and other aspects can not enter into the equation, but the science of it must be approached clinically...i think i didn't explain that rather well

in short, the lack of emotion in miltary statements doesn't mean there isn't emotion in the process...but the process requires a certain amount of detachedness, at certain stages...i'll probably take heat for this from someone...

Quote:
fully agree...but what if the root cause is the lack of democracy and gender rights?


What if it isn't? Been there, tried that, it seems.

don't really understand what you're trying to say

Quote:
the genocide facts weren't known until well into the war


Not sure how this directly applies to my comment.

was speaking to why perhaps zinn didn't feel WW II was justified...genocide cannot be considered justification for entering into that war, because the genocidal facts came out after the decision was made...just trying to speculate on zinn's reasons

Quote:
if you don't have boots on the ground in the form of military forces, then the genocide is over before you can get there


How long does it take to get "boots on the ground", compared to the average duration of modern genocidal campaigns? Are you suggesting we camp out in all potential genocide zones? What is your main point here, and will you allow that your statement might be an exaggeration?

not at all...i'm not sure you understand the lead time it takes to plan an operation...these troops have to be trained for the operation in which they're participating...yes, you can keep forces trained at higher readiness levels so that they cand eploy almost immediately...that costs roughly three times what it costs to keep them at a lower readiness state, and then train them for missions as they arise...

knip...

I see the problem. You refer to necessary military planning for a given war, whereas I allude to the article's thesis that war itself should not be considered necessary in the first place under any circumstance except genocide intervention, given the many abuses of military power by corrupt governments throughout history, particularly the last century. Apples and oranges. Actually, the the article reads almost like a plea, a suggestion.... "an idea whose time may have come".

Re: democracy. It is touted as the ultimate solution to "root problems". But is it? Especially democracy at the point of a gun, imposed unilaterally on a nation/region with a history of suffering exploitation by the West? By "been there, tried that", I meant that our attempts to jam 'democracy' down Iraq's throat seem to be failing. The Iraq election is a mess. Nobody trusts each other, and few trust the West. The factional divisions only seem to deepen with time. And the moderate, secular parties were trounced by the Islamists.

I vote for splitting off a part of the military for maintaining higher readiness, even at higher cost. React to situations like Rwanda as they come up, but don't endlessly occupy places where we are not well trusted. I find it hard to believe your 3x the cost assertion, but even at that, could it really be any worse than the hellhole money-pit of a policy that we're following now?

when i spoke of 'necessary' military planning, i was speaking more to the necessity of thorough and in-depth planning, and that if emotions get too involved, the process bogs down...as to the 'necessity' of war, i agree that that's often quite weighted by opinion and desire, vice actual 'necessity'

i agree with your skepticism of democracy as a solution to root problems...in fact, there is hardly ever a single root problem, rather, a combination of independant and also intertwined factors create situations...solving this is known as the DIME approach (Diplomatic, Interagency?, Military, Economic), an approach that acknowledges the duifferent lines of operation must be nmutually self-supportive...success in applying these multi-line solutions haven't been that great, primarily because of competition between the elements and short-sightedness

3 X the amount is probably conservative, actually...it depends what you are talking about and how you count the numbers...a rapid reaction force that focuses solely on humantarian/peacekeeping type operations would certainly cost at least 3 X more than a low readiness but high capability traditional military force...a high readiness full-up trad military force much more than that...the numbers are well-established, as almost every military keeps some number at this high readiness state, the UN tries hard with its Rapid reaction Expeditionary Force, and NATO has its SHIRBRIG (Standing High Readiness Brigade) and STANAVFORLANT (Standing Naval Forces Atlantic), a group in which i've been involved many times during my career...but again, it depends on how one manipulates the numbers

The "DIME" approach, is it?

Well, we're heavy on the M, and light on the D, E and I.

I can see that "cyber" is not the way to finish this talk-- one which could be a lengthy one indeed. Anyway knip, thanks for sharing your expertise on these matters. It's something basic that I should always keep in mind-- separation of government's bullshit versus the military personnel who are at times forced to implement said bullshit.

yup, there's no shortage of bullshit, that is for certain

whayt is the 'I' in DIME supposed to be?

the US practices the MMMM approach, all military.