I can't say for sure whether this is true of the actual book, but in the review at least, this guy doesn't seem to be correctly backing up his conclusions. He seems to be arguing two different points; one, that "virtual war" (as he calls it) is not effective, and two, that it is morally wrong. He points to the fact that Saddam is still in power, the Serbs are gearing up for another offensive, etc, etc, as proof that virtual war is not effective. It's true, the Gulf War and the Kosovo intervention didn't exactly break the back of the resistance, but he doesn't give any concrete proof that the "virtual war" style of warfare employed in those combats was the reason for this. One could easily point to World War I, one of the bloodiest and most infantry-based combats in history, and note that a short time (historically speaking) later, Germany was geared up and even more aggressive and dangerous. Now, it wouldn't be very logical to actually use that example in an argument, because to do so ignores the immensely complex political situation in Europe at that time, and the rebuilding of Germany in particular. However, the author does much the same thing, by blithely ignoring the political situations that surround these armed conflicts in favor of decrying the United States style of "virtual warfare" as the ONLY reason that those wars were, in his view, somewhat less than fully effective. This is at best shoddy logic and at worst blatant verbal manipulation in the interests of propaganda. The authors second point (which, in the passages quoted, often seems to be confused with the first) is that virtual warfare is somehow immoral; that it is not morally correct for us to "unleash frightful weaponry" on other people unless we run the same risk. This is quite simply ludicrous. If someone is attempting to mug me with a knife, and I'm carrying a gun, should I refrain from pulling it out to defend my possessions simply because I don't stand the same risk of bloodshed as he does? Certainly, our intervention in Iraq and Kosovo may be morally questionable. But even if one decides that we were morally wrong for intervening militarily, this doesn't make our method of "virtual warfare" morally incorrect; if we were wrong for intervening, were were wrong no matter WHAT military options we used to intervene, be they sattelite-targeted laser strikes or thrown rocks. In short, the author of the book seems to be arguing that our interventions in recent conflicts have been ineffective and morally wrong, and then using that conclusion as proof that "virtual warfare" is ineffective and morally wrong. Even if one grants him that our interventions WERE, in fact, ineffective and morally wrong, this does not in and of itself prove that our style of "virtual warfare" is the root cause of such. One of the basic axioms of statistical science is that "Correlation does not imply causation." The fact that the author appears to use correlation as his only proof for causation is a sign of either shoddy thinking or deliberate misleading propaganda. FatherDog "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those that have not got it." -George Bernard Shaw http://www.tcnj.edu/~moraski2
Slashdot Mirror
I can't say for sure whether this is true of the actual book, but in the review at least, this guy doesn't seem to be correctly backing up his conclusions. He seems to be arguing two different points; one, that "virtual war" (as he calls it) is not effective, and two, that it is morally wrong. He points to the fact that Saddam is still in power, the Serbs are gearing up for another offensive, etc, etc, as proof that virtual war is not effective. It's true, the Gulf War and the Kosovo intervention didn't exactly break the back of the resistance, but he doesn't give any concrete proof that the "virtual war" style of warfare employed in those combats was the reason for this. One could easily point to World War I, one of the bloodiest and most infantry-based combats in history, and note that a short time (historically speaking) later, Germany was geared up and even more aggressive and dangerous. Now, it wouldn't be very logical to actually use that example in an argument, because to do so ignores the immensely complex political situation in Europe at that time, and the rebuilding of Germany in particular. However, the author does much the same thing, by blithely ignoring the political situations that surround these armed conflicts in favor of decrying the United States style of "virtual warfare" as the ONLY reason that those wars were, in his view, somewhat less than fully effective. This is at best shoddy logic and at worst blatant verbal manipulation in the interests of propaganda. The authors second point (which, in the passages quoted, often seems to be confused with the first) is that virtual warfare is somehow immoral; that it is not morally correct for us to "unleash frightful weaponry" on other people unless we run the same risk. This is quite simply ludicrous. If someone is attempting to mug me with a knife, and I'm carrying a gun, should I refrain from pulling it out to defend my possessions simply because I don't stand the same risk of bloodshed as he does? Certainly, our intervention in Iraq and Kosovo may be morally questionable. But even if one decides that we were morally wrong for intervening militarily, this doesn't make our method of "virtual warfare" morally incorrect; if we were wrong for intervening, were were wrong no matter WHAT military options we used to intervene, be they sattelite-targeted laser strikes or thrown rocks. In short, the author of the book seems to be arguing that our interventions in recent conflicts have been ineffective and morally wrong, and then using that conclusion as proof that "virtual warfare" is ineffective and morally wrong. Even if one grants him that our interventions WERE, in fact, ineffective and morally wrong, this does not in and of itself prove that our style of "virtual warfare" is the root cause of such. One of the basic axioms of statistical science is that "Correlation does not imply causation." The fact that the author appears to use correlation as his only proof for causation is a sign of either shoddy thinking or deliberate misleading propaganda. FatherDog "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those that have not got it." -George Bernard Shaw http://www.tcnj.edu/~moraski2