Demosophia

Sane Talk about Zionism and War

Michael J. Totten has inaugurated a prolific discussion about total war. But since there are so many comments I wanted to post a couple of throughts on my own blog, as well as dropping my small contribution into that vast ocean.

First, there seems to be some genuine confusion about the meaning of the term "total war" as implying either "maximizing warmaking capacity" or requiring the use of a standing conventional army. The term "total war" has nothing to do with maximizing "warmaking capacity." It means, simply, targeting the civilian population that (albeit perhaps not universally) supports the warmaking capacity. Of course total war is "morally repugnant." The point is that in certain situations it's the lesser of evils that are left on the table. There isn't any doubt that the folks the BBC chattily refers to as "Palestinian militants" are engaged in total war against Israelis. Just consult any suicide bombing story in any newspaper on any given day in Israel.

And although it may be crass to say this, the only reason there are any Palestinians left in the territories is that their warmaking capacity is so inept it doesn't demand a response in kind.

Aside from the apparent confusion about the meaning of the term "total war," there's another common flaw in the comments. In a world of the "super-empowered individual or group" with potential access to WMD it isn't necessary to have an army in order to wage an effective war. But it does require some broad popular support (for instance, to hide the Bin Laden's in the larger population). In the event of a successful WMD attack on the US there'd be two areas that might initially be targeted for broad retaliation, should the population continue to shield the offenders. Those are the "tribal areas" of the Northwest Provinces in Pakistan and in Saudi Arabia. They would probably, at the very least, become hostage to a thermonuclear retaliation.

And another distinction might be in order. Total war need not mean genocide. The objective is to bring home the price of support to the civilian population engaged in such support. Only if the enemy proves utterly implacable and bent on genocide themselves does genocide become a self-defensive necessity.

And mutual genocide may not be the only justification. Genocide has been necessary in at least one historical instance: the eradication of the Thuggee Assassin culture in northern India. The program involved not only mass executions, but where feasible mass internments and restrictions against reproduction. Many of the Thuggees so interned lived out their natural lives in peace and relative security, but they were the last generation.

Update:

Shadow Merchant suggests some potent alternatives:

Well, one thing I expect to see in case of a nuclear or biological disaster would be expulsion of Arab and Muslim non-citizens from the United States (and perhaps other countries: France is slowly awakening to the fact that they will be living under Sharia law in two more generations if something is not done, and a nuclear detonation would provide them all the excuse they need to round up millions of troublesome North Africans and send them home.)

Immigration and most travel from Muslim lands to the West would be eliminated. Even some naturalized citizens might find themselves deported. The Muslim world would find itself quarantined, and probably destitute, as we would most likely occupy the major Arab oil fields for the benefit of ourselves and the rest of the world.

Those who think we would unleash nuclear weapons or other terrrible violence on the Muslim world in general are wrong, however. We would certainly give Pakistan a very brief deadline to turn over all its nuclear weapons and submit to intrusive inspections, or face destruction of its military forces and infrastructure. We would probably do likewise to North Korea. But we would not bomb cities or intentionally try to kill civilians.

Very good points. I'd argue that we need to do at least some of those things now, in order to make the deterrent message much clearer. As I've said elsewhere I think a strategy is emerging for a new "cold war" that sends a powerful message to the people of the Middle East. It is very dangerous for them to misread us as too benevolent to retaliate.

But I also think that holding the tribal areas hostage until the perpetrators of an attack are surrendered (perhaps to an international tribunal) might be another stopgap on the way to total war. I don't know how effective such a threat would be, but perhaps we ought to think about that now rather than later.

And what I mean is this. If the UN is not an adequate institution to play such a supranational role the time to establish an alternative body, composed entirely of liberal democracies, is now... before an attack.

Posted by Demosophist at January 12, 2004 12:21 PM | TrackBack