The Limits of Brutality
John Podhoretz's case for genocide and brutality, expressed cowardly in the form of rhetorical questions, is, of course, absurd. Simple decency aside, there's very little reason to think that extreme viciousness has any practical value in these conflicts. Looking at the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan and the Russians in Chechnya doesn't provide much support for the view that the West's problem is that we're unduly averse to massacre.
But perhaps more to the point, I don't think even Podhoretz really wants to implement the sort of wholesale slaughter his column's endorsing. Rather, this kind of provocation seems designed to "stretch the defense," so to speak, expand the boundaries of the conversation. After all, if killing them all is something we're going to discuss before oh-so-reasonably rejecting the option, then all of a sudden a little torture looks positively moderate and humane. Thousands of Lebanese refugees -- who cares? At least they're not dead.
Reading that article reminded me of balloons. As in trial balloons and which excuses might work. (Although that would be a rarity in the neocon world. Generally they just move on to promoting the next diaster-in-waiting.)
But there were at least two articles this week that saw Hezbollah as partly gaining on victory. Newsweek's Christopher Dickey started with the bottom line
The NYTarticle started more at the top and got to this:
"It would be a mistake for the United States Senate to allow any kind of human cloning to come out of that chamber." GWB, 4/10/2002
July 29, 2006 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Simple decency aside, there's very little reason to think that extreme viciousness has any practical value in these conflicts."
Extreme viciousness not only has no practical value it dehumanizes those practicing it and destroys their value system to self justify their actions and the same holds true for the society.
The question is what does it do to those in the society that see the actions as unacceptable and are unable to affect change or even have it acknowledged as pointing out a legitimate problem for the society.
This raises 3 questions.
What does it do to those in the societies that sees the actions as unacceptable and are unable to affect change or even have acknowledged they are pointing out a legitimate problem?
What does it do to those practicing or opposing extreme vicious actions by their society?
What is the consequence to the individual when reality bites and then both groups are in crisis having their faith in the myths of their society fractured, their ego diminished?
Even though as individuals they know the awful truth, does the group as a society have mass denial?
I think individuals from both groups could find themselves disassociated from the myth or narrative of their society.
Some will deny and become more fanatical, but at some point either the whole society will become more fanatical
or the society will suffer a great Malaise (thank you Jimmy Carter).
The Zionists are ahead of the US in this line and consequences
I am concerned for Israel now, today and America tomorrow.
July 29, 2006 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Usually, when blaming everyone but themselves for their failure, warmongers can't answer how much brutality their elusive victory would require. For example, killing over a million Vietcong wasn't brutal enough. Would 2 million have done the job? 5 million? The warmongers have no idea.
Iraq turns this situation on its head. Saddam Hussein proved exactly how brutal you'd have to be.
I remember this very distinctly; somewhere in between smoking guns, mushroom clouds and freedom on the march, was the fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal, ruthless dictator.
What a pitiful bunch: if only we could be as brutal and ruthless as the brutal, ruthless dictator we were in such a hurry to take down, then I guess we'd be greeted as liberators, or something.
--
-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --
July 30, 2006 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was listening to one of the Israeli government officials this morning justifying the killing of 30 children (or whatever the number is now) during what appears to have been pretty much a destroy the village and by all means don't save it attack. He said they'd sent leaflets.
How different is this really from the fanatics who deny Israel's right to exist and promise to drive them into the sea? Isn't the Israeli government saying "we told you all to leave and if you don't we have the right to kill all of you even every last child in your village". I mean isn't this what "kill all of them" is all about? You start with these little villages wherever they are be it in Lebanon or Iraq or Cambodia or Darfur and you make everyone expendeable. Once you can do that without a conscience you can kill any number of people - an entire city, nation state, culture.
July 30, 2006 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink