[Why the U.S. is] Discarding War's Rules

Front Page Mag ^ | 07.22.03 | Daniel Pipes

[Enemy Of The State]

[Why the U.S. is] Discarding War's Rules
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
July 22, 2003

• German version of this item

"Since the events of 9/11," observes Lee Harris, America's reigning philosopher of 9/11, "the policy debate in the United States has been primarily focused on a set of problems - radical Islam and the War on Terrorism, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

We sense that these three problems are related, Harris notes in an article at TechCentralStation.com, but we can't quite figure out how. He proposes a subtle link between these seemingly disparate issues - and it's not specifically their common Muslim identity. Rather, it has to do with their unearned power.

"All previous threats in the history of mankind have had one element in common. They were posed by historical groups that had created the weapons, both physical and cultural, that they used to threaten their enemies." States achieved power through their own labor and sacrifice, developing their own economies, training their own troops and building their own arsenals.

The same cannot be said of the threats emanating from the Muslim world. Al Qaeda destroys airplanes and buildings that it itself could not possibly build. The Palestinian Authority has failed in every field of endeavor except killing Israelis. Saddam Hussein's Iraq grew dangerous thanks to money showered on it by the West to purchase petroleum Iraqis themselves had neither located nor extracted.

How, despite their general incompetence, has this trio managed to guide the course of events as if they were powers in the traditional sense?

The cause of this anomaly, Harris replies, is that the West plays by a strict set of rules while permitting al Qaeda, the Palestinians and Saddam Hussein to play without rules. We restrain ourselves according to the standards of civilized conduct as refined over the centuries; they engage in maximal ruthlessness.

Had the United States retaliated in kind for 9/11, Harris tells me, the Islamic holy places would have been destroyed. Had Israelis followed the Arafat model of murderousness, the West Bank and Gaza would now be devoid of Palestinians. Had the West done toward Iraq as Iraq did toward Kuwait, the Iraqi polity would long ago have been annexed and its oil resources confiscated.

While morally commendable, Harris argues, the West's not responding to Muslim ruthlessness with like ruthlessness carries a high and rising price. It allows Muslim political extremists of various stripes to fantasize that they earned their power, when in fact that power derives entirely from the West's arch-civilized restraint.

This confusion prompts Muslim extremists to indulge in the error that their successes betoken a superior virtue, or even God's support. Conversely, they perceive the West's restraint as a sign of its decadence. Such fantasies, Harris contends, feed on themselves, leading to ever-more demented and dangerous behavior. Westerners worry about the security of electricity grids, computer bugs and water reservoirs; can a nuclear attack on a Western metropolis be that remote? Western restraint, in other words, insulates its enemies from the deserved consequences of their actions, and so unintentionally encourages their bad behavior.

For the West to reverse this process requires much rougher means than it prefers to use. Harris, author of a big-think book on this general subject coming out from the Free Press in early 2004, contends that Old Europe and most analysts have failed to fathom the imperative for a change. The Bush administration, however, has figured it out and in several ways has begun implementing an unapologetic and momentous break with past restraints:

• Pre-empt: Knock out fantasist leaders (the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat) before they can do more damage.
• Rehabilitate: Dismantle their polities, then reconstruct these along civilized lines.
• Impose a double standard: Act on the premise that the U.S. government alone "is permitted to use force against other agents, who are not permitted to use force."

In brief, until those Harris calls "Islamic fantasists" play by the rules, Washington must be prepared to act like them, without rules.

This appeal for America to act less civilized will offend some; but it does offer a convincing explanation for the inner logic of America's tough new foreign policy.

[JRandomFreeper]

It's not about oil. It's about a brother-in-arms that died at the Pentagon.

All of the un-domesticated 14th century rejects need to disappear. Those that can be domesticated may be allowed to continue.

And I will never be distracted from that goal.

/john

[CGVet58]

Ping, tap-him-twice-in-Center-mass, abso-F*#@in-LUTEly correct!!!

The 1st irony of it is, when our enemies see the millions of people in the West voicing their dissent to war, they view our (democratic free expression...) actions as weakness, and are emboldened by it.

2nd irony; when they fear us, it is out of fear for their own survival... whereas the act of fear on their part will suffice to keep our citizenry safer. Crazy world, huh?

Reminds me of when I learned the real truth about the sale of Manhattan Island to the Indians for 24 bucks worth of beads and hunting knives - all my early history books made this sound like the the deal of the century. Then I grew up, and learned that it was the Indians (who had no concept of property or land ownership) who thought the white man was crazy for giving them the trinkets to 'buy' the land!

Different world views back then, as now. And I'll tell ya, i've been in that part of the world; Life is cheap, and the only thing they understand and respect over there is power.

As you and I both agree, and Machiavelli proved centuries ago... it is better to be feared than loved.

Juan
CGVet58

[JRandomFreeper]

As you and I both agree, and Machiavelli proved centuries ago... it is better to be feared than loved.

Don't try speak for me. I don't agree with Niccolo's crap. He lived during a time of princes. Americans are freedmen. We have different solutions.

I don't care whether we're feared, loved, or just avoided, as long as the 14th century losers go away.

And as someone that has raised dogs, I know how to invoke the avoidance habit.

/john

[JRandomFreeper]

And as far as I'm concerned, the ummah is just another pack of wild dogs that need to be castrated and tamed. Like we did with the Germans and Japanese in WWII.

/john

[Nip]

Tom Clancy has said it the best.

In his novel, Executive Orders, two of his characters are talking about the United States and why everyone makes serious mistakes when dealing with us:

"America often suffers from a lack of political direction. That is not the same as incompetence.

"You know what they are like? A vicious dog held on a short leash - and because he cannot break the leash, people delude themselves that they need not fear him.

"But, within the arc of that leash he is invincible.

"And a leash, Comrade Chairman, is a temporary thing."

And to quote the Bard:

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war......

[lainde]

bttt

[American in Israel]

How, despite their general incompetence, has this trio managed to guide the course of events as if they were powers in the traditional sense?

Just like kids on the beach, a brat can stomp sand castles quicker than talented kids can build them. It all stops when the brat gets stomped instead.

It is way past time to stomp brats.

[American in Israel]

What you are saying is correct, but it is because we wish to do the least harm to get the most good. If the Iraqi's did not respond so positively to being freed, we would be a whole lot rougher.

If they did use WMD to any great effect inside Americas borders we would nuke them into the stone age, not try to rebuild their economy.

After all, once the area was sterilized, few other nations could build oil drilling robots that were radiation resistant...

[American in Israel]

Are you saying things would be better if we didn't have at least indirect control over the world's cheapest fuel?

I think that in the light of today, we find that the oil we purchased had a much greater hidden cost attached. I do not mind buying oil for gold, but oil for blood is way too expensive. I like buying oil, but if another Hitler is thrown into the bargain, war is a much better choice.

[paul51]

When your the only one that plays by the rules, that's not being civilized. That's being a chump. I'm glad we are learning.

[SandRat]

Impose a double standard: Act on the premise that the U.S. government alone "is permitted to use force against other agents, who are not permitted to use force."

Wrong, Daddy spanks the naughty spoiled child for throwing a temper tantrum, and breaking things.

In other words, the restaurant mater-de hears the words spoken; "Alright that's it were going to the car!"

His words are; "That brat's going to get his butt tanned."

No double standard here, just the imposition of rules for proper behavior that most of us learned and for some of us, in the very manner that we learned them on occasion.

[Redcloak]

We don't need to tap into Alaska or the coasts. Just take the oil from the Arabs. They have no real claim to it.

They weren't nation states when Westerners discovered and then extracted the oil. The Arabs weren't involved in the process. They just happened to be pitching their tents on the sand above the oil. Were it left to them the oil would still be buried. It's quite simply not their oil. Kick them out of the areas around the oil fields and take back what the West developed. They needn't be our "subjects"; they need merely be gone. Is this imperialism? No. It's simply the recovery of stolen property.

(This also has the effect of de-funding their radicals. Oil money can't pay for terrorists when the oil money is in someone else's bank account.)

[CGVet58]

"...14th century losers..." - then you missed my oblique reference to their level of political development by the use of the Machiavelli quip.

I won't "try to speak for you" (is that what it was?). Have a good life.

[SauronOfMordor]

No one wants those 14th century losers as subjects. And we don't need their resources. We have plenty of our own. They just need to die or go away. I don't care which.

If we get any major bombings, or a string of suicide bombings in US malls, an increasing percentage of Americans will become agreeable to drastic countermeasures against them