![]() |
MideastWeb Middle East Web Log |
log | archives | middle east | maps | history | documents | countries | books | encyclopedia | culture | dialogue | links | timeline | donations |
Search: |
|
|
The moral terrain of the Middle Eastern battlefield05/25/2004 The problem that advanced, Western powers like America and Israel face in dealing with less sophisticated enemies on the battlefield turns out not to be our much-bemoaned sensitivity to casualties. That sensitivity varies in inverse proportion to the perceived stakes. If anything, our sensitivity to their casualties, even their well-being, counts for more. This seems to be a shift from the 1990s, when Western militaries seemed obsessed with "force protection," that is, minimizing casualties, even if it might put foreign civilians at greater risk.
Consider, for example, why the U.S. Marines recently were forced to abandon Fallujah, in Iraq's "Sunni Triangle." Last night, President Bush claimed that we chose not to flatten the city for fear of alienating Iraqis. But perhaps we really avoided that method for fear of alienating ourselves. As the late Hafez Asad of Syria proved, utter savagery can subdue restive foes. Saddam Hussein once enjoyed some success with those methods as well. But America, which once annihilated entire German and Japanese cities from the air, won't use them anymore. Or consider the recent, anguished remarks of Israeli Justice Minister Tommy Lapid, concerning house demolitions conducted by Israel's military along the Gaza-Egypt border: "On TV I saw an old woman rummaging through the ruins of her house looking for her medication, and it reminded me of my grandmother who was thrown out of her house during the Shoah," or Holocaust, Lapid said in a radio interview after the weekly cabinet session.Justice Minister indeed. As cruel as the house demolitions are, they encapsulate the frustrations of Israeli (and Western) superior firepower. After the Philadelphi corridor killings, and the savage and inhuman treatment of the dead bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli decisionmakers undoubtedly felt the same urge as anyone else would to exact retribution on their foes, and they had at their disposal effectively unlimited power to do so, if they were willing to use it. But they found it more acceptable to wreck buildings than people. And even that makes Tommy Lapid sick. And he's no bleeding-heart liberal. So the problem isn't that we in the West really have a greater aversion to casualties than our adversaries in the Middle East. It's another kind of asymmetry entirely. One side wages war with high tech, the other side with low restraint. Analyst
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000264.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission. by Analyst @ 11:55 PM CST [Link] |
|
Replies: 3 comments President Truman dropped the atom bombs on Japan in order to save the thousands of American lives it would have taken to invade the islands and wage a land war. Israel would have saved the lives of many of it's citizens if it had fought an all-out war against the PLO, using it's air power to destroy all infrastructure, and kill Arafat and the leadership. Instead Israel tried to be humane, taking care not to harm civilians, at terrible cost to it's own citizens and army. Until the West learns that it has no choice but to use maximum methods to rapidly knock out the enemy and destroy his ability to wage guerilla war and terrorism, the West will lose. Posted by mike levine @ 05/26/2004 01:42 PM CST
If Israel thinks that it can win the war against the terrorists by military means then it is deceiving itself. Engaging in street battles in Gaza and the West Bank simply causes more civilian casualties. Posted by Rod Davies @ 05/26/2004 05:02 PM CST
“A simple statistical analysis of the casualties on both sides demonstrates this point. While approximately 80% of all the Israelis killed in the violence and terrorism since September 2000 are non-combatants, the compatible figure for Palestinian non-combatant casualties is no more than 45%.”
There is no doubt that terrorism committed in the name of the Palestinian people has been the biggest factor in holding the peace process hostage. Hamas and the other radical Islamic groups have incorrectly concluded that the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon was in large part due to the Hezbollah campaign of suicide bombings and attacks. They perceived, quite incorrectly that The Israeli society did not have the stomach for coping with an ongoing suicide campaign. However studies have shown the general population has become increasingly less susceptible to being "terrorized" (Genesis of suicide terrorism Scott Atran Science; Mar 7, 2003; 299, 5612; Academic Research Library pg. 1534 being just one example) and have substantially hardened their stance in dealing with the Palestinians. “they had at their disposal effectively unlimited power to do so, if they were willing to use it. But they found it more acceptable to wreck buildings than people” This comment by the analyst above seems to have quietly forgotten to mention the 50 (disputed) or so dead Palestinians in the latest incursion, some of whom were apparently killed while participating in a demonstration. I also somehow doubt that the 183 families whose houses were destroyed would view their lives as having taken a turn for the better. Also using Japan and Germany in WWII with the Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah as comparable scenarios is quite frankly, surreal. Lastly to Mike Levine, please make sure you read your history a little more comprehensively. Japan had attempted to surrender to the Americans via the Russians months before they got nuked, the Allies refused to accept the surrender because the Japanese had demanded as a condition of surrender, that the Emperor be given immunity from prosecution of war crimes, something that General Macarthur prevented from occurring anyway. No further negotiations were entered into… The primary reasons the US dropped the Bomb on the Japanese were to send a very clear warning to Stalin about what would happen if he attempted to invade Europe, as well as wanting to see how effective the extent of the destruction would be in a populated city. As one staff US General was reputed to say, “well we’ve got the damn thing, might as well use it!” The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quite possibly responsible for giving Stalin pause in his ambitions, thus saving countless lives in the continuation of conflict in Europe. I cannot see how this rationalization has any moral grounds whatsoever, it smacks of leaders so drawn into the conflict that they have lost all humanity. The use of Kamikaze pilots gave suitable public justification to the argument that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man, woman and child. The reality is that the Japs were being systematically obliterated city by city and were in no condition to put up anything but token resistance. A friend of mine (who incidentally has the same view as you regarding the reasons for nuking Japan) once described to me how the Japanese High Command were issuing orders to train women to charge at the marines landing using deadly bamboo spears to drive them back to the boats. If that isn’t the actions of a nation on its knees then I’m not sure what is. Both The Yanks and the Japs new that Okinawa was the last roll of the dice. Posted by Duck! @ 05/27/2004 10:06 AM CST Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned. |
[Previous entry: "Bnei Sachnin: Unprecedented soccer victory and cautious optimism"] Main Index [Next entry: "What did President Bush say in his speech?"]
ALL PREVIOUS MidEastWeb Middle East LOG ENTRIES
Thank you for visiting MidEastWeb - Middle East.
If you like what you see here, tell others about the MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log - www.mideastweb.org/log/.
Copyright
Editors' contributions are copyright by the authors and MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.
Please link to main article pages and tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Do not copy MidEastWeb materials to your Web Site. That is a violation of our copyright. Click for copyright policy.
MidEastWeb and the editors are not responsible for content of visitors' comments.
Please report any comments that are offensive or racist.
Editors can log in by clicking here
|