Punitive Bombing
I grew up in the 1970's, a time when a lot of Americans post-Vietnam were questioning the value, even the sanity, of war. Opinions were certainly split on the subject, but one thing I remember is that the concept of "punitive bombing" was widely mocked and disdained. Which is why I find it amazing to see bipartisan, multi-country support for exactly this tired old idea as applied to Syria. Has bombing ever done anything but radicalize the bombed civilian population against the bombers? The reaction to the London Blitz was not to have the English suddenly decide that they had been wrong in supporting Poland. Nor did Germans or Japanese generally reprimand their leaders for the past policies as as result of our firebombing Tokyo or Dresden. Or look at drone strikes in Afghanistan -- do you get the sense anyone there is saying, "Boy, have we ever been taught a lesson."
In the comments, readers are welcome to contribute examples of countries who "learned their lesson" from punitive air strikes and changed their behavior.
PS- Apparently the reason we "must" have at least air strikes is that we have established a policy that we will "do something" if countries use chemical weapons. And if we don't have air strikes, the world will think we are weak, right? But the problem is that this logic never ends. If the country then ignores our air strikes and behaves as before, or perhaps performs an FU of their own by using chemical weapons openly, then what? Aren't we obligated to do something more drastic, else the world will think we are weak?
}}} The best choice between the Assad-Hezbollah forces and the Iranian-backed Al-Qaeda rebels is public concern and private glee.
Actually, the BEST choice is to nuke both sets of bastards to hell and gone... but this sets a bad precedent, so, while it has excellent short-term possibilities, it does have longer-term consequences which neutralize it as a preferred option. :-D
Can you couch that in some terms that don't make Lenin's corpse dance with glee? Some rhetorical choices that don't make Noam Chomsky salivate? Some phrases that don't come straight out of Cloward and Piven's play books?
Thanks.
}}} which is most likely going to be pin- biggest prick bombing.
You had a small error there. I fixt it!! Glad ta help. :-D
Well, don't forget the fact of the Tet Offensive, which was a resounding defeat for the North, turned into a propaganda victory by [sarc] high-quality pro-America American journalism.[/sarc]
There have since been statements by high ranking NV military officials that, after the facts got back to them about the results of the TO, they began to discuss internally how to go about getting the best terms for a surrender... and after the American media reports got back to them, they started talking about how to hold out until the American media could win the war for them... :-/
}}} It is illegal to smack a child in a way that leaves a mark in the UK
Yes, this has done wonders for the UK, which has one of the highest per capita violent crime rates in the world.
Indeed, we should ALL emulate Britain.
You might have a valid idea, but that wasn't a particularly good justification to start it with.
Oh, I haven't forgotten that. According to his biography, the North never let Gen. Giap make decisions again without supervision. He actually believed the communist silliness that the "people" would rise up and join the VC/NVA during Tet.
But, even so, most Americans think Tet was a defeat for the US - and it was, propaganda wise, thanks to our idiot media, especially in this case, Walter Cronkite.
You're quoting someone who quotes the World Socialist Website as a source for news.
I believe that makes clear the reliability of both your direct and indirect news sourcing capacities.
I believe no further discussion of your claims or arguments need follow, at least until you grasp that more reliable sources of information are needed, and find them.
Heh, worked for Clinton, why not Teh One...?
Even as the final investigation of Waco was coming to the forefront, it got shoved to the back pages by the hysteria over Monica.
"Pay NO attention to what's behind that curtain...! HEY, LOOK, over there!! An EGRESS!!"
Commodus... pretty shitty, if you ask me. :-D
}}} This moron is now officially a international joke.
He's been THAT for a long time... a good five years at least -- it's just been slow to penetrate the thick skulls of his idolatrous peonage.
my name is maximus decimus mereidius...
Everything I've read to day says Syria is not a party to that treaty. That is why all the Obama admin folk are saying it violates "international norms" not international law.
A 500lb bomb does make discriminations? Or a 155mm artillery shell?
Dead is dead. The dead really don't give a crap how it happened once they are dead.
If we are going to go all moral and everything, why didn't we do something in Sudan? Or Somalia? Or any other number of nations where ethnic cleansing or other types of tyrannical murder of civilians is going on?
This is nothing but a distraction by the administration as well as saving face for Obama.
" The best choice between the Assad-Hezbollah forces and the Iranian-backed Al-Qaeda rebels is public concern and private glee. We have no dog in this fight."
Al-Qaeda isn't being backed by Iran. Iran is a sponsor of Syria and Hezbollah. The Al-Qaeda forces are being backed by the GCC states, Egypt, and possibly other north African nations as well as some of the European Muslim dominated states.
There is actually quite a bit of debate among historians concerning the impact or lack thereof of the nuclear bombings on the Japanese surrender; there is solid evidence that the Japanese were attempting negotiations before and that the Emperor had accepted the notion of unconditional surrender. There is the Soviet entry into the war. There are also some documents regarding a desire to actually deploy nuclear weapons for field test and political purposes on the US side. On top of that, there's the usual fog-of-war problematic.
"The decision to use the atomic bomb" (book) goes into a lot of detail and reconstructs the flow of events and who had which information at which time, probably the most detailed treatise on the process. You can also find some info online here, but the book is really worth reading if you have an interest in history. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
So, very much not a non-debatable historical fact. Just as a general principle, whenever the victors in a war state unilaterally that a certain fact is a known truth, it's worth questioning exactly how and why we know that and to look for alternate explanations.
You're right.Intelligence is far to vague.I pig is intelligent.
If your major problem is Bashar-al-Assad then there is a military solution.Just kill him.
Unfortunately the problems in Syria are much more complicated than just the regime and military action will not solve these problems.
Jeez, you seem a bit angry.
I'm sorry if I have upset you.I didn't mean to.
On an unrelated note: the discussion around the action in Syria is an interesting data point about US voter options when it comes to ensuring that we don't spend tax dollars on wars in the middle east.
He could have shoe-horned some more leftist buzz-words and -phrases in there, had he tried hard enough.
"North Vietnam did indeed surrender." So our troops occupied Hanoi? Ho Chi Minh and his ministers were deposed and put on trial for war crimes? North Vietnam was occupied and disarmed or divided so it's neighbors no longer had to worry about it invading? That's what happened to Germany and Japan when they surrendered.
By contrast, the government of North Vietnam did not change, nor was it weakened militarily by the treaty. It was no surrender. It wasn't even a real peace agreement, because there was not one thing in the treaty to prevent the Communists from re-starting the war as soon as the USA got back their prisoners and went home. Sure, they *promised* not to do that - but I'd read too much history, and Nixon and our other leaders had lived through too much of it, to believe that any Communist or other collectivist regime had any more honor than our Congress. Anyone who didn't expect a North Vietnamese invasion as soon as our troops were out of the way was a far greater fool than Stalin was when Hitler surprised him with Operation Barbarossa.
And why would anyone expect that, if we'd supplied even more arms and air support, the Saigon regime would have fought any better than they had before the treaty?
I guess you define a victory as an occupation. Odd definition.
First of all, the South Vietnamese troops did very well when tested, after US troops had left but while US air power was still there, in 1972 before the Christmas bombings. The North invaded using similar tactics to those of 1975, and they were quickly and thoroughly defeated.
And, you miss the whole point with your argument about promises. The entire reason that the US guaranteed air support and supplies to South Vietnam was because we knew the North would ignore the treaty if it had a chance.
But we did have a victory. South Vietnam was pacified, and only when Congress reneged on the deal was our victory, which cost us 58,000 deaths and vast suffering, turned into defeat.
BTW, using your logic, we apparently lost the Korean War also. Tell that to the South Koreans, who now have one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world, *exactly* because we did not renege on our promises to back them up.
Although I tend to agree with Coyote's sentiment on bombing, I believe there are examples where "countries who 'learned their lesson' from punitive air strikes and changed their behavior." The first example would be bombing of Serbia to stop its activities in Kosovo. The second would be the bombing of Libya which induced it to stop terrorist activities (and abandon nuclear development). At the time, I feared bombing Serbia would lead to terroristic attacks against the U.S. since those citizens would blend in more if they tried to infiltrate this country. (Remember, this was the 1990s.) However, I soon learned that the #1 show in Serbia was Baywatch, and that mentality immediately told me that dedicated terrorists would not be comming out of Serbia!. Regarding Colonel Gaddafi: Wow! We get a bad guy to change his behavior . . . even be helpful to us . . . then a few years later we forment a revolution against him, bombing him to an unprecedented degree. Small chance that dictators in the future will change their behavior when there is a bombing threat imposed on them. The U.S. is an vascilating enemy and a worse friend.
On a related note: http://imgur.com/gallery/CnmMHT5 ("The USA should invade the USA and win the hearts and minds of the population by building roads, bridges and putting locals to work")
Well, well... the populace didn't just somehow feel that they had somehow screwed up. The US had a whole re-education program going, censorship of media, only certain parties allowed, strong money incentives, a whole lot of political prisoners and people disallowed from having influential positions (not just national socialists, mind you) and so on.
I am not judging. But as a German apart from the public mainstream I see what you guys did and I feel that this is an absolute necessity if you *really* want to conquer (meaning: exchanging the native culture for your own) a nation. (That culture exchange might not be obvious, since American and diverse European cultures developement happened so interdependently, but it happend. See also "cultural imperialism".)
And if conquering is not your goal, you can stop right there, because all your bombs won't help you. If you want a system change you need to change the system. Not just destroy the old one. You need to install the new one and let their be no doubt whatsoever that no one will ever achieve anything unless he supports this new system.
Also you wull have to be ready to do what needs to be done. If your own populace whines about that you are no longer a conquering nation. Again, I am not judging. It's okay not to be. Many would say it is morally superior. But your policies should reflect your nations character.
For the record: I believe that in this age there is not a single western society left, that could successfully conquer another nation. So no hard feelings.
I believe the original idea behind banning chemical weapons was based on their ability to mutilate survivors in ways not amenable to treatment. It's the same reason deforming bullets and knives with triangular cross sections are banned under the Geneva convention, so I guess take it with a grain of salt.