They opted to bomb, it had better work

The Times (U.K.) ^ | 10/10/2001 | Simon Jenkins

[The Vast Right Wing]

Perhaps appeasement is genetic. I mean, churchill was half american so he could overcome the urge to appease.

[Liberals are Evil Socialists!]

What a load of liberal plop.

[dighton]

Estrogen out of balance, I'd guess.

[Gordian Blade]

Only infantry can shoot straight.

Only infantry can occupy territory, but even they sometimes shoot the wrong target. Stonewall Jackson's own men shot him by mistake. That one sentence shows that the author didn't think about the topic for more than one second, then he just let his left-wing reflexes take over.

[Pipers]

Churchill lost the Empire. Period. Blair is a jack@ss who is going to sink the rest.

[Malesherbes]

I would expect this screed to appear in the Guardian or some other left-wing fishwrapper, not in the Times.

[colorado tanker]

Looks like the London Times is as loony left as the New York and LA Times. By the way, who said all we're gonna do is bomb? I didn't hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair say that??

[RogueIsland]

I just read this thing, beginning to end, and all I can say in response is "Huh?" Weird article, like it was written by a Benzadrine addict on a caffeine binge. It's almost like what you'd get if Jack Kerouac had become a British journalist.

[stevem]

This is a pretty humorous article. While it may seem that Blair will follow any leadert that shows a direstion, he has been doing yoeman's work this last few weeks. People that allow terrorism to go unchecked in an effort to save their worthless lives for another day or week are quislings of the first order.

...proportionate, measured, targeted... THIS sounds very much like an ALGORE tax cut.

[Thud]

Idiot. Next he'll tell us that automatic weapons are too indiscriminate, then that only knives can be sure of hitting just the right target.

I.e., only politically correct weapons may be used. I remember how the US Army's pre-war infantry branch chief, a guy named Lynch, was so in love with the cult of the rifleman that he had all automatic weapons removed from rifle company and platoon TO&E's.

First we get air supremacy by bombing the air defenses. Then we insert the light infantry.

And he wants everyone in Afghanistan to starve too. We have to get air access to the place to fly in food for the starving population, which means eliminating everything which can shoot down large slow-flying transports carrying the food. He hasn't made that connection yet because he is a fool.

[Alberta's Child]

In retrospect, the lack of follow-up to the 1993 New York bombing, given the evidence revealed at the trial, was criminal negligence on the part of Western Intelligence.

There may be a lot of nonsense in this article, but this item here should be repeated ad nauseum for the next thousand years. On September 11th, the U.S. simply paid the price for its own negligence. How could we have been so damned stupid?

[tiki]

Could this be why Britain didn't fly the second night? And why they widely publicized it?

[1stMarylandRegiment]

How could we have been so damned stupid

Who was in the White House and what did he know?

[Alberta's Child]

It's easy to blame Clinton, but that is a cop-out. You had Federal prosecutors, judges, jurors, etc., all of whom knew that these Islamic terrorists had every intention of attacking the World Trade Center again.

If these people are not made to answer for their negligence, there is no doubt in my mind that we deserve another black eye. It's much easier to "turn Afghan rubble into smaller pebbles" than to address the real cause of this problem.

[Ricktex43]

To describe what should be a relentless campaign against criminal terror as war is metaphor abuse. OK, a cunning enemy, aided and sheltered by a foreign government kills 7000 of our population and its not an act of war? What is the cutoff number? 10,000? 20,000? Not to mention the whole basis of diplomacy is power. If the Afghanies and the rest of the mideast do not see our power, they will not engage in much diplomacy to our liking. Would hate to see how these guys would have reacted to Hitler. "OK, take the Sudetanland and Poland too, well ok France as well, but don't touch Britannia. OK, those are terror bombs on London, not really an act of war. OK so whats wrong with learning to speak a little German, its a great romance language.....Thank God for Churchill.

[section9]

I don't get this.

Over and over again, Rumsfeld has been saying that airpower cannot win this war. So has Bush, Rice, and everyone else.

This isn't carpet bombing. Very few civilians have been killed in comparison to the Iraq campaign. You need air superiority before you send in the SF and the Light Infantry.

Why doesn't Jenkins get this?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Uglywhiteguy]

And the writer gets paid for his nonsense??

Ths is not revenge, it is making our world safer for he future: for the British and for US!!

[AndyJackson]

This is an excellent example of how liberals use illogic to spread their poison.

The first twist is a moral sleight of hand To describe what should be a relentless campaign against criminal terror as war is metaphor abuse. By hurling resources and media attention at some distant theatre, it deflects effort from the domestic front. It also insults those who fought and died in real wars, when territory was threatened and states were at risk.

This man is a moral monster whose agenda like so many of his liberal cronies is to regain the initiative in the battle over political correctness. This is a battle at home, the "domestic front" and this pseudo-sophisticate would use bigger words than he understands in order to "de"-demonize terrorists.

One technique of these liberal fascists is to create false dichotomies. You see, the 5,000 who just died don't count, because theirs was not a real war, and this was just a crime. Turning the argument on its head, Hitler's gassing of Jews was real legitimate war - and not a crime - since he was the legitimate target of "resources and media attention in some distant theatre." But we reject the false dichotomy. Hitler was both a criminal and a warror and so are these terrorists.

But then he continues in his illogic with some choice phrases:

The bombing is not military but political. It is revenge, no less ferocious for being postponed. - first - a factual error - it wasn't postponed at all, and second, yes of course it is revenge - all responses in war to an act of war are "revenge." Furthermore, he creates another false dichotemy. It is not one or the other, but both political and military as are most state uses of organized violence.

And then one creates false imperatives to deligitimize and ridicule the opposition. The Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, must show how his Tomahawks will really help to find bin Laden But no he musn't. This not the goal of Tomahawks at all. The goal is the destruction of important military assets of the Taliban - military, because unlike Mr. Jenkins, the rest of us are not chasing a pickpocket - we are at war.

And then one begs the question Aerial bombardment is never proportionate But it isn't supposed to be. War is not won by playing patty-cake. It is won by using unmeasured, disproportionate, overwhelming force. Oh- I fogot, Mr. Simon wants to drop show cause warrants on some friends on the domestic front, leave the terrorists in their distant lands, and haul someone or other (Tony Blair and his warmongers, one suspects) before the bar of justice.

And then you must put thoughts in the heads of your opposition - thoughts they clearly don't have. Mr Blair must explain how firing missiles at empty hillsides will enhance his world But shooting $2Million missiles at tents and the backside of a camel is the habit of previous regimes. Ours has made it pretty clear that they will not shoot missiles when there is no target. So far, we have not, however, run out of targets.

From these people we want no nonsense about precision weapons and surgical strikes. Bombs miss targets.

Don't show us any evidence that we are mistaken and that bombs hit their targets. We will have none of it.

Only infantry can shoot straight. Why does he expect infantry to shoot straight when he can't even shoot straight.

And then - he blames - you guessed it - us! the lack of follow-up to the 1993 New York bombing .. was criminal negligence...The bombing wasn't criminal, but the lack of follow-up was. For a moment ...Washington seemed to realise that the Muslim world resented its decades of mistreatment.

At the hands of whom? For the most part, the Muslim world has been left free to go its own way. The major western influence has been that the sale of oil to the west has made some wealthy and others not and those who haven't gotten their share are resentful. But the Muslim world needs to look locally to find the fault for that.

And finally, he gives us a false goal They must all explain how they will prop up a new regime indefinitely, or risk losing the “war” all over again. But that is his definition of victory, not ours. Our definition is to see some murderous thugs thrown out of power, and so long as that happens, we won. If we get bin Laden - even better. Who rules afterwords - we have a humanitarian care - but so long as it isn't the Taliban, strategically we don't give a hoot, just so long as everyone understands that the next Tomahawk is pointed at the guy who shelters and makes common cause with terrorists, and it will be launched, carefully and deliberately.

[SalukiLawyer]

Dear Mr. Jenkins,

I read your editorial in the Times with professional interest. As an American criminal defense lawyer I am often called upon to argue cases where the facts fall against my client, to take, in other words, a position utterly without support in reality. I too, often have to rely on repeating confident-sounding opinions as if they were indisputable facts, while ignoring evidence to the contrary. When it is done skilfully, as you have done, it can be persuasive if the jury has any reason at all to be sympathetic. Unfortunately, even a mediocre prosecutor can usually burst my beautifully blown bubble by talking about the evidence. While I admire your style, I can't help but feel it would do you good to participate in an adversary forum where you might be invited to explain the factual basis of wonderful phrases like this:

"For a moment this past month, we saw a new wisdom. Washington seemed to realise that the Muslim world resented its decades of mistreatment. A moment for possible rapprochment was at hand. The horror of September 11 meant that East might join West in one humanitarian cause."

The pathos of this missed opportunity almost brings a tear to my eye, especially since you have appealed to my American sensibilties by speaking my own language with the "kick butt and whup ass" bit. I appreciate the effort. It almost made me forget how shallow and ineffectual such nice sentiments are in the real world where fundamentalist mass murderers enjoy state support that allows them to develop a global reach.

However, I recognize this editorial's kind of flim-flam, because I have to use it myself sometimes. Not bad at all, kid. Not good enough for an American courtroom, but better than a lot I see from newspaper writers. We appreciate the British help and support, and understand that the papers will run things like this from time to time.

Sincerely, Tim Capps

Reply

Thank you for your email, which has been printed out. The volume to this address is so great that I cannot reply by email, but please be assured that I do note what you say. If you would like to receive a reply, please do not hesitate to write to me at the address below, giving your name and address. Thank you for taking the trouble to write. Simon Jenkins The Times 1 Pennington Street London E98 1TT