Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Andy McCarthy on Iraq: Questions for your discussion
I am jammed today, but not so jammed that I can't recommend Andy McCarthy's morning note on President Bush's substantive victory in the Iraq policy debate. As a diagnosis of the politics it is interesting, but it also touches on the fulcrum of the debate about the future of America's policy in Iraq. In the middle of the essay Andy frames the case for continuing the offensive war in Iraq:
If we leave now, we lose. It’s that simple. We make a prophet of bin Laden, who has been saying all along that we’d quit once things got tough. We embolden the enemy, swell its recruitment, inflate its funding, and guarantee that suppressing it, after the inevitable next wave of attacks against us, will cost many, many more American lives.
Do you agree with the sentence in bold? If so, why? If not, why not? Finally, are these the right questions to ask in the search for the best path forward? If not, why not?
41 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Tue May 08, 08:53:00 AM:
Um, not really. He presumes that if we withdraw in some precipitous fashion, Al Qaeda wins. Frankly, I doubt it. More likely, Iran wins. Or Iran and Saudi Arabia go to war.
They may be emboldened, etc. But the Shiite community will go to war with Iran's backing to decimate the Sunnis. That's my guess.
By Jason Pappas, at
Tue May 08, 10:21:00 AM:
It depends. If the Shiites finish ethnically-cleansing the Sunni population from Baghdad and perhaps all of Iraq, Al Qaeda loses. By the time we leave, the Shiites will be in control. If we leave too soon they may have to overcome their hatred of Persians and turn to Iran whereas now only a minority seeks Iran's aid. But I doubt we'll be leaving anytime in the next four years regardless of who is President.
By the way, no matter what, Al Qaeda will say they won but they'll say that whenever we leave. Arabs are taught they won the Yon Kippur War!
The growth of active jihadi will continue regardless of the outcome of Iraq. The fundamentalist revival is driven by an internal dynamic of the Islamic world. It would remain internal to the Islamic world if we end our 50 year policy of appeasement and had a proper policy of containment.
By 
, at
Tue May 08, 10:42:00 AM:
Cardinalpark, you are assuming Al Qaeda and Iran are seperate and distinct groups. That is false. There is clear evidence that Iran has been arming & training Al Qaeda in Iraq for years. Furthermore, several top Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden's son are in Iran. Iran is supporting Al Qaeda to undermine Sunni states, while they back Shia terror groups such as Hezbollah or the Mahdi Army to take control of Shia states. Iran already has effective control of Syria. If the US withdraws without defeating all the terrorist factions in Iraq, both Al Qaeda and Iran will claim victory. Shia groups will undermine the Persian Gulf regimes, Lebanon while Al Qaeda will throw it's attacks against Jordan, Egypt & Saudi Arabia.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue May 08, 11:37:00 AM:
"policy of containment"
Delusions of grandeur
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue May 08, 12:52:00 PM:
P.S.
Actions speak louder than words.
Yesterday I saw an interesting item at Anatara, the Indonesian news agency: Only 1.71 million out of the total of 176.88 million Moslems in Indonesia use Sharia banks.
Link:
http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2007/5/7/only-171-million-of-moslems-in-ri-use-sharia-banks/
By , at
Tue May 08, 02:21:00 PM:
I don't know enough about the situation in Iraq to accurately evaluate the value of the boldface statement. On the one hand, it's certainly at least plausible, and if I were an enemy of the US I would certainly do my best to turn any sort of withdrawal into a psychological victory via the usual propaganda channels.
But on the other hand, "quitters never win" is much too convenient an argument to make in support of any war. If we've already damaged the insurgency and the support base for international terrorism in Iraq as much as we're ever going to, then the boldface statement is an empty one, because its consequences are inevitable and we might as well cut our losses now. It's not clear to me that the insurgency can ever be permanently beaten in the short to medium term - at least not now with our current approach. Saying "we can't leave or we'll lose face" just isn't a valid argument for continuing war unless you also have a plan with which you might possibly win. And the administration certainly hasn't given me the impression that it has any such plan!
By Miss Ladybug, at
Tue May 08, 03:31:00 PM:
I agree with that statement. It will just reinforce AQ's perception that we can't stomach a long and/or bloody fight (Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia). Iraq will fall to Islamic fundamentalists (either Iran or AQ, doesn't really matter in the end - they both want nothing more than to see the West destroyed and subjugated to their will).
We need to be able to leave on our own terms when we have defeated the enemy, at least to the point that Iraq's own security forces can keep them under control, which they aren't ready to do yet.
I think Uncle Jimbo said it best: You can't end wars, you either win them or you lose them. If we leave now, we lose the Iraq War, but the real war will be far from over.
By , at
Tue May 08, 04:03:00 PM:
Presumably everyone saw the news item: Muslims wanted to attack Fort Dix and kill as many soldiers as they could for Jihad.
We are at war with Islam. And Muslims. Run away from bin Laden in Iraq and we will get not one or two of these plots a month but one or two a DAY. Muslims in the US will be emboldened to attack us all the time, from anything from Beslan style attacks to bombings or nerve gas on subways to whatever else they can think of.
And that's just the Muslims HERE. Let alone the other 1 billion who will see America as rich, fat, weak, and helpless.
Now that we are in Iraq we MUST show strength, indisputable strength, or encourage a tidal wave of terror attacks on US soil. We can't do MAD or Containment because we face an ever-changing set of loosely aligned non-state Actors with plausible deniability of state support from Iran and Pakistan and Saudi.
How do you deter Al Qaeda? You can't. You CAN however deter Iran and Pakistan and Saudi by staying in Iraq and being right next door so to speak with lots of troops ready and willing to kick down the door and break lots of stuff. To the level that the leaders will be impoverished. Those guys all fear poverty more than death (which makes sense if you understand their culture).
But don't forget we are fighting Muslims here at home of which the vast majority are committed to our destruction and imposition of Sharia Law through mass terror. Short of deporting them all or internment the only way to stop successful Fort Dix attacks and their like (on schools, hospitals, day care centers etc) is through staying in Iraq and projecting strength.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue May 08, 04:42:00 PM:
Kenneth - you are right. I am making an assumption that al qaeda and Iran are separate, and opposed. This does not mean they will not occasionally cooperate where their interests intersect. Let's remember that we allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler.
Presuming we vacated Iraq and left a vacuum, I would posit -- but I admit this is speculation - that the sunnis and shiites would go to war (as they are at a low level today). This war could ultimately escalate to include Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are mortal and historic rivals and enemies. This is both driven by a mortal distinction over islamic interpretation and strategic rivalry over oil.
The war would be a replay of the Iran Iraq War, but much larger and more deadly, as the US would bankroll Saudi Arabia to the mat. It would be a mess. But I would not bet on Al Qaeda on that one.
Look, I do not favor a withdrawal from Iraq. I think that idea is actually stupid. But if it happened, the consequences would be far more dire, I think, for the locals, than for us. Again, just think back to 1980-1988, and the Iran Iraq War.
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue May 08, 05:21:00 PM:
It's not clear to me that the insurgency can ever be permanently beaten in the short to medium term
That statement would be true for ANY insurgency, anywhere. Shining Path, Tamil Tigers, etc... Not a one of them was a quick deal, and the Tigers are still very much in business.
So basically, it seems you're saying all insurgencies should be allowed to win because the political will to fight them can't be mustered.
By , at
Tue May 08, 05:45:00 PM:
The Dems have gone back to the good old eighties: Holding back funds for US ally Columbia; redirecting funds away from the missile defence program; overtly subverting our forces in harms way; and last, but not least, kowtowing to the very people who are supporting operations against the USA.
Oh! for some honest reporters and editors who would get this narrative out.
By Escort81, at
Tue May 08, 06:59:00 PM:
Anon 4:03 PM -
When you state:
But don't forget we are fighting Muslims here at home of which the vast majority are committed to our destruction and imposition of Sharia Law through mass terror.
it tends to undercut the rest of what you are saying. The vast majority of U.S. citizens who are Muslims want to destroy us and impose Sharia? I would buy what you are saying if you said something along the lines of, "there is an important and virulent small minority of Muslims in the U.S. who seek to cause it harm and would ultimately like to see the U.S. Constituion replaced by the Koran."
Why do you think Muslims came to the U.S. over the past generation or two? Not to be a pre-invasion force, but for economic opportunity and to have the freedom to worship the way they want (not always available in a Muslim country, unless you are practicing precisely the right type of Islam).
I understand that there are Muslims in this country who wish us harm or who are in sleeper cells; the larger problem is getting the vast majority of moderate Muslims in the U.S. to give up the extremists in their midst (as I would expect Christian churches to give up those church members who would bomb abortion clinics). I am not sure how statements like yours help in that effort.
By Jason Pappas, at
Tue May 08, 09:01:00 PM:
Why are there Muslims here? It’s outrageous that we allow Muslim to immigrate or even enter the country. We can never adequately vet Islamic entrants to separate the problem Muslims from those that are benign. In WWII we put the Japanese in camps let alone stop their entry. Surely we should start our fight by securing our borders. Until we do, I can't take our administration seriously.
By Jason Pappas, at
Tue May 08, 09:22:00 PM:
After I wrote how it is impossible to vet Muslim entrants I read this about the terrorists planning to attack Fort Dix. As I was saying …
By , at
Tue May 08, 11:59:00 PM:
It don't matter. The Republican Senators, and Representatives are through. Oct. Il est fini.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed May 09, 12:15:00 AM:
The Republican Senators, and Representatives are through.
And you think that somehow gives democrats immunity from the head choppers eh?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed May 09, 12:23:00 AM:
"It’s outrageous that we allow Muslim to immigrate or even enter the country."
Personally I think everyone whose families migrated to the New World after 1776 should leave. It would fix Europe quickly. And I could get back to the family business of selling guns and liquor to the American Indians without needless interruptions.
By Mannning, at
Wed May 09, 12:51:00 AM:
so tell me, wise ones, how do we tell a good Muslim from a bad Muslim? The bad ones bomb to kill infidels. The good ones wait around until it is safer before they, too, kill.
It is all in the book--The Koran.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed May 09, 01:07:00 AM:
"It is all in the book--The Koran."
I presume you want to pull out of Iraq. With that viewpoint, you certainly wouldn't want to stay and help any of them.
By Escort81, at
Wed May 09, 01:16:00 AM:
Jason_Pappas -
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the U.S. adopt a policy of not allowing any practicing Muslims into the country as either visitors or as immigrants wishing to become U.S. citizens, and you are basing that policy on national security concerns. Setting aside whether or not Congress would pass such a law, or if the Executive branch could enforce it (since it can't secure the southern border), or if the courts would find it constitutional, wouldn't that policy simply persuade the hardened jihadi to claim that he is a Christian refugee seeking asylum?
Furthermore, there are very few historians, irrespective of their political leanings, who consider the internment of Japanese Americans to be one of the shining moments in American history. But, you have hit the nail on the head in terms of the logical implications of Anon 4:03's remarks that I italicized -- if you honestly believe that "we are fighting Muslims here at home of which the vast majority are committed to our destruction and imposition of Sharia Law through mass terror," then by all means it would make sense to reconsider their status as free citizens. Of course, it's likely that some evidence would be needed that substantiates the "vast majority" assertion.
I will say that I have always found the concept of the "Umma" to be puzzling -- why would a Muslim from former Yugoslavia (and here I am referring to one of the suspected terrorists who was arrested -- I live in the Philadelphia area, and it is all over the local news), who came to the U.S. as a refugee during the Clinton administration while the U.S. was intervening there on behalf of a Muslim minority, care so deeply about perceived injustices against Muslims in Iraq or Gaza? I have no recollection of Italian or Polish Catholics (either in Europe, or the hyphenated kind here in the States) having strong feelings one way or another regarding "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland, and the persecution of Catholic Irish nationalists there. I do see "Free Tibet" bumper stickers once in a while -- American Buddhists protesting Chinese policy in Tibet, but I have never heard of a domestic act of Buddhist terrorism here (although there were a number of Buddhist priests who set themselves on fire in South Vietnam to protest against the government there in the 1960s). Jewish terrorists in the U.S. protesting Nazism in the 1930s, perhaps directed against America Firsters, perceived as German sympathizers/enablers? Nope. Current day Jewish terrorists in the U.S. protesting an insufficiently strong pro-Israel policy (by their interpretation)? Well, I had a bad piece of brisket at a deli the other day, but other than that, c'mon.
DEC - I guess I'll go along with you, provided that you advise me beforehand what my status is, given that parts of my father's ancestry in the New World dates back to the late 17th century in what is now the State of New Jersey (with later family branches in Circleville, Ohio and Covington, Indiana), but my mother arrived here in the 1930s from Budapest, Hungary. Service in Dad's family includes a soldier in the American Revolution, two Union Army officers in the Civil War, and his service in the U.S. Navy from 1940-57, including four years of active duty in the North Atlantic hunting and killing U-boats. Do I get to stay? I kind of like it here. I suppose I can move to Budapest and do something productive there, but it would be nice if the Hungarian government would give me title to the entire city block in Pest (as well as the villa on Lake Balaton) my mother's family owned before the Soviet-backed government nationalized everything in the late 1940s. I guess the upside is that I'm single and, as Tigerhawk has previously blogged about, Hungarian women are hot. I think that, on balance, I'd rather stick around and be your liquor salesman. I know a few words of Abnaki and would be willing to live in Maine (the sailing is great there, and the lobsters, clams and blueberries are tasty). Who knows, maybe Penobscot (one of the member tribes of the Abnaki nation) women are hot.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed May 09, 01:38:00 AM:
By Miss Ladybug, at
Wed May 09, 01:42:00 AM:
Escort81~
I don't know that anyone can logically explain the concept of the Umma, and why ethnic Albanian Muslims give a rat's a$$ about Muslims anywhere else on the planet, to the point of committing terrorism in the name of jihad. That same concept doesn't seem to translate to any other religion on the planet...
By , at
Wed May 09, 02:52:00 AM:
"Personally I think everyone whose families migrated to the New World after 1776 should leave."
Upside - this gets rid of Pat Buchanan.
By Jason Pappas, at
Wed May 09, 06:50:00 AM:
Excort81, I made it very clear that the problem is that we can’t vet Muslims not that all Muslims are terrorists. Nor can we watch every Muslim in the country. Expelling non-citizens who are Muslims and prohibiting their entry makes the task far more tractable. Wars are collectivistic by their very nature. It is common in history for nations to expel the citizens of hostile foreign lands.
We don’t allow unlimited immigration. We don’t allow unlimited entry. We can allow immigration of Koreans, Hindus, Slavs, etc. to satisfy the needs of our vibrant economy but we can’t adequately vet Muslim entrants. Why not change our quota to favor non-Muslims? Why do we need Muslims? Why do we insist on helping Muslims?
Why do Muslims come first? We give more foreign aid to Muslims than any other group. For the last 50 years, America and Europe, directly or through the UN, has provided the majority of the economic income for Palestinians in the West Bank. We funded Arafat and Abbas. Now Condi has asked Hamas to lie to us about recognizing Israel so that we can fund Hamas like we used funded Arafat; and we are finding “humanitarian” loopholes to fund them in the meantime. Why do we fund terrorists?
We backed Nasser in the Suez crisis; help Egypt get back the Sinai; yet Egyptian hijackers help attack us on 9/11. We protected Saudi Arabia from Saddam; yet 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. We helped Afghanistan fight the USSR; we gave the Taliban $43 million dollars in May 2001; yet Afghanistan was the staging ground for 9/11. We helped Kosovo; today we see Kosovo terrorists trying to attack Fort Dix. Now we are trying to help Iraq replace a vicious dictatorship with a shining new Jeffersonian democracy. And they show little gratitude. It never pays to help a Muslim.
As I said, our 50 years policy of appeasement hasn’t worked. We have to change our relationship with the Islamic world. We have to stop helping them and show them complete contempt. We need a very different policy. If you want to know why we can't kill our enemies and win a war, it's because we don't know the first thing about fighting wars anymore. Step one: stop their entry and stop giving them aid.
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed May 09, 08:59:00 AM:
Gol' Darned Reds hidin' under mah bed!
Like Commies during the Red Scare, Muslim huntin' has come into vogue for the pants-wetting wing of the pro-war conservatives.
But back to Tigerhawk's question:
We embolden the enemy, swell its recruitment, inflate its funding, and guarantee that suppressing it, after the inevitable next wave of attacks against us, will cost many, many more American lives.
We emboldened the enemy by attacking Iraq, by giving them the greatest terrorist training ground in the world. After Afghanistan, global terrorism was on the run. Now with Iraq smoldering on, terrorists use our presence there to swell their recruitment and inflate their funding. Americans are dying every day, and some yahoo is going to tell me that his neocon crystal ball tells him that more people will die if we let them stop killing us?
When we consider withdrawal, understand that the resulting power vacuum will be filled by any number of groups, most of whom want to rule Iraq - NOT destroy the US. It's a different agenda when your country has been turned from a first world star to a third-world backwater rife with violence. Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush get equal credit for that.
There are other players in the region who will be willing to help create a truly multinational force whose job will be long-term paramilitary policing a la the British Army in Northern Ireland.
Bush's foreign policy has already accomplished all the things that Andy warns against. Irony has been dead to the right for some time, but this one's laughable, Hawk.
The attacks are continuing all over the world, the enemy is already emboldened, the recruitment already swelling, the next attacks being planned and executed. This is all while we send more troops to Iraq. Y'all are saying that it will get much, much worse when we pull out of Iraq and allow our soldiers to redeploy to places where they can protect American interests and get out of the crosshairs of an Iraqi civil war?
You've been wrong about everything else, why should I think you're right about this? Bush has failed. His invasion of Iraq was a mistake that's costing us billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
By , at
Wed May 09, 08:59:00 AM:
Cardinalpark,
Re: Al Qaeda vs the Iranians. They're not so much enemies as competitors. They do have the same goals: Jihad against apostate regimes, Israel, the West, & the return of the Caliphate. Their disagreement is over the details of who should be in charge.
I too think a true civil war would erupt in Iraq. Not only Saudi Arabia, but Jordan & Kuwait would back the Sunnis, while Iran & Syria would back the Shia. The Kurds would declare independance, which would draw the Turks into the war. The result would be much worse that the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. In the chaos, there is the real possibility of coups or revolutions in the Sunni states, with radical Islamists (AQ or AQ inspired) taking power. Meanwhile, oil shoots up to $200/barrel or more. Not a good scenario for the US.
By K. Pablo, at
Wed May 09, 09:26:00 AM:
"The attacks are continuing all over the world".
But not here.
"The enemy is already emboldened, the recruitment already swelling, the next attacks being planned and executed."
Evidence, please. It is an article of faith with you people.
By , at
Wed May 09, 11:47:00 AM:
"So basically, it seems you're saying all insurgencies should be allowed to win because the political will to fight them can't be mustered."
Not really. What I was trying to say was that, unless we have some kind of concrete plan to improve our long-term strategic situation in the region, we should leave, because we've tactically probably done as much damage to the insurgency as we're ever going to. Otherwise, the soldiers over there really are dying in vain.
By Escort81, at
Wed May 09, 05:51:00 PM:
DEC - Thanks for your message that I qualify; I am happy to stay on here. Liquor sales can be a nice margin business from what I understand. I would be especially pleased to cover the casino accounts in the northeast, but of course I will go wherever you direct me as your salesman. I have good working knowledge of single malt scotch, tequila, gin, bourbon, and rum, all mostly in the higher-end product line. I am less knowledgeable about vodka, blended whiskey and most down market products, but I can learn. Thanks for the opportunity.
Miss Ladybug - Thanks for thinking about the Umma concept. We're just kind of left shrugging our shoulders, as the concept doesn't really translate, I agree.
Jason_Pappas - I might agree with you that there is a distinct lack of gratitude on the part of Muslims with respect to U.S. interventions that have looked after their interests, especially Kosovo, which was clearly an example of humanitarian intervention (as many Republicans pointed out at the time, we had no clear strategic interest there, and I confess that I wondered whether it was worth putting U.S. forces in harm's way; the notion that the conflict might spread to other parts of SE Europe was mildly persuasive).
The link you provided to the piece on the Suez was interesting, and I have read much of Hermann's work -- I would recommend to anyone his history of the Royal Navy, "To Rule The Waves." [Also, I have always found it interesting that one of the key events in bin Laden's radicalization was his insistence to Prince Turki that he and his mujahadeen be permitted to defend the Kingdom from Iraq in 1990 -- that U.S. troops shouldn't be permitted on "Holy Ground" (did he think he was a character in one of the "Highlander" movies?) and were not needed -- he was detached from reality as well as ungrateful, but therein lies the source of the lack of gratitude, most likely, embarrassment.]
What you are saying is that we can't vet Muslim immigrants well enough, and that therefore we should simply shut down legal immigration for declared Muslims. The question I asked, or tried to ask, is how that would stop determined Jihadi from posing as a non-Muslim to gain entry to the U.S. (again, setting aside whether or not such a proposal could be legislated or implemented).
Screwy - I applaud you for trying to get the thread back on track to TH's original questions, and apologize for being the source of some of the diversion.
When you state:
There are other players in the region who will be willing to help create a truly multinational force whose job will be long-term paramilitary policing a la the British Army in Northern Ireland.
I have to say I have not read anywhere that any regional players have offered any kind of meaningful commitment to "create a truly multinational force." I am open to reading any links you could provide on that subject. I would have a hard time envisioning, say, even Hillary or Obama in 2009 being happy with or permitting Iranian personnel in Iraq as part of a multinational force. What's in it for Iran, even assuming a Democratic president OK'd it? Do you think Iran wants to put its forces in jeopardy (understanding that they would not be constrained by the same rules of engagement that U.S. forces are) and essentially refight the Iran-Iraq war house-to-house in Sunni cities? I think Iran would be perfectly happy to let the killing go on for a while (in the vacuum created by a U.S. exit) and then move in to establish an annexed Shia state in a large part of Iraq. I am also not sure that holding up the British Army in Northern Ireland as an example will help your argument with a U.S. audience that is quite impatient, as it has taken an awful long time to get from the start of "The Troubles" to the historic events of yesterday. But, I will agree with you that it seemed to work, provided you take a long view.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed May 09, 06:25:00 PM:
The attacks are continuing all over the world
At what rates? You very conveniently failed to include that tid bit.
Could it be because the numbers don't support your position anymore?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed May 09, 06:35:00 PM:
Too often people seem to forget about oil during these discussions.
Some enterprising folks in Papua New Guinea have started to refine coconut oil to use as a substitute for diesel fuel. "Inquiries for the coconut power have come in from overseas, including Iran and Europe," the BBC reported yesterday.
By , at
Wed May 09, 07:11:00 PM:
Furthermore, there are very few historians, irrespective of their political leanings, who consider the internment of Japanese Americans to be one of the shining moments in American history.
Just to play devil's advocate, the interment policy safely sheltered the Japanese-American population while the rest of the country went through the process of dehumanizing the Japanese enemy and steeling itself to commit nuclear genocide in Japan, which we would have done had Japan not surrendered.
I wonder how things would have been different had there been a large Japanese-American community in our cities in the crossfire of the anti-Japanese media onslaught. I suspect that it would have caused social scars that would still not have healed.
The internment did have the effect of making the Japanese-American population virtually disappear during the war, then allowed it to reappear following the end of the war, having suffered mostly economic damage, as opposed to physical violence.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Wed May 09, 07:22:00 PM:
Anon (7:11)~
I never even considered how Japanese-American citizens would have been treated had they been among the general US population throughout the war. All I really remember hearing (besides about internment, which I DIDN'T learn about in school) is that Japanese-American soldiers were made to serve in Europe, and not the Pacific...
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed May 09, 09:04:00 PM:
screwy, I'm with k pablo. Evidence, please.
By Escort81, at
Wed May 09, 09:56:00 PM:
Anon 7:11 -
You raise several interesting and thought-provoking points regarding the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, if I understand them correctly:
1) By keeping the interned population out of sight, it made it easier for the production and consumption of overtly racial propaganda to further the war effort
2) Had internment not taken place, the presence of the Japanese-American population combined with the propaganda and the ongoing war may have caused long-lasting social scars
3) Japanese-Americans suffered economic damage because of internment, but they were not victimized by physical violence by vigilantes (or by distraught members of the families of KIAs in the Pacific seeking revenge)
I am not sure that the same racial sensitivities existed in our culture during the 1940s as exist today, so it is hard for me to speculate on point 2.
As to your first paragraph, nobody in the general population knew about the Manhattan Project, so I think it is a stretch to say that the nation was "steeling itself to commit nuclear genocide in Japan, which we would have done had Japan not surrendered." We did in fact drop two atomic (fission) weapons on Japan, which would be on the low end of the "dial-a-yield" W80 thermonuclear (fusion) warheads that can be mounted on today's Tomahawk cruise missiles, so there are those who would say that we did commit nuclear genocide against Japan (but I would not say that, out of the admitted self-interest of my own existence -- as I referenced his service in a post above, my father was about to head from the Atlantic to the Pacific aboard his U.S. Navy warship to serve "picket duty" on his Destroyer Escort [fodder for kamikazes, essentially blocking backs for carriers and larger warships] when Truman ordered the bombs dropped and ended the war quickly; my father lived through the war, met my mother a few years later and I was conceived a dozen years after that).
Lastly, the physical protection that internment may have provided to the Japanese-American population hardly makes up for the fundamental violation of their civil rights. I suppose that had the relocation been voluntary, your point would carry more weight. Many of the internees in California were second and third (or more) generation Americans. For liberal historians, the internment ranks right up there with Court Packing in terms of the low points of the FDR administration. I think if I had been a Japanese-American back then, I would prefer to stay in my home and be knowingly subject to PATRIOT Act type surveillance, if we are talking about degrees of violating civil rights (acknowledging that the technology of the 1940s is quite different from the 21st century).
Interesting devil's advocate position, though.
By amr, at
Wed May 09, 10:19:00 PM:
I believe it for one reason; human nature. I am 62 years old and I have yet to see a school yard type bully who respects retreat and appeasement. Give in to the bully and you live in fear. Resist with everything you have, even if you are defeated, the bully will seek easier pry. There may be people in this world that respect the weak, but I have never met them. Good people have sympathy for the weak, but respect; I doubt that. Al Qaeda is not a member of the good side of human nature, so expect the worse if we retreat or fail in Iraq. The problem most Americans have is that they can’t seem to visualize what the “worse” will be. Hint, just look at Iraq and picture each suicide attack in Baghdad taking place in Washington D.C. and its suburbs.
By Jason Pappas, at
Wed May 09, 10:22:00 PM:
The interment policy safely sheltered the Japanese-American population while the rest of the country went through the process of dehumanizing the Japanese enemy and steeling itself to commit nuclear genocide in Japan, which we would have done had Japan not surrendered.
Dehumanizing? The savagery of the Japanese military in China, Korea, and the Philippines needed no element of additional disparagement to reduce the Japanese enemy to the lowest rung of human depravity. Ask the Chinese and Koreans today what they think about the Japanese.
Nuclear genocide? If I remember correctly it would have taken a half year to produce more atomic bombs. We couldn’t kill all the Japanese with atomic weapons. We could do far worse with conventional weapons. On March 9-10 we fire bombed Tokyo and killed about 150,000, comparable to an atomic bomb. After that we warned them with leaflets before bombing to reduce civilian deaths until August when we resumed our targeting of civilians. One wonders how many GIs died because of that squeamishness.
If we were to avoid an invasion and the Japanese refused to surrender, we would have starved them to death. We were destroying their transportation system, industry, and infrastructure. Their food supply was running so low that McArthur had to act swiftly after the surrender to avoid famine. Victor Davis Hanson mentioned that some Americans didn’t want to feed the Japanese given our depravations at home. McArthur insisted.
This word genocide seems to be used so loosely these days that it seems to mean little more than homicide writ large. I prefer traditional English: slaughter. I'm just not a fashionable guy. ;)
By Miss Ladybug, at
Wed May 09, 10:23:00 PM:
Escort81~
I can't think that point #2 was a consideration, but more of a side effect. Yes, the world wasn't very PC back then. The cartoon depictions of the Japanese from that time period were incredibly racist. I took it more as a "what would it have been like for Japanese-Americans if history had been different".
By Escort81, at
Thu May 10, 12:36:00 AM:
Jason_Pappas -
Your 10:22 PM post on internment and the end of the war on Japan makes a number of very pertinent historical points -- lack of fissionable material after August 1945, availability of firebombs, the prospect of starvation on the Home Islands.
But walk me through how shutting down Muslim immigration would prevent the determined Islamist terrorist from entering the U.S. under false pretenses, and how does it help to deal with the members of cells (or wannabees) who are currently U.S. citizens? Don't we want to get the Islamic communities in the U.S. to give up the bad guys in their midst?
By Jason Pappas, at
Thu May 10, 06:46:00 AM:
I only said it makes the problem more tractable. It’s not a panacea. You want to make it as hard as possible for jihadi to setup and function. Barriers to entry do just that. Intelligence abroad has is another component as is vigorous retaliation to attacks. It is difficult to infiltrate foreign born Islamist communities; thus you want to eliminate them. We can infiltrate groups of converts more easily.
France, today, has gutted their civil liberties because of the difficulty monitoring and detecting terrorism. If we want to avoid becoming a police state we have to have to prevent the problem from becoming unmanageable. If we have to have an illiberal border policy to have a liberal country within, so be it.
Let’s also remember that Israel, a few years back, had daily terrorist attacks. For sixty years Israel has been trying to live in peace with its neighbors but with the revival of Islam it has finally had to resort to a wall. Today, the Shiites, after repeated and barbaric terror attacks on their markets, schools, and places of worship, have now engaged in the most gruesome ethnic-cleansing of Sunni from Baghdad. We, too, considered erecting a wall in Baghdad. The Kurds have had an easier time because they can pick out Arab terrorists by profiling. They too are in a process of removing Arabs from their domain.
It is a significant help to separate and have a barrier. We have oceans and we can secure our southern border. Once we are serious, I’m sure Canada will understand the importance of being a good neighbor. But we have to lead. If the can be done in the Middle East it can be done here.
Rebecca Bynum has more thoughts on the matter. So does Lawrence Auster (Google him).
By , at
Thu May 10, 04:16:00 PM:
We embolden the enemy, swell its recruitment, inflate its funding, and guarantee that suppressing it, after the inevitable next wave of attacks against us, will cost many, many more American lives.
In answer to 'the sentence in bold': not necessarily. Depends how smartly retreat will be managed. Many surprises may lie in store. For example, USSR occupied Afghanistan for 10 years. US helped Mujahideen to force USSR to retreat. Mujahideen didn't continue their fight against USSR (due to many external and internal distractions and diversions), but instead grew increasingly anti-US and finally declared war against the US. Why?-excellent question!-for a multitude of reasons, almost all of them utterly incomprehensible, of course. So nothing is absolutely certain in geo-politics.
Regarding the side issue of how unrelated Muslim terrorists unite against the West: I don't find it puzzling at all. Unhinged individuals are swayed by world's events to commit atrocities all the time, without any logical connection. Why did McVeigh took it upon himself to avenge the Branch Davidians? As far as we know he wasn't personally connected to any of them. The only thing they had in common was resistance to the US gov't. Well, the only thing Muslim terrorists need to have in common is resistance to the Infidels.
