It’s elegant and simple – why didn’t we think of it earlier? Just butcher the Sunnis en masse.
What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn’t kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn’t the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?
If you can’t imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?
And if America can’t do it, can Israel? Could Israel – even hardy, strong, universally conscripted Israel – possibly stomach the bloodshed that would accompany the total destruction of Hezbollah?
Oh dear. It’s nice to see relatively conservative bloggers take offense at such blatant barbarism.
It’s quite sad that the son of an accomplished, prestigious American intellectual would muse so innocuously about the merits of mass butchery–basically the wholesale slaughter of a broad demographic of an ethnic group writ large–a policy prescription that is quasi-genocidal in nature. John should think of previous genocides in this century, in such contexts, as he ponderously queries the pros and cons of the extermination of entire population groups. Where is the decency? It’s repulsive, really. There is also his revealing reasoning that “even hardy, strong, universally conscripted Israel”, yes even she, might not have the guts to do such a thing. Quelle dommage! Yes, even an unflagging, staunch, indefatigable society like that of the Israelis doesn’t have the cojones to do this kind of thing. Western civilization truly is imperiled, the hand-wringing goes.
It is definitely a most peculiar time in America, when suggestions such as Podhoretz’s can be made so casually, and find audience in our mass media. In the past, we strove to keep such thoughts to ourselves, or to tell them to the priest in the confessional and beg for forgiveness. Now the calls for bloodshed and even interment and extermination are made in broad daylight, with no shame or reluctance. Of course, J-Pod will later say he was “just joking,” as Ann Coulter always does after she calls for extermination. Real funny, no?
Check out Belgravia Dispatch to see how Instacracker helped push this story through the blogosphere in a particularly insidious manner, using sly verbal devices to absolve himself of any responsibility for promoting genocide. Slick, very slick.
1
By Bukko in Australia
I recall a historical figure who adopted “J-Pod”s proposed strategy of murdering all males between in a certain age range to forestall rebellion: King Herod. Didn’t work out so well for him…
July 29, 2006 @ 2:09 am | Comment
2
By rama
Hullo
I just visited your blog, and look forward to going through the archive.
I’l like to invite you to visit my blog, at: cuckooscall.blogspot.com
Thanks and best wishes
rama / Calcutta / INDIA
July 29, 2006 @ 2:42 am | Comment
3
By Liuyixi
“If you can’t imagine George W. Bush issuing such an order, is there any American leader you could imagine doing so?”
Yet another example of the American right making itself difficult to distinguish from the Taliban. Still, I have to agree with him on the above quotation.
July 29, 2006 @ 7:49 am | Comment
4
By Pete
I liked his bit about Dresden/Hirohshima/Nagasaki part since they are widely viewed as completely unnecessary from a military point of view. Bombing Dresden fortified German resistance and the terms of surrender the US and Japan agreed to after Japan was nuked were the same the Japanese had offered before the attack.
July 29, 2006 @ 9:53 am | Comment
5
By richard
True about Dresden,, Pete. The firebombing of that city is looked on as one of the great blunders of the war
July 29, 2006 @ 12:21 pm | Comment
6
By davesgonechina
I’ve never fought in a war, but all of Podhoretz’s talk of “liberal democracies now evolved”, “no longer assign special value to the lives and interests of our own people”, “have our foes discovered a new way to win” – he’s arguing that the nature of war has changed, as if no one ever thought that a war has “nothing to do with the people but only with that country’s leaders”, military actions against civilians are brutal, or debated limited versus total war. Since I can’t believe that Podhoretz has never read anything by John Keegan, I can only assume he’s a lying bastard.
A string of questions to raise your panic level so the reader will accept Podhoretz’s key premise, one that seems to be everywhere these days as you yourself pointed out Richard: Victory is simply the matter of the application of enough brutal force, and the only thing that prevents that application for the U.S. is will. Our morals sap our will. Our “niceness”, Podhoretz is arguing, is killing us.
I will, for the life of me, never understand why so many people who follow Christianity embrace this doublespeak. After all, isn’t eternal salvation suppose to erase the fear of death that drives one to abandon their values?
As for Podhoretz, Coulter, et al. being able to actually make a living on this drivel… most people don’t follow world events until they show up on their doorstep. Then they panic. Hence, people make money writing panic-stoking bullshit, because it’s something people can understand. It’s sad, and it seems pretty much the way of things.
BTW, on Hiroshima/Nagasaki influencing surrender… a reasonable, fair-minded, primary source quoting (in other words, boring) historian would probably look at it like this:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm
I love the National Security Archive. I want to have its little mimeographed babies. It’s nice to know at least one person out there chooses to go with thinking instead.
July 29, 2006 @ 1:47 pm | Comment
7
By davesgonechina
I’ve never fought in a war, but all of Podhoretz’s talk of “liberal democracies now evolved”, “no longer assign special value to the lives and interests of our own people”, “have our foes discovered a new way to win” – he’s arguing that the nature of war has changed, as if no one ever thought that a war has “nothing to do with the people but only with that country’s leaders”, military actions against civilians are brutal, or debated limited versus total war. Since I can’t believe that Podhoretz has never read anything by John Keegan, I can only assume he’s a lying bastard.
A string of questions to raise your panic level so the reader will accept Podhoretz’s key premise, one that seems to be everywhere these days as you yourself pointed out Richard: Victory is simply the matter of the application of enough brutal force, and the only thing that prevents that application for the U.S. is will. Our morals sap our will. Our “niceness”, Podhoretz is arguing, is killing us.
I will, for the life of me, never understand why so many people who follow Christianity embrace this doublespeak. After all, isn’t eternal salvation suppose to erase the fear of death that drives one to abandon their values?
As for Podhoretz, Coulter, et al. being able to actually make a living on this drivel… most people don’t follow world events until they show up on their doorstep. Then they panic. Hence, people make money writing panic-stoking bullshit, because it’s something people can understand. It’s sad, and it seems pretty much the way of things.
BTW, on Hiroshima/Nagasaki influencing surrender… a reasonable, fair-minded, primary source quoting (in other words, boring) historian would probably look at it like this:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm
I love the National Security Archive. I want to have its little mimeographed babies. It’s nice to know at least one person out there chooses to go with thinking instead.
July 29, 2006 @ 1:48 pm | Comment
8
By Peter
I think he’s right. The Romans could have done it, or the Mongols, but I don’t believe America today would have the stomach to slaughter enough women and children to completely crush all resistance in Iraq.
And that’s no bad thing.
July 30, 2006 @ 3:00 am | Comment