Transterrestrial Musings

« I Have To Go For "Delusional Fool" | Main | A Flop »

Infamous Memories And Ideologies

[Note: I'm keeping this post at the top all day, so even if you've read it, there might be new stuff if you scroll down]

OK, perhaps the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Day of Infamy™ deserves more than a snarky hit piece on nutty 911 conspiracy theorists.

Sixty five years after Pearl Harbor, it feels now like ancient history, despite the fact that we still have troops in Japan and Germany. I wonder how many people understand the implications of this date in history, or are even aware that it is a date in history? Many who have personal recollections of the event (my parents' and grandparents generation) are passing, or passed, from the scene.

I was at the Arizona memorial a few weeks ago, my first visit. Before we got on the boats to go out to the sunken tomb, we were given some reminiscences by a man who was there, and helped tend to the wounded. There were children in the audience who may remember hearing his first-hand account. But for how much longer will he be telling his story? How long before the last person for whom the events of that day are a living memory will be gone?

To provide some perspective, Pearl Harbor is, to me, the way that children born in, say, 2015 will view 911. Something that their parents might tell them about, particularly if they fought in the subsequent battles of Afghanistan and Iraq (and the ones sadly to come). Of course, there will be many fewer parents telling children about that experience than did so for the second world war, simply by dint of the magnitude of the scope of the effort. I understand the significance of those events that occurred a decade and a half before my birth, because I've always had an interest in such things, but will they understand what happened on that long-ago September morning, when terror struck from a cloudless sky? Sadly, I fear not, because I fear that only five years later we've forgotten, or never learned. Certainly, there is little in the Baker report that makes me believe that we have.

Five years after Pearl Harbor, when my fictional account of the 127 Conspiracy took place, we'd utterly defeated both imperial Japan and the Nazis, and were dealing with the quagmire in Europe (the Marshall Plan that got western Germany back on its feet was just being conceived--it wouldn't be implemented until the next year).

It's been over five years since that tragically beautiful September day when we suddenly, and finally realized that we were at war with the next brutal totalitarian movement, after fooling ourselves that we were done with them after the Cold War. It turned out on September 11 that it wasn't quite the End of History, after all. It took us less time than that to wipe out the totalitarians that attacked us in Hawaii, and made common cause with the Nazi totalitarians in Europe. Defeating the surviving totalitarian ideology from the conflict, Soviet Communism, took almost another half century. How long will we be fighting this new threat to the values of the Enlightenment?

If the Bakers have their way, probably far too long. There seems a desire to return to the "realist" dreamworld of the nineties, when we imagined that the age of totalitarianism was over, and that we could "manage" brutal dictators with shuttle diplomacy. Unfortunately, one of the big mistakes that the president made after 911 was to fail to properly and consistently mobilize the American people.

After Pearl Harbor, the nation recognized that we were in an existential war. The totalitarian and ideological threat of this new war is less obvious, and has been obscured by talk of war against "terrorists." Franklin Roosevelt didn't declare on the evening of December 7th that we were at war with torpedo bombers. He named the enemy. The president seems to continue to waver on this issue, occasionally talking about Islamofascists and the like, but still inviting people from CAIR to the White House and talking about the "religion of peace." Rather than telling us the nature of the enemy, and calling for sacrifices that would be needed to win this new ideological struggle, he allowed and even encouraged the federal government to bloat, took away our nail clippers and shampoo, and told us to go shopping.

We are not at war with Islam, per se, but the people we are at war with are Islamists, and it does no good to ever pretend otherwise, and it is senseless to think that regimes run by them (e.g., Iran) or who cynically use them as pawns against us and our vital ally Israel (e.g., Syria) can be negotiated with. What is "realistic" about the fantasy that Syria will be satisfied with the Golan? How satisfied was Adolf Hitler with the Sudentenland? Rewarding Syria's warlike behavior is not the way to get less of it.

Here is the real "reality." We are at war with these countries, like it or not. They supply the troops and the weaponry that are killing our troops in Iraq, and who fire rockets (and missiles) into Haifa. In the case of Iran, in kidnaping our embassy personnel, they committed an act of war against us over a quarter of a century ago, for which there have never been any consequences against them. This was the beginning of the string of acts of political pusillanimity and weakness--followed by the Beirut Marine barracks, through the first WTC attack, and Somalia, and Khobar towers, and the Cole, that showed us to be paper tigers, encouraged the Islamists and ultimately resulted in drive-through skyscrapers. We've been at war with them since the Carter administration, and who knows how long the war will go on? Afghanistan was one battle in that war. Iraq is another. Where the next ones will be is not clear, but I suspect that they're on the borders of Mesopotamia.

It's of course much easier, and more convenient to pretend that we're at not at war. Harder to get people to the mall when we're at war, don't you know? But this fantasy will only make greater the final reckoning. Right now, they certainly understand that they're at war with us. What's more, they think they're winning. The only effective "negotiations" with the enemy will happen when the bombs are falling on them. Or at least, when they're hurting in some way, and feel truly threatened. Short of that, it's a repeat of the appeasement of the thirties--in Europe, in Manchuria, in China--that ultimately resulted in the sudden sinking of battleships in a tropical paradise on a quiet Sunday morning.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 07, 2006 11:59 PM

Comments

Somehow I missed this earlier today. Thanks Rand, very eloquent and sadly very true.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at December 7, 2006 09:48 AM

Well Said. The only disagreement is with the start of this war. I date it to the assasination of RFK.

Posted by Stewart at December 7, 2006 10:09 AM

You didn't miss it, Cecil. I just put it up with the wrong time stamp (when I started writing it, rather than when I finished and published it). It's in the right sequence now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 7, 2006 10:11 AM

The guy sitting with Bush in this photo is named Hakim and is head of SCIRI -- Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. He is said to have strong ties with Tehran.

Hakim wants US forces to crack down on Sadr, a genuine Islamic Shia nut-case who also happens to be an Iraqi nationalist who would oppose Iranian domination of Iraq.

The only way to stave off civil war in Iraq is for US forces to strike harder against insurgents, Iraqi politician Abdul Aziz Al Hakim said after talks with President George W Bush.
Abdul Aziz Al Hakim, head of the biggest party in Iraq's government, put the onus on Washington and its allies to take tougher action in Iraq, and denied that Shi'ites were stoking sectarian violence.

What to do? Ally with SCIRI and fight al-Sadr who is a genuine nut-case? That empowers Iran. Maybe.

Hakim denies ties to Iran, but . . .

Possibly mindful of Washington's concerns about SCIRI's ties to US foes in Iran, Hakim told Bush that Iraq's neighbours should not become involved in the country's affairs.
SCIRI, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was founded in Iran in 1982 and is part of the United Alliance, a grouping of Shi'ite Islamist parties that won a near majority in the Iraqi parliament elected in December.

Hakim would also be a useful conduit if President Bush, Jimmy Baker and Robert Gates wanted to negotiate with Iran "under the radar" while loudly telling FOX News that we will never negotiate with Iran.

The irony is that SCIRI may be the most pro-Iranian faction in Iraq and they will talk nice to the US and refrain from attacking our soldiers all the better for US forces to fight Iran's enemies (Sunni, Baath, Sadr) so Iran does not have to.

D'oh!

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2006 12:28 PM

Oooops, a question:

Would the readers here support a policy of loudly shouting "No negotiations with Iran or Syria!" and then quietly negotiating with Iran and Syria on the condition that those nations never acknowledge that such negotiations took place?

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2006 12:31 PM

No. One negotiates from a position of strength, not weakness, and one doesn't negotiate with people who want to destroy you and your allies. There's nothing to negotiate, at least until you have them on the ropes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 7, 2006 12:34 PM

Certainly not all Germans were Nazis and I would guess that even some of the ones that belonged to Nazi party and voted for the Nazis didn’t condone many of the terrible things that they did. It only takes perhaps 10% of fanatics at the top to lead a whole group off to war and atrocities. I believe the same was true in Vietnam. Does anyone really believe that the average North Vietnamese farmer really wanted to fight the Americans? This brings me to my point, yes maybe 30, 40, 50 percent of Muslims are peaceful, but it doesn’t matter they are allowing the fanatics to steer the boat. So be it, now just like the Germans we must utterly destroy all Muslims. What we’re trying to do now is only kill the Nazi party members. It just doesn’t work, there were many Germans that fought but had no interest in the Nazi party whatsoever. I doubt we have the spine to do what needs to be done.

Posted by brian d at December 7, 2006 12:36 PM

No. The point is to make them stop doing what they're doing, and ultimately, to overthrow the autocratic governments in the region with democracies that focus more on keeping their people happy than on blaming others for everything.

Negotiating our surrender with them is still a surrender.

Posted by Big D at December 7, 2006 12:39 PM

I agree. Thus beware deals made with al-Hakim.

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2006 12:40 PM

...just like the Germans we must utterly destroy all Muslims.

I must have missed the part where we destroyed all the Germans. We killed many of them, but Germany still has lots of them, last time I checked.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 7, 2006 12:40 PM

We cannot destroy all Mislims as we will need the Saudis to cooperate and lower oil prices so we can inflict economic leverage on Iran. The same Saudis who view themselves as the protectors of Mecca and Medina.

Now, if we had started a "Manhattan project" to get off petroleum back in October 2001, we would be that much closer to being able to tell them all to "$#%@ Off!"

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2006 12:46 PM

Muslims, not Mislims -- heh!

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2006 12:47 PM

Stewart nailed it. The shot (that should have been) heard 'round the world was fired at Bobby Kennedy by a Palestinian terrorist on 6/5/68.

I'm not sure the appeasement/WW2 analogies hold, except insofar as the inability of the allies to win WW1 decisively, which has truly dreadful parallels to our current situation, in turn made the collapse of Western will in the late '30s inevitable. As I believe I've yammered in this space before, I fear that our unwillingness to incur 10k KIA now ensures that we will incur >> 100k KIA sometime in the next two decades.

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 7, 2006 12:49 PM

Jay, petroleum flow is why we cannot just go in and bust heads.

Combine a massive nuclear power plant build up with a call for fuel cell and electric cars to end gasoline dependence and the anti-nuclear lobby would wither in the face of a joint national security / fight global warming coalition.

Global warming a hoax? Well okay whatever but we allied with Joe Stalin to defeat Hitler. If tough CO2 controls were part of a nuclear power expansion, the anti-nukes would get steamrolled.

Then, WE close the straits of Hormuz.

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2006 12:55 PM

I have spent several years now saying that I hope Bush is right, and we succeed, because otherwise our options will suddenly narrow to killing millions, perhaps tens of millions, of Muslims, or surrender. Since we won't surrender (which would involve conversion to Islam and acceptance of the rules and practices of the most vile forms of Islam), there will be genocide. And the only meaningful question when the moment comes is whether or not we lose a city in a nuclear attack first.

I used to work against this, and now I find that I just don't care enough: if we cannot muster the will to fight a serious war until the choice is our death or theirs, then I just hope we choose theirs.

Posted by Jeff Medcalf at December 7, 2006 01:01 PM

must have missed the part where we destroyed all the Germans. We killed many of them, but Germany still has lots of them, last time I checked.

Sorry that didn’t even make sense. Utterly destroy all Muslim….. countries. Just like the Germans, at some point it becomes too painful to continue the fight. Take ‘em on 1 by 1, maybe we won’t have to do them all, but if we have to, we have to. These people are uneducated trash living an 8th century religion. The only education most of them get is the Koran. How can you reason with people who haven’t been taught to reason?

Try discussing economics with a Democrat. If we force all employers to pay a minimum wage $50k/year then no one will be poor, right.

Posted by brian d at December 7, 2006 01:07 PM

Now, if we had started a "Manhattan project" to get off petroleum back in October 2001...

You mean the one we should have started after the Saudi oil boycott in 1973? Or the Saudi oil boycott of 1979?

We've known about this problem, and what we must do to solve it, for thirty years, and we've done nothing.

Posted by lmg at December 7, 2006 01:19 PM

Why are we again speaking of nuclear weapons as if they will solve the terrorism problem? Any small group that blows up a nuke on US soil is going to be prepared (or at least think they're prepared) for a retaliation be it nuclear or not. And it doesn't take that much to survive a nuclear strike. If you're in a hole sufficiently distant from ground zero, then it's quite survivable.

The fundamental problem is that only one side has anything worth blowing up with a nuke. So getting into a nuclear exchange with a small group isn't going to work. Instead, it's far better to develop the intelligence capability to hunt down these groups before they strike rather than venting on innocent parties after the damage has already been done.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 7, 2006 01:22 PM

Instead, it's far better to develop the intelligence capability to hunt down these groups before they strike rather than venting on innocent parties after the damage has already been done.

Roosevelt vows to track down pilots that were responsible for sinking of Arizona.

And European news British officials say that all U-Boat terrorists will all be brought to justice. Said Churchill “We do not intend to hold the innocent German people responsible for the actions of a few fanatics.”

Posted by brian d at December 7, 2006 02:02 PM

Look, if it comes down to nukes getting tossed around--and it's looking like a real possibility in the future--it won't be about threatening people, it won't be about deterrence. Deterrence will (and essentially has) already have failed.

It'll be about carpet-bombing enough supporters, governments and individuals, with nukes, to drastically reduce the chance of any more terrorists getting any more of them to use against us. It will also most likely involve the destruction of Mecca and Medina. I would argue *that* would have an impact on Islam.

Posted by Big D at December 7, 2006 03:48 PM

I guess we can safely conjecture that Big D has no Moslem friends...

Posted by Anonymous Moron at December 7, 2006 04:07 PM

Hmmm... from Jeff Medcalf above: "otherwise our
options will suddenly narrow to killing millions,
perhaps tens of millions, of Muslims, or
surrender. Since we won't surrender (which would
involve conversion to Islam and acceptance of the
rules and practices of the most vile forms of
Islam), there will be genocide."

I have seen this assertion made many places - that "our options will narrow to surrender or genocide" - but I find it less than credible.
Suppose that we simply, absolutely refuse to take either path... neither "killing tens of millions" of the Muslims nor "accepting their rules and practices"?

For one thing, even if our government, in some Vichy-esque fit of capitulation, decided to declare such a surrender, it would be unlikely to be able to deliver it... can you imagine that the Feds would get any cooperation to a declaration that the USA was now under Islamic law? But I find it hard to imagine that our government is capable of being pressured to take such a step: even if some Islamic radical group promised that they would cease their antagonism against us if we did that, would anyone believe them???

-dave w

Posted by dave w at December 7, 2006 04:22 PM

There were three men sitting
on a bench, one was a Texan
wearing a cowboy hat, one was a
Muslim wearing a turban, and
the last fellow was an Apache
with a feather in his hair.

The Indian was sad and gloomy as he
said, "My people were many, but
now we are few."

The Muslim puffs up and said,
"Once my people were few, but
now we are many."

The Texan adjusts his hat, rolls
a smoke, leans back and drawls
out, "That's because we ain't
played Cowboys and Muslims yet."

Posted by at December 7, 2006 05:29 PM

Really hmmm...Cowboys and Muslims...What were we doing in Iraq the last 3 years? Actually I take that back..we've caused the killing of about 600,000 over there, so I guess we HAVE played Cowboys and Muslims already!

Posted by Anonymous Moron at December 7, 2006 05:49 PM

Big D,

t'll be about carpet-bombing enough supporters, governments and individuals, with nukes, to drastically reduce the chance of any more terrorists getting any more of them to use against us. It will also most likely involve the destruction of Mecca and Medina. I would argue *that* would have an impact on Islam.

There are several things to consider. First, anyone who actually sets off a nuke in the US is going to hide in a deep hole. I doubt it'll be a straightup fight where the enemy has a city or country that you can easily nuke in retaliation. And my take is unless we get lucky or get better tech, we won't be able to dig out much of the group using big weapons like nukes. In part, we've been successful against Al Qaeda because they are active in places like Iraq.

Currently, I'm seeing some stupid proposals to nuke Islam because we can't figure out how to hunt down terrorist groups with nukes. While the morality of killing huge numbers of innocent people merely to inconvenience the guilty few may not be a valid question, I'm still hung up on another big question. Namely, will it work? Will we see a measurable decrease in large scale terrorist attacks because we do this? I think it won't work that way.

First, we'll alienate a lot of people inside the US and in allies of the US. There's a significant population of Muslims in the US. And there will be a bunch of people who will despise such acts either in the near future or down the road after they've had a chance to think it over. While I'm sure there are a few US residents plotting the destruction of the US now, but is it a bright idea to increase that number by a few orders of magnitude? What harm will we cause to our society?

Second, some people seem to think that we can win this "culture war" merely through a superior society and propaganda. Seems unlikely to work after alienating a billion or so Muslims, but I've been wrong before.

Third, as I mention before, the group or groups that actually nuked the US, killing tens of thousands of civilians, will have escapes planned. Unless we get them, they'll be able to come up with new attacks in the future. Our nukes aren't effective tools to fight terrorists.

Fourth, what is the insistence on attacking Muslim symbols like Mecca? I can't fathom someone who believes that incinerating some meteorites in Mecca will somehow cow the Islamic faithful rather than spur them to great efforts to destroy the US or at least cause us a lot of trouble.

My take is that it's going to take troops on the ground, perhaps backed up by some seriously competent intel to hunt these people down and do the job right. Nukes can be used sparingly and fairly. Eg, as a way to threaten anyone who impedes US search and destroy missions or use small nukes to take out large underground fortifications, for example.

brian d,

Your analogy falls flat. In the Second World War, the US had a clear target and all of Japan was mobilized for war against the US. That's not the case in the Middle East. We're at war with small groups. Maybe 10 to 20 thousand in Iraq and elsewhere. Even during 9/11, Al Qaeda only had a few thousand followers, most who served as a sort of mercenary in Afghanistan.

Nukes are too big to use directly against small groups. The collateral damage is too big and they aren't reliable enough in the absence of intel to do the job.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 7, 2006 06:30 PM

Then there is Olmert and the Saudis:

Link:

According to the report, which quotes a senior Israeli source, a preliminary meeting between Olmert and a leading Saudi representative took place in Amman at the end of September, and focused on the Saudi offer.
The Israeli official claimed that the Saudi envoy was Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former ambassador to Washington and one of King Abdullah's closest aides.

The Saudi peace initiative calls for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, in exchange for peace agreements and normalization with the Arab countries.

According to the Times, Olmert was presented with the Saudi plan, which includes the establishment of a Palestinian state, followed by a formal peace deal between Israel and seven Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the Emirates, Morocco and Tunisia.

US willingness to fight the Shia in Iraq rather than the Sunni may be part of the Saudi price for such a deal. Thoughts?

Posted by Bill White at December 7, 2006 07:24 PM

Rand,
Thanks for remembering the day. I see lots of folks want to use this post for their own personal agendas. I just wish they would look at real history and see that this day is a real day of mourning and also of appreciation; Mourning the people who died at Pearl Harbor and Appreciation for the rest who understood that they had to fight for their freedom. If only our current generation understood....

Posted by Tom W. at December 7, 2006 10:46 PM

Rand is making the argument that it should be reasonable to treat the countries of Iran and Syria as enemies. In that case, of course these countries have plenty of targets vulnerable to nuclear weapons, as well as a variety of less drastic forms of attack.

I don't understand why he [Rand] doesn't want to talk to the Iranians, or think they have no reason to negotiate. They certainly do -- if we choose to give them one. It would not be especially hard, militarily speaking, to threaten the lives of the leadership of Iran, or Iran's ability to pump and sell oil -- fragile things, wells and pipelines, y'know -- and it's hard to see a credible threat like these failing to extract serious and valuable concessions from them.

Perhaps Rand is interpreting the suggestion of the ISG that we "talk to" Iran and Syria as that we try to convince them to help out using nothing but pure logic, appeals to their moral sense, or some other such Age of Aquarius moonbeam fluff. In which case, there's certainly no doubt it wouldn't work -- but then it wouldn't work for anyone other than perhaps one's own mother.

But there's nothing wrong with negotiation in the way, say, the Roman Empire practised it: 'Would you like to help us out? Or would you prefer we invade, crucify every 50th male survivor, and sell all the women and children into slavery?'

Or to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt: in real diplomacy the carrying of the big stick is as important as the speaking softly. I see nothing wrong with proposing real diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria. They have something to offer us, and we have something to offer them, such as leaving all the buildings in their capitals standing.

Posted by Carl Pham at December 7, 2006 10:59 PM

Perhaps we ought to remind the enemy what can happen when you make a sneak attack on the USA. Perhaps we ought to have done it some time ago.

Admiral Yamamoto was of course proved right. Japan paid for that raid with the loss of large parts of several cities; it ought to be remembered that a raid on Tokyo was the most destructive of that war in terms of life lost and property destroyed. So far this has not happened to any enemy city.

Of course, they also learned what superior science and industrial strength can do. They learnt this from two blows from a wargod's fist - on two towns whose names will reverberate down the ages, when America is long-forgotten.

We can't remind today’s enemy of the Tokyo raid without doing it. Perhaps, however, there is some way of reminding them of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or Eniwetok?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 8, 2006 04:17 AM

Or to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt: in real diplomacy the carrying of the big stick is as important as the speaking softly. I see nothing wrong with proposing real diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria. They have something to offer us, and we have something to offer them, such as leaving all the buildings in their capitals standing.

I see nothing wrong with that, either, but I also see no evidence that this is what Baker has in mind. He seems to think that if we offer the Syrians the Golan (which isn't ours to offer) that no other carrots, and no sticks, are required.

After all, if he was planning to carry a big stick, he wouldn't have to offer them the Golan (which they're not entitled to).

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 8, 2006 05:33 AM

err...is Israel really a "vital" ally? A bulwark against Soviet expansionism in the Middle East? Perhaps. Oh yeah...don't need them for that anymore.

A bulwark against Islamofascism? To what end? Would the nature of the fight against the Islamists be any different were Israel to suddenly disappear from the world scene? If yes, how so? If NOT, then WHY not?

Israel is not a "vital ally". Were it not for the religionists (bible thumpers and Jews alike) who manage to make the most noise in this country, perhaps we would understand that?

Otherwise, Rand, well written and thoughtful. Thanks.

Posted by Andy at December 8, 2006 06:36 AM

Any western Democracy, and particularly one geographically and strategically situated in the heart of the enemy, is a vital ally against the Islamists. Should the enemy succeed in destroying the only bastion of western values and freedom in the region, they would be greatly emboldened. Do you propose that we throw Israel to the wolves? To what end?

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 8, 2006 06:50 AM

I also trekked out to Pearl. I was heartened by a visit to an attack submarine. Nevertheless, Pearl is ancient history and much of the fleet is in port for the holidays--even at Pearl.

There will always be "Enders" in the words of Joe Haldeman. Our best defense is distance and the best way to obtain that is space travel.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at December 8, 2006 06:51 AM

There is only one reason to have any "talks" with Syria and Iran, and that is to inform them that if they do not stop supporting terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere there will be a severe price to pay.
I've read reports indicating that we know the location of Iranian factories that are building sophisticated remotely activated shaped charge explosives for use as roadside bombs in Iraq. Those factories should be hit immediately by cruise missile or B2 delivered JDAM.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at December 8, 2006 11:54 AM

Cecil, we also know who makes the handguns which cause all the mayhem in the inner cities of our very own USA. We don't shut the gunmakers down because it isn't guns that kill, it's people. Being merely consistent, shouldn't the same hold for the IEDs? We can't be winning if the people WANT to blow us up, whether or not they have IEDs. We need to establish enough security for the majority there that these folks who want to blow us up can't do what they are doing, not just deprive them of IEDs. And it's probably too late to do that, even assuming we have the capacity, because the time to pour more troops in has passed thanks to Rumsfeld & co.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 9, 2006 05:55 PM

Post a comment