Slashdot Mirror
The New Transparency of War and Lethality of Hatred
Hugh Pickens writes "Robert Wright says that if you had asked him a few days ago — before news broke that American soldiers had urinated on Taliban corpses — if such a thing were possible, he would have said 'probably.' After all if you send 'young people into combat, people whose job is to kill the enemy and who watch as their friends are killed and maimed by the enemy, ... the chances are that signs of disrespect for the enemy will surface — and that every once in a while those signs will assume grotesque form.' War, presumably, has always been like this, but something has changed that amounts to a powerful new argument against starting wars in the first place. First, there's the new transparency of war as battlefield details get recorded, and everyone has the tools to broadcast these details, so 'it's just a matter of time before some outrageous image goes viral — pictures from Abu Ghraib, video from Afghanistan,' that will make you and your soldiers more hated by the enemy than ever. The second big change is that hatred is now a more dangerous thing. 'New information technologies make it easier for people who share a hatred to organize around it,' writes Wright. 'And once hateful groups are organized, they stand a better chance than a few decades ago of getting their hands on massively lethal technologies.' It used to be that national security consisted of making sure all foreign governments either liked you or feared you; now it requires that as few people as possible hate you. 'I think we should reflect on that before we start another war.'"
US Marines routinely sent home Japanese skulls (they were photographed in LIFE). Someone sent Roosevelt a cigarette holder made from a Japanese femur. The Russians did crazy, unspeakable things to civilians on a large scale in Prussia and the Nazis were more than happy (desperate) to tell the world through even representatives of the Allied press.
And, oh yeah, the Nazis... no real need to go there.
And why stop with WWII? Vlad Dracul (yeah, that guy) made damn sure everyone knew why he was called "Vlad the Impaler" and he didn't even have a Facebook account.
So, in short, no, nothing new here.
Unfortunately it does work. Pick up Unbroken, a story about a downed WWII flyer who, amongst other fairly horrid episodes, got interred in a Japanese POW camp. He remained there till the end of the war and describes leaving the camp. The area had been carpet bombed previously (and hit with the atomic bomb). The civilian population - which previously had been ready to sacrifice themselves when the Allies invaded were basically shocked into submission.
Don't make the mistake of conflating how we persecute 'war' these days with all out and out military aggression which has not been seen on a large scale since WWII. We would have won in Vietnam, would win in Iraq and Afghanistan if we did that (and likely be set up for war crimes). War is really ugly business. We're just playing at low level conflicts for now. (Not that it makes it morally or politically correct). Hopefully we won't get there again, but with humans being the ugly little monsters we are, I wouldn't bet on it.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The other side of your example is that the population of British cities were not shocked into submission despite almost constant bombing (the London blitz) and entire cities levelled (Coventry)...
Germany fought to the bitter end despite acts such as the fire bombings of Dresden and other examples of wholesale destruction.
The Soviet Union fought to victory despite the complete destruction of Leningrad and Moscow.
The same "they"
The Al Qaeda operatives you're talking about came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and UAE. The taliban and Iraqi insurgency GP was talking about came from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Different people, different organizations, different nationalities, different motives; they are hardly the "same".
Machiavelli said a lot of stuff about what an autocratic ruler should do to keep power. But he intended it at least in part as an argument against autocratic rulers. He favored a Roman-style republic with power shared between the social classes (still pretty damn oppressive judging by our standards, but better than "The Prince").
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
No. HELL NO!
Those who say that there was no terrorism in the USSR are blind to the lengths that Stalin & co went to to suppress dissent. He killed millions to starve the Ukraine into submission. Be born a member of an ethnic group Uncle Joe doesn't trust? The German speaking population in Byelorussia was deported thousands of miles to the east & build rudimentary cabins before winter or die in the cold. Protest a little against the government and get sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in a Gulag. There was little dissent in the USSR because Stalin beat it out of them. With little dissent there was little terrorism.
It took the breakup of the USSR for dissent to arise again and surprise, surprise, Chechen & other terrorists came out of the woodworks until Putin once again beat them into submission.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
There's also some interesting emails that leaked years ago where Bin Laden is complaining about the UN. He hated the list of human rights because it treated all religions as equal - this was insulting because he 'knew' that Islam was the one true religion and it required a status superior to all other religions.
April 11, 2001
From: Osama bin Laden
To: Mullah Omar