This post and the brilliant comments it gave rise to are on their own worth the subscription. Thank you to one and all.
I would like to add three points: 1) It seems to me that the disorderly withdrawal was inevitable once Trump negotiated independently of the Afghan Government. It made plain that their army was on its own except pos…
This post and the brilliant comments it gave rise to are on their own worth the subscription. Thank you to one and all.
I would like to add three points: 1) It seems to me that the disorderly withdrawal was inevitable once Trump negotiated independently of the Afghan Government. It made plain that their army was on its own except possibly for supplies. I am sure that I have read that the army was nothing like as large or as well-trained as the published figure, and the Afghan troops will have probably known this, and so felt safer avoiding conflict. This would suggest moderation in attacking Biden for the 'shambles'. 2) Intelligence when invading a country relies on local contacts; how on earth is it possible to check on their reliability? I wonder therefore if the drone strike was not 'targeted' for the Americans by an infiltrator; if so it was a near perfect propaganda coup, as well as revenge against a collaborator. 3) It is tempting to make drones the target of opposition, though they undoubtedly need regulation, but when one reflects on the damage done by other weaponry, and the impossibility of a foreign force distinguishing between friend (or neutral) and foe, it is difficult to see how hostilities can be pursued without enormous collateral damage. A good start therefore, might be to minimise interventions (I think of the many US interventions in Latin America among others) and leave each country to find its own way to better government. Government systems and markets are cultural phenomena and so interventions from abroad are unlikely to be helpful. I leave the question hanging as to whether NATO should have tackled the Russian intervention in Syria, and how that affects this argument.
Yes indeed, Philip. All one has to do is say "fire bombing of Dresden" to place in stark contrast the use of drones. Or, even more significantly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's super easy to kill civilians, as every military conflict in the history of the world has demonstrated. Trying not to is something new and different.
Forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Consider the firebombing of Tokyo the night of March 9, 1945, in which 18 square miles of the city was burned out and 100,000 people killed. 500 B-29s with incendiaries, bombing from 5,000 feet with no opposition. My old aerobatics instructor was lead pilot for his squadron on the mission. 30 years later he could never be around barbecue, because that was the smell that filled their airplane from below. Actually, 45 Japanese cities were burned out that way, long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When I was in Japan 18 years later with the Navy, my friend and I stumbled (lost) on the last 500 acres of unrebuilt Kobe-Osaka - it was staring into the abyss to confront it. I was immediately reminded of a painting of the aftereffects of World War III on the cover of a paperback s-f novel. Only 98,000 died in that one.
My father was in Japan for a year after the war as part of the army of occupation. I have photos he took with his Brownie camera of Hiroshima from the air when he did flyovers with a buddy from the Army Air Corps. I was trying to be concise--I could list any number of wars fought by destroying civilian targets. The Third Punic and Macedonian Wars, for instance, when the Romans burned both Carthage and Corinth to the ground, killed most of the men, enslaved most of the women and children, and sowed the fields with salt. Or the sacking of Jerusalem by the so-called Christian marauders of the "First Crusade" during which, the chroniclers described, the streets flowed up to the ankles in blood. The death toll might not be as dramatic as those in WW2, but the effect was the same.
Excellent examples. We hairless bipeds have an unblemished record for maximizing the awfulness to the utter limits of the available technology at any point in time.
Thank you Philip. I agree 💯. Comments here today have made me wonder if we had the intelligence on the perpetrators of 9/11 and the ability to take one or more out by drone, should we have?
“Targeted”. I have wondered the Same thing, Philip B., American military remarked on the plethora of tips they received. That makes me wonder if the tipsters were setting up a worker for the west for revenge and used our drone to do it. Let’s just hope I have an over-active imagination.
This post and the brilliant comments it gave rise to are on their own worth the subscription. Thank you to one and all.
I would like to add three points: 1) It seems to me that the disorderly withdrawal was inevitable once Trump negotiated independently of the Afghan Government. It made plain that their army was on its own except possibly for supplies. I am sure that I have read that the army was nothing like as large or as well-trained as the published figure, and the Afghan troops will have probably known this, and so felt safer avoiding conflict. This would suggest moderation in attacking Biden for the 'shambles'. 2) Intelligence when invading a country relies on local contacts; how on earth is it possible to check on their reliability? I wonder therefore if the drone strike was not 'targeted' for the Americans by an infiltrator; if so it was a near perfect propaganda coup, as well as revenge against a collaborator. 3) It is tempting to make drones the target of opposition, though they undoubtedly need regulation, but when one reflects on the damage done by other weaponry, and the impossibility of a foreign force distinguishing between friend (or neutral) and foe, it is difficult to see how hostilities can be pursued without enormous collateral damage. A good start therefore, might be to minimise interventions (I think of the many US interventions in Latin America among others) and leave each country to find its own way to better government. Government systems and markets are cultural phenomena and so interventions from abroad are unlikely to be helpful. I leave the question hanging as to whether NATO should have tackled the Russian intervention in Syria, and how that affects this argument.
Yes indeed, Philip. All one has to do is say "fire bombing of Dresden" to place in stark contrast the use of drones. Or, even more significantly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's super easy to kill civilians, as every military conflict in the history of the world has demonstrated. Trying not to is something new and different.
Or Sherman's March to the Sea, or Col. Robert Gould Shaw's burning of my hometown.
Civilians always pay the price for the pleasure of warriors.
Forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Consider the firebombing of Tokyo the night of March 9, 1945, in which 18 square miles of the city was burned out and 100,000 people killed. 500 B-29s with incendiaries, bombing from 5,000 feet with no opposition. My old aerobatics instructor was lead pilot for his squadron on the mission. 30 years later he could never be around barbecue, because that was the smell that filled their airplane from below. Actually, 45 Japanese cities were burned out that way, long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When I was in Japan 18 years later with the Navy, my friend and I stumbled (lost) on the last 500 acres of unrebuilt Kobe-Osaka - it was staring into the abyss to confront it. I was immediately reminded of a painting of the aftereffects of World War III on the cover of a paperback s-f novel. Only 98,000 died in that one.
My father was in Japan for a year after the war as part of the army of occupation. I have photos he took with his Brownie camera of Hiroshima from the air when he did flyovers with a buddy from the Army Air Corps. I was trying to be concise--I could list any number of wars fought by destroying civilian targets. The Third Punic and Macedonian Wars, for instance, when the Romans burned both Carthage and Corinth to the ground, killed most of the men, enslaved most of the women and children, and sowed the fields with salt. Or the sacking of Jerusalem by the so-called Christian marauders of the "First Crusade" during which, the chroniclers described, the streets flowed up to the ankles in blood. The death toll might not be as dramatic as those in WW2, but the effect was the same.
Excellent examples. We hairless bipeds have an unblemished record for maximizing the awfulness to the utter limits of the available technology at any point in time.
This is humanity’s M.O.
Thank you Philip. I agree 💯. Comments here today have made me wonder if we had the intelligence on the perpetrators of 9/11 and the ability to take one or more out by drone, should we have?
“Targeted”. I have wondered the Same thing, Philip B., American military remarked on the plethora of tips they received. That makes me wonder if the tipsters were setting up a worker for the west for revenge and used our drone to do it. Let’s just hope I have an over-active imagination.
Brilliant yourself, Philip. All 3 points . Thanks for your perspective!
I agree with your first point. Not so sure about your second. I think your third point is valid.