A War Going On

Remove all ads!

Drew - That's not entirely accurate either, at least I don't think. Just a small point, but it was, "any more attacks after 1998. We had already been attacked by BL, in 1998, in Africa, iirc. It's just my opinion, but it sounds more like a "dog and pony show," at least to me.

 

On my book shelf, I have a book entitled "What If?" It was written by Robert Cowley. He's a historian. Actually, it's a compilation written by several historians. It examines the contrerfactual of many, many events throughout history, from Alexander the Great nearly dying in his first battle (before he was the Great), to if Martin Luther had been burned at the stake (he came closer than you might think), to a surprise decision by the commander of the Japanese forces in the battle of Midway in WWII (which would at the least have greatly extended the war, if not entirely changed it's outcome). Historians do wonder at times what might have been if things had gone just slightly differently.

 

I think it's a little unreasonable to expect Mullah Mohammad Omar to be psychic, Chandos. He didn't know he needed to isolate Bin Laden until Bin Laden, you know, attacked. His failure to contain Bin Laden after the 1998 attacks does not prove hostility towards the US on the part of the Taliban.

 

The relevant question is to which extent Mullah Omar had control over Al Qaeda before 1998. If he had none, and everything suggests that, can he be blame for what Bin Laden did? Logic dictates that question. It looks as if Bin Laden basically betrayed Omar by continuing his foreign operations from Afghanistan despite Omar's urging, and being put under watch.

It appears that Omar did his thing that was locally limited to Afghanistan, much like Hamas ambitions are limited to Palestine. All the while Bin Laden his own thing. He has always had a pan-Islamic approach, in which, to unite all Muslims, the far enemy (the US) was to be attacked, to provoke a counter-reaction uniting the faithful. The apparent idea was that a US backlash would again unite the faithful just as the attack of the Soviets united them before.

Bin Laden was searching for an outside enemy, while Omar was busy fighting domestic enemies. Interestingly, Al Qaeda has often attacked Hamas for their 'nationalist' focus, blasting it as basically heresy to place country or tribe over faith. Al Qaeda and Hamas are basically enemies, even though both are Islamist. Everything suggests that comparable friction took place in Afghanistan as well. Why else did Omar put Bin Laden basically under house arrest? Taleban and Al Qaeda are two distinct things, just like Islamic Fundamentalism is a very broad term. It is generally not sufficiently appreciated in the West, the US in particular, that Bin Laden's Tafkiri ideology is by a long shot more radical than the far more traditional Islamic Fundamentalism of the Hamas variety.
One of the reasons why the Sunnis in Iraq eventually turned on Al Qaeda was because they eventually overstayed their welcome when they tried to impose their (alien) interpretation of Islam on their tribal society that had its own ancient rules - again - for Al Qaeda putting tribal rules before their particular reading of the Koran amounted to heresy. Nobody likes foreigners to boss them around. In that sense, Al Qaeda has an inherent weakness: They're too extreme and radical to ever become mainstream in the Middle East.

We should keep in mind that when Paul Wolfowitz reportedly reacted with an immediate painful rash and compulsory uttering of the phrase 'Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!' to any suggestion to talk with former Baathist Sunni in Iraq, insisting all Baathists must be purged from office, the Marines in Anwar province did exactly that, ignoring neo-conservative conventional wisdom. The result of these talks became known as the 'Anwar Awakening' and greatly contributed to the defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
It's one of history's ironies, probably lost on Wolfowitz, that his prime advisor on Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi, and still a major proponent of de-Baathification is currently purging, through two of his key lieutenants, the candidate rolls for the coming Iraqi election of Sunnis and Seculars to the benefit of Iran. He is considered to be one of Iran's most effective agents of influence in Baghdad.

 

I get what you're saying. Americans have a much different way to write papers and books (I'm not judging, it's different). In that case this looks like an amusing piece and probably a nice diversion (I've checked the wikipedia page, I find this rather amusing: "Ruler of the World" by Alistair Horne "What if Napoleon Bonaparte had chosen to do several things differently?") but that is pure speculation (the more you depart from what we know to be facts the more you speculate -that doesn't mean that historians shouldn't make hypotheses or question "facts" either, don't get me wrong, but they shouldn't speculate or at least not see it as anything more than some scholarly diversion).

Obviously (and that is more or less what Chandos posted above) historians make theories or think along certain theories or follow certain schools of thought but then that is really a different way to approach history (and a much more rational one IMO).

Or Saudi Arabia... It's rather ironic that Saudi Arabia is a trusted ally of the US when 15 hijackers of the 9/11 attacks were actually Saudis. That's 15 out of 19 (iirc).

 

Not all the contributors are American, although the lead author, Robert Cowley is. The other people in the book, some of whom wrote entire chapters include: Caleb Carr, John Lukacs, John Keegan, James Bradley, and Stephen Ambrose. Many other authors (probably a dozen or more) contributed individual essays. There are actually quite a few Europeans who worked on the book, as a whole section of the book covers the Middle Ages, which involve European historians who specialize in the field.

 

You're right of course as I've noticed for instance that the one I've mentioned as an example is actually British.

What I'm saying is that we have a very different academic tradition over here compared to English speakers (and notably Americans). I'm not saying our way is better, we certainly care more about form and structure (sometimes it looks like we value these more than content which is not really the case fortunately). I actually enjoy reading American scholars from time to time because that's often a very refreshing experience (although when you're used to having more structure it can sometimes look like it lacks some organization and structure). The French way can be stifling at times (we have a very codified set of rules on how to write an essay or a thesis for instance) I'll give you that but it's not without its advantages.

 

I think this is where we most disagree. Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, especially where nothing drastic has changed that behavior. To say that, without something stopping it, things would continue largely as they were going already is not a ridiculous claim or a wild assumption, it's perfectly logical.

Yes, this is an ideological debate, and so is the claim that no good can come of war. In fact, they're one and the same debate.

I never said the issue was simple, I just think it's clear cut. And yes, the American Civil War is a facinating case, especially if you study the generals. There were several who sided with the sides they chose, not because they agreed with the ideology, or even the rightness of the war, but purely out of a sense of duty to their homeland.

That is a highly debatable claim, as any situation where one's own survival is claimed to not be the best solution is. I won't say it's absolutely wrong, but it is one of the biggest barrells of monkeys you can find.

Again, you are discounting real choice as 'not a choice'. If you really don't have a choice, then you are tied to a chair while a maniac shoots someone. In that case, you did nothing wrong (except possibly getting tied to the chair anyway). If the maniac points a gun at you and tells you to 'push the button' or he'll shoot you, then you have a choice. It's not a nice choice, but it is a very real one, and people have chosen not to survive in such situations (the overall situation of die or kill innocents).

 

Then Nostradamus is the greatest historian of all time. I'm being sarcastic here but that's just to make the point that basing a theory on such premises is really (and I mean really) out of touch with reality.

What sort of relevance can such logic have? You're saying that things don't change if there is nothing that changes them which could be rephrased as things don't change because they don't change.

That is a perfect example of circular reasoning.

I may be argumentative but you're not proving anything at all except the fallacious nature of that assumption.

IMO this is not a simple issue but it's certainly not clear cut either.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning: in your opinion there is no ambiguity or uncertainty whatsoever ("it's clear cut") but yet you don't consider this issue to be simple. What is the source of its complexity if it's not ambiguity and uncertainty?

 

Actually, no, that's cause-and-effect. Without a cause, there is no effect. Or, in another sense, it's "an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force". As for relevance, we're engaged in it right now. This came up specifically because it was relevant to the discussion about whether or not wars could be good, with WWII as the example of the moment.

Multiple factors. That's the kind of complexity I'm used to dealing with. As for my line of reasoning, here it is in simplified form: Hitler set out to purge Europe of the Jews*. To do this, he invaded other countries*, imprisoned the Jewish populations, enslaved them, tortured them, experimented on them, and killed them. If no one had stopped him, he would have continued to do this until he ran out of Jews or died of other causes. And even then, things would likely have continued, with other 'impure' groups and with his successor. This is bad, terribly bad, and a much greater evil than all of World War II. WWII stopped him. This means the net influence of WWII was good, by any reasoning except a Neo-Nazi's. Whether others profited more or less is a side-issue, just stopping the Holocaust was worth it.

*This is where the complexity comes in. There were plenty of other reasons for the war as well, but this was a large one.

Add to that reasoning that WWII was a defensive war, that we, each one of us involved, were directly attacked.

 

Causality doesn't prove you right and Newton's First Law of Motion doesn't either.

You based your reasoning on the assumption that things don't change if nothing happens to change them. My point is that saying that doesn't prove anything and certainly doesn't make your point that there is some validity in your way of examining history.

You didn't get what I was posting in my previous post which doesn't really matter since it's way off topic anyway.

We only discussed WW2 because you needed an example to make your point because you disagree with me that war is utterly bad. I do consider war to be evil and I consider it to be a necessary evil when it comes to defending one's country.

So now you're hinting that I'm a Neo Nazi?

I've mentioned Rommel already. You do realize that there had been plots by the Germans to kill or depose Hitler? I wouldn't go as far as suggesting that you should watch Valkyrie but perhaps you should, seeing that you do seem to think that all Germans were Nazis and that everybody condoned what was going on in the camps.

Have you heard about Operation Paperclip? That's no secret that the Soviets and the Americans were trying to get their hands on Nazi scientists. So yes, the war was probably 'good' for NASA...

More than 60 million deaths (including the camps) can't be considered as a good thing no matter what.

Genocide and ethnic cleansing are terrible things indeed. What about Rwanda, Bosnia or Darfur? And I'm only listing a few examples that are officially labelled as genocides.

How are you going to rate those genocides and compare them to the Holocaust or all the lives lost during WWII ?

A better question would be why would you want to compare them? Can you compare so much loss and suffering? How can you compare things that make it almost impossible to have any faith in human nature?

EDIT: back on topic, Dutch Government Falls Over Extension of Afghan Stay.

 

I never claimed to be absolutely right, just to be using sound inductive reasoning, which leads to a likely possibility.

Again, do you honestly think Hitler would have stopped killing Jews had no one stopped him? By claiming WWII was not good, you are either claiming this or claiming that the deaths caused by WWII were worse than the deaths of all Jews and other targeted minorities at the hands of the Nazis. Those are the only two possibilities I can see.

Let me ask you this, then. Do you consider the ideal of defending your country, methods aside, to be good? Assuming, of course, that you consider your country to be good.

No, just that I don't think you're thinking logically.

You misuderstand me, and attribute false assumptions to me. My logic instead is this:
1.) All but one of these assassination attempts happened after he started a war, and either from his own military or as a direct result of the war.
2.) All failed.
Conclusion: the first was a fluke, not likely to be repeated, and the others would likely not have happened without a war to provoke them.

Now, again, this is far from concrete, ironclad logic, but it is sound. This does still raise the interesting possibility of waiting for some random person to assassinate Hitler instead of resisting his offensives. Do you really think this is the better alternative?

This I disagree with. 60 million deaths is good compared to 100 million deaths. You can't just look at things in absolutes. You have to compare them to the alternatives. The only options for the Allies in 1939 were to either allow Hitler to continue unopposed, surrender their own sovereignty and subject hundreds of millions of thier population to slavery, torture, and death, or to oppose him, risk tens of millions of lives, and try to prevent his victory. Comparatively, war was the better choice. Opposition was a good thing from their perspective. Now, I'm not about to argue that Hitler's mad aggression and hate, the real root of the war, were good things, but opposition to them once they manifested was.

The genocidal acts themselves? Evil, just like the Holocaust. Attempts to stop them? Good. Attempts that turn into vengence? Good turned evil. I'm not even saying all wars are good things. Not even close. Merely that they aren't necessarily bad things.

Yes, that's a good question. I'm not sure why you asked me to.

 

@NOG: this is leading nowhere and we're hijacking this thread.

Anyway, here we go again:

I've already said I was NOT going to indulge in what ifs. I won't play your game. I gave my reasons for not doing so. The part of my post that you've quoted was about your faulty rhetoric:

Do you think that I've hinted anywhere that what the Nazis did to the world was good or are you deliberately trying to make it look like I did?

If you ever come to Lyon I'll take you to the Musée de la Résistance which is located in what used to be the offices of the Gestapo, that may open your eyes about what Nazi occupation meant to the French and you may learn quite a few things as well.

If that means taking a life then that would be evil IMO. Hence the idea of war being (at best) a necessary evil.

I'm not religious but I do value life and I wouldn't like to be in a situation in which I would have to kill anyone.

I don't think that you're thinking logically either. I don't even think that you've read my posts either (at least not that carefully). I'm also beginning to think that you're deliberately misconstruing my posts, quoting them out of context to make it seem like I actually condone what the Nazis did. I'm seriously starting to resent that and I find that highly offensive.

That's a comparison. If you start looking for "alternatives" then you're going to rationalize everything, even things that shouldn't be rationalized. There is no way in hell millions of death can be good.

By the way that's the sort of reasoning that leads to the rationalization that bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a 'good' thing because it put an end to the war... We'll probably disagree on that point anyway.

I've asked you that because that's what YOU are doing!

If you can't even acknowledge that you're trying to compare things that can't be rationalized in any way because they are unquestionably evil then we'd better agree to disagree.

 

I heard someone thing interesting recently and, as the thread is already a bit off topic I figured it wouldn't be bad to add this one point.

Francis Perkins (I may have spelled her name wrong) went to Europe in the early 1930s and either met or listened to Hitler and observed his party/henchpeople.

She came back to the US in the 1930s and tried to look for a way to make it possible for people to leave Europe for the US because she saw Hitler was a "dangerous man" according to a new book about her (I think she was a secretary in FDR's cabinet).

This was at a time when immigration was being discouraged due to high unemployment relating to the Great Depression.

She supported things that would make immigrants work so they wouldn't come to simply be welfare dependents when they arrived in the US but she still say a need to provide people with a means of escaping long before WW2 started.

Thus it is fair to theorize that Hitler would have done terrible things to people if WW2 hadn't brought him down and that there were people who recognized how bad Hitler would be (or at least the likelihood thereof) for Europe and people living therein.

What ifs are fun to kick about and engaging in the thought that Jews wouldn't have been killed (still treated badly and unfairly) or that they would have been even worse (or in greater numbers) without WW2 is engaging in what ifs.

I don't see a problem with it, trying to make guesses is human and also how we learn things or, with testing, generate new theories about how the world works.




Back on topic a military commander has said the effort in Afghanistan may take longer to reach its goals then previously thought. Does that really change anything in anyone's opinion? Does it mean Iraq like success (or at least the salvaging of a bad situation) is just as possible but will take a bit longer and various governments (like the Dutch one that will have to face elections and then reassembling) should try to have a bit more patience?