We have seen that they are willing to support indiscriminate and ineffective collective punishment of an entire country's population in order to stop "terrorism."
We have seen that they are willing to accept massive so-called collateral damage on civilian populations while invading harmless countries in the name of doing something about "terrorism."
But now they've taken it to a new level: respected commentators are now directly advocating genocide in the name of fighting terror.
But today it's military experts advocating genocide in Iraq "to stop the terror."
Case in point: Brian Dunn, respected military expert and author of the blog The Dignified Rant. In a blog post written on Sept. 12th, he notes the ongoing debacle in Anbar province, which coalition forces have effectively already lost:
Recent reports that Anbar province is not being pacified by our troops out there are probably accurate. I've noted the problems we've had in subduing the region. The Post article says:
The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.
Anbar was largely ignored except for air strikes until the months leading up to the 2005 constitution referendum. We've been trying to move in with our forces over the last year to knock down the Sunni gunmen and allow Iraqi forces to set up and police the region. Thus far, we haven't had enough success in getting effective Iraqi forces out west.
You know, that's what happens when you invade a country without any understanding of its sectarian divisions, inflame tensions, disband the only army capable of stopping the violence, piss off every major power group in Iraq, torture its people, and let corrupt American companies siphon off all the reconstruction money without getting anything done.
And, apparently, terrorism coming out of Anbar province is at an all-time high. What would it take to stop it, according to this military analyst? Genocide:
But this does not mean the battle is lost. The enemy is resisting. They do that. That's why they aren't friends. And it is true that this is not a military problem but a political one. Short of killing every third military age man out there we won't be able to subdue the enemy in Anbar.
Stay the course, apparently. Sounds like a plan to me. And then comes the advocation:
All we can do is hold the line and buy time while the Iraqi government builds the capability to move into Anbar in force to subdue the enemy. The Iraqis will have more street smarts in identifying bad guys without guns in their hands. And the Iraqis will be able to make deals with the local tribal leaders (as some tribes have done already). More ominously, if the Sunnis won't deal, the Iraqi government will be able to kill every third man of military age in the province if that is what it takes to end the terrorism.
Yes, that's it! We need genocide--but we can let the Iraqis do it for us! That's the ticket! All we need to do is stay the course until the Iraqi troops can commit genocide for us!
But the key point here is this: "terrorism" has become such an evil in these people's minds that sheer, outright genocide has somehow become seen as a lesser evil by contrast. In other words, genocide is now acceptable in the name of fighting "terror". Personally, I can think of nothing more terrible or terrifying than genocide--but that's just me.
And moreover, this has become acceptable discourse not just for Ann Coulter and Little Green Footballs, but for respected military analysts whose papers are published in journals like the Institute of Land Warfare, Army magazine, Military Review, and Joint Force Quarterly.
This is the stuff nightmares are made of.
Insistence on the false belief that terrorism can be quelled predominantly through the use of force on foreign lands, that there are a finite number of terrorists who can be killed, and that terrorism is somehow a greater and more fearful enemy than Hitler, Hirohito and Jefferson Davis all combined, has greater repercussions than what we have simply seen out of this malAdministration to date. This sort of thinking has truly horrific consequences.
When people are driven to abject fear and hatred of something or someone that they do not begin to understand, the results are absolutely horrifying beyond even what Bush has wrought. This was the basis of the Salem Witch Trials; of the Nazi holocaust; of the Turkish holocaust of Armenians; and every genocide and hate crime, major and minor, worldwide and throughout history. This served--and continues to serve--as the basis for Islamism and the 9/11 horror itself. Bin Laden and Bush have simply made themselves two sides of the same coin.
Our government does not understand the roots of terrorism. Our people--even the respectable analysts--have become more afraid of "terrorists" than they are of genocide. One and only one conclusion can follow from this line of thinking: indiscriminate genocide of people thought to harbor "terrorists."
This government and its ideology of fear, terror, and "ends justify the means"--even if the means are genocide-- must be stopped at all costs; failure to stop it will have consequence that I dread to imagine.
Get to work. Pound the pavement, the phones and your wallets to get these people out of government. To get American troops out of Iraq.
Please. Before the it gets so bad that the we have to see just how far these people are capable of going. Because that is that stuff of nightmares; the place where Godwin's Law meets harsh reality, and the unthinkable becomes possible.
[Cross-posted from My Left Wing]