From: mlorrey@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 17:13:12 MST
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: YaBB
[quote from: mmb@spies.com on 2003-03-14 at 12:41:03]
> http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
>
> Wednesday, March 12, 2003
> ARE WE IN A REALLY NEW WORLD? Yesterday, I
> suggested that in some ways, we're headed backward
> toward the nineteenth century. This stimulating,
> long, essay by Lee Harris in TCS argues the opposite:
> that weapons of mass destruction together with
> fantasist Islamism or nihilist totalitarianism
> make our predicament completely and world-historically
> new. I wish I could see a way to rebut this theory easily,
> but I cannot.
I would counter that we are instead repeating the middle ages: a
Europe/Western Civilization beset on one side by Mongol Hordes, and on the
other by the Andalusian predations of a militaristic Muslim culture that
recognises no benighted principles of chivalry and gentlemanly conduct.
Individuals who stood against the Muslim conquerors blow for blow come down
through history as rapacious leaders: Vlad the Impaler was the only person
in the Balkan region to stand against the Turks successfully and today he is
known as the archetypal vampire.
Spaniards who did likewise against the Moorish occupation of Spain, and
Italians against the Moorish occupation of Sicily are treated nearly as badly
by the history books.
[quote from: mmb@spies.com on 2003-03-14 at 12:41:03]
> THE PRE-EMPTIVE OPTION: Which leaves us with very few
> good options. But the obvious one is pro-active pre-
> emption: going in and getting rid of such regimes and
> entities, destroying them, or occupying them. But doing
> so - invading terrorism-sponsoring states, before they
> have formally attacked us - violates the basic principles
> of the international order we have understandably come
> to cherish.
The difficulty is in continuing to cherish principles that should be held when
treating with others of similar principles, but not when dealing with those
who do not hold them.
There is much to be said for holding them in all cases. For example, Imperial
Japan did not recognise the Geneva Conventions, as they violated the Bushido
Code that all Japanese militarists subscribed to. Yet we treated Japanese
prisoners quite well despite how our own were treated, and we developed more
pity for the Japanese infantry man, who seemed to only know one strategy, that
of banzai!, than hatred. Still, the Japanese still wore a uniform, so you
could still pick him out of a crowd when he wasn't raping and pillaging his
conquered victims.
Still, if the strategy of the enemy is that of leaderless insurgency, of use
of tactics which are proscribed by the Geneva Conventions as that of illlegal
combatants, what are we to gain by continuing to adhere to precepts which the
world either does not understand (in the case of the Western Left) or despises
(in the case of the Islamist radicals and other tyrannicals)?
We do retain our own self respect, for one, if it is that which we derive that
respect from. We can choose how to adjust these principles to remain effective
against the threat without becoming as beastly as they.
For example, the illegal combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay are being
treated humanely according to the Geneva Conventions, as has been certified by
the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and other groups. So much so that the joke is
that the only complaints are too much sea breeze and no pillow mints. This is
far better than even the Geneva Conventions demand. Under those Conventions,
it is entirely within our rights to summarily execute anyone found to be
an illegal combatant, even without a military tribunal. This IS what our
pre-existing western principles demand and allow us to do, no matter what the
hew and cry is from leftist groups.
What about immigration controls or filters? The US has already some of the
most liberal immigration laws in the world, and more people immigrate to the
US than to any other country. This is no accident, either, if you look into
the work done by the radical leftist Ford Foundation over the past 30 years
to make it so, specifically for the purpose of producing a new underclass of
disaffected proletariat immigrants who have never sufficiently assimilated
to the US (thanks to Ford Foundation lobbied laws against making English the
official language, etc).
The US's proposed and enacted restrictions on travel and immigration to
the US are still in no way as restrictive as many other western nations
are. For example, just to travel to Russia, I, an American, need to obtain
an invitation from some Russian entity in order to obtain a visa to travel
there. The US accepts visa-less travellers from more nations than any other
country, even after the 9-11 fallout.
Now, the primary opposition, I think, to our pre-emption policy is from those
nations either perceive themselves to be 'next on the list', or who are so
sensitive about their own image in the world that they fear how they will be
looked upon when nations like Iraq are no longer at the top of the list of
bad boy regimes. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for example, will move that much
closer to the top of the list. Syria, Iran, and North Korea will be even
closer. North Korea KNOWS it is next in line, which is why it is practicing
some pre-emption of its own, as Iran is beginning to.
Saudi Arabia apparently is going to announce some key democratic reforms when
and if we succeed against Iraq, they are so eager to get off that list.
After these nations, the other primary opponents to our pre-emption policies
are those nations which have such despots as major client states. Iraq is a
major client state of France, Germany and Russia. The investments of these
countries in the Iraqi oil industry, and contracts for future development
(when sanctions are eased) are rather significant and well documented.
The opposition of France is in particular rather understandable. In the words
of one commentator on CNN: "25% of France is communist, while another 20% are
followers of the anti-semite fascist Le Pen, so essentially 45% of France is
certifiably insane.... Then you've got the fact that 20% of France is Muslim."
So essentially Chirac is faced with the fact that 65% of his electorate
considers themselves enemies of the US. The Francophilic left in the US needs
to consider this when they continue to spout sound bites put out by French
intelligence. France is no longer an ally of the US, and might, if it works at
it, join the list of belligerent states. I've seen a few cars on the highway
with bumperstickers saying "First Iraq, then France!". The logical failure of
this is only that Iraqis had no choice in the matter, while the French revel
in hating us.
Is pre-emption objectively in conflict with our western principles? Possibly,
but are we even pre-empting anything? We are, after all, merely enforcing the
past 18 UN resolutions imposed by the UN since the end of the last Gulf War,
which Iraq agreed to obey in their 1991 Cease Fire Agreement. The violation
of any of these resolutions is justifiable grounds for any party to that
agreement to resume hostilities against Iraq. So the idea that our invasion of
Iraq is any sort of 'pre-emption' against future attacks is another sort of
false logic.
As for future conflicts, would pre-emption be wrong? Under the same Geneva
Conventions, attacks on one nation by another, or on one nation by some group,
must be pre-empted by an announcement of a recognition of hostilities. Sneak
or surprise attacks as the opening battle in a war are not allowed. Pearl
Harbor was such a war crime. 9/11 was similarly a war crime, as was Hitler's
Blitzekrieg against Poland in 1939.
What, however, if the nation we pre-emptively attack either does not recognise
the Geneva Conventions, or else or in addition, has a history of making sneak
attacks? Saddam, for example, made sneak attacks against both Iran and Kuwait
in opening hostilities with those nations. It was North Korea which opened
hostilities in the Korean War with a sneak attack on the South, and which
continues to sneak individuals across and around the DMZ to attack the South,
to kidnap Japanese and South Korean citizens, to kidnap the crew of the USS
Pueblo.
By that basis, do we treat nations as they prefer to treat others?
---- This message was posted by Michael S. Lorrey to the Extropians 2003 board on ExI BBS. <http://www.extropy.org/bbs/index.php?board=67;action=display;threadid=55182>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 17:20:26 MST