« Indonesia: Convene General Assembly | Main | Scalia Says Rights Can Be Cut to "Minimum" »
March 20, 2003
Shock and Awe: Terrorism by Any Other Name...
Let's be clear about what "Shock and Awe" means.
It means terrorism.
In fact, the term comes from a Defense Analysis arguing for simulating the effect on the Japanese from Hiroshima (from p. 106):
"Theoretically, the magnitude of Shock and Awe Rapid Dominance seeks to impose (in extreme cases) ... the non-nuclear equivalent of the impact that the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese...The impact of those weapons was sufficient to transform both the mindset of the average Japanese citizen and the outlook of the leadership through this condition of Shock and Awe. The Japanese simply could not comprehend the destructive power carried by a single airplane. This incomprehension produced a state of awe."This is the goal of inducing terror in order to destroy not the armies of the enemy but the political will of the population to fight and defend themselves. That is the same goal as what is conventionally deemed "terrorism", where no one expects suicide bombings and such to be militarily effective but can force political responses.
Now, the dirty secret of all conflict is that inducing terror through attacks on civilians has always been part of war-- from Biblical times on through Sherman's March through Georgia to Hiroshima through suicide bombings. Whether a particular use of terrorism is justified is always debated, but let's end the hypocrisy of labelling attacks on civilians by enemies "terrorism" and our own use of it "shock and awe."
Posted by Nathan at March 20, 2003 03:31 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nathannewman.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/647
Comments
ignorance is bliss. then again im sure that you will say the same about me.
Posted by: zach at March 20, 2003 05:00 PM
Nathan,
This is rhetorical sleight of hand.
"Terror" is defined as intentional attacks against civilians.
"Shock and awe" is intended to produce a certain psychological state in civilians and/or political and military leadership, but is not based in intentional attacks against civilians.
Your conclusion ("attacks against civilians") is not supported in your argument. A devastating attack against a country's military infrastructure can produce "shock and awe" without targeting civilians.
Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 20, 2003 05:07 PM
Well, I agree with Jack on this one. Nathan, your definition of terrorism would be very broad if you said it includes attacks on military targets.
Posted by: Andrew Hagen at March 20, 2003 06:01 PM
They've been quoted as saying they intend to destroy one in ten buildings in Baghdad, a city of 5 million people. Are 10% of Baghdad's buildings military targets? If they are, you both have a point.
I'm thinking there's a chance this was disinformation and they're not going to do it. Or maybe somebody got overruled. Either would make me happy.
Posted by: John Isbell at March 20, 2003 06:30 PM
We'll have to wait and see how many people die in Iraq. But the name "Shock and Awe" and the explcit comparison to Hiroshima should give you an idea. The rhetoric alone is disgusting.
Stepens and Hagen, do you mean to argue that the United States has never explicitly targeted civilians? Bullshit.
Hiroshima was a city. And while you're at it look up the US strategy in Korea. Modern war is based on the targeting of civilians.
You can have your war or your morality, but not both.
Posted by: Seth Edenbaum at March 20, 2003 06:32 PM
We aren't going to see how many people die in Iraq from the US media. I'd suggest that anyone interested in knowing, try the BBC or the Independent in the UK. They're fairly non-partisan, and report actual news.
Posted by: John Isbell at March 20, 2003 06:53 PM
i think that if everyone would pay attention to the news source of your choosing you will fully see that the US and its allies are trying very hard to get through this without the "all out fury of war."
As for purposly harming civilians, nonsense.
Posted by: Zach at March 20, 2003 09:12 PM
Look at the last Gulf War and followup sanctions-- hundreds of thousands of civilians died with casualties on the US side in the hundreds.
The US now has a policy that kills orders of magnitude more civilians in order to minimize our military deaths. Many might see that as a good thing, but you cannot say we are minimizing civilian deaths. To do that, we would go in with ground forces, avoid most bombing, and engage their military directly. We don't.
We bomb and bomb, including areas where civilians are likely to die. To say that we only bomb military targets begs the question when those targets are surrounded by civilians and we describe the effect as "shock and awe" to demoralize those civilian forces.
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 20, 2003 09:29 PM
Edenbaum, the US has not purposefully hit civilian targets since the Vietnam War. Before you cynicallly scoff, just try to give me one counterexample.
Nathan, there is a difference between hitting civilians on purpose (terrorism) and hitting civilians by accident (not terrorism). Your view does not take that difference into account. My argument is that it should be taken into account.
Posted by: Andrew Hagen at March 20, 2003 10:28 PM
I believe we mined a harbor somewhere
But yes we were not at war at the time.
And yes Vietnam was so long ago
but Israel is our proxy.
Or is that they other way around?
Posted by: Seth Edenbaum at March 20, 2003 10:40 PM
Hi,
With all due respect, Nathan, you just don't understand warfare.
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 20, 2003 10:56 PM
Hi,
just wanted to ask where you got the idea that we killed hundeds of thousands of civilians in the last gulf war. Last time I checked the vast majority of the Iraqi reugees in this country support president Bush in this fight against a tyrany and evil. -Respectfully,
Robert S. Morgan
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 20, 2003 11:01 PM
Robert, I said combined war and followup sanctions-- that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died due to those is pretty much undisputed; the only issue is how much the West blames Iraqs government, but the "collateral" result is still massive civlian death.
As for terrorism not including civilians killed "accidentally"-- when you bomb areas with lots of civilians and there deaths are inevitable, that is not an accident.
Or is the rule, as long as one soldier dies, any number of associated civilian deaths are justified?
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 20, 2003 11:15 PM
We mined a harbor, okay. It's not like we bombed Managua apartment buildings or anything.
Posted by: Andrew Hagen at March 20, 2003 11:24 PM
the issue of sanctions rest souly upon to shoulders of ONE man. Its hard to count how many opportunities over the last 12 years that saddam hussein had to comply with the UN and the will of the entire world. would he have done so we would not be forced to take the action currently at hand and so many iraqi people wouldnt have suffered. i do however challenge anyone to show me these so overly drastic numbers of dead you claim.
Posted by: zach at March 20, 2003 11:28 PM
There's a website devoted to Iraqi civilian casualties in this war, with a comprehensive list of its sources: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm . It currently lists 16 deaths, precisely matching the current coalition total. I find these numbers reassuring, but I don't know how long they will last.
Sanctions specifically allowed Saddam to do all kinds of things that could easily be sanctioned, while vetoing such dangerous military items as eggs. There are reviews of what was sanctioned and what wasn't. The US was largely responsible for what did and didn't make the list. I suggest looking into this further before simplistically blaming Saddam.
Posted by: John Isbell at March 20, 2003 11:41 PM
Zach, there were estimates of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths directly stemming from US military actions that deliberately destroyed drinkable water sources and other infrastructure necessary for life, along with sanctions that cut off necessary food and medicine for the population. If the aim was to attack one man, Saddam Hussein, why did the US punish the whole population?
See here for some of the longer term deaths and this Human Rights Watch report detailing US attacks on civilian targets.
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 20, 2003 11:48 PM
As i look at those sites i see that there was a large number of civilian deaths during that WAR. to be blunt, that sucks and i wish that stuff would have never happend. when i read the thing about the water killing people i can only think of a few things:
(a)i am to believe that allied forces purposly poisoned the water supply? come on.
(b)when you have hundreds of thousands of refugee's using a river for multiple things such as drinking water and bathing that the water is to be in good enough shape to drink? hmmm.
The fact is that when you shoot me these facts all i see is a group of people that disagree with using force in any situation. I also see somone telling me that i should rethink how much blame i put on saddam....
war is bad, civilians will die alongside soldiers and it has been that way for all time. i would love to see anyone commenting here attempt to work diplomatically with the people we are dealing with. you may say there is no reason to use force in iraq and i say to you... it never ended saddam broke the SCEASE FIRE (whish happens to be much different than an armistice)
i would also like to note the fact that there seem to be many arguments for each side of this debate... is it worth our time?
Posted by: zach at March 21, 2003 12:58 AM
Of course, not hitting civilian targets is made easier if you pay attention to how you define "civilian targets". Serbian TV, for example, was deemed a military target.
Posted by: Anna Feruglio Dal Dan at March 21, 2003 02:55 AM
"We mined a harbor, okay. It's not like we bombed Managua apartment buildings or anything."
Actually, we did more than that. We actively armed and directed a contra army that waged war against "soft targets" -- schools, farms, etc. We controlled Nicaraguan air space. We assisted in killing anywhere from 20-30 thousand Nicaraguans (numbers vary -- I've seen higher), and told that country that if, in the 1990 elections, it gave the Sandinista Party another six year term, these hostilities would continue.
Can't wait to see this brand of democracy flourish in Iraq.
Posted by: Dennis Perrin at March 21, 2003 09:59 AM
The people who clearly are intentionally targeting civilians at this point are the pro-Saddam "peace" militants, whose explicitly articulated object it is to prevent ordinary citizens from getting to or doing their jobs ("shut down the city").
Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 21, 2003 10:15 AM
Jack, you lose all credibility when you compare non-violent civil disobedience to violent terrorism and war.
But then, so does the Israeli government, as they deem all opponents, even the non-violent ones, to be terrorists and kill them. Which of course encourages previously non-violent resistance to become violent resistance.
Which was the point of Rachel Corrie's discussion of violent resistance among Palestinians.
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 21, 2003 10:26 AM
Targeting is targeting, Nathan. The morons who block major urban arteries are doing nothing other than holding people hostage for political gain. Indeed, their intention is not to make a political statement, but it is rather the disruption itself.
Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 21, 2003 10:39 AM
Jack, fine, if you think non-violent protest is the same as murder, then by your definition, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandi were terrorists.
Which I understand is actually the view of most conservatives, despite their use of MLK in their hypocritical attacks on affirmative action and such.
But I guess the good thing about war is that it puts peoples cards on the table. Conservatives like yourself think all resistance to political power is terrorism, whether violent or not, so repression and murder by the state is thereby justified.
Good to clear about political positions on your side.
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 21, 2003 10:47 AM
Okay Nathan, thanks for clarifying what people "like myself" really think. (What was that you were saying about respect? Oh well, it is your nickle.)
Good to put words in other people's mouths.
Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 21, 2003 11:04 AM
Jack, you were the one comparing me and my friends to violent terrorists, so I think my response was quite respectful considering.
So, to take words out of your mouth, do you agree there is a complete categorical difference between non-violent protest and terrorism with the intent to kill?
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 21, 2003 11:10 AM
You said you didn't care if I described the left as criminal and traitorous. Well, people who block major arteries in the name of "peace" are criminal and seditious.
I wonder how you would describe the CIA's campaign of economic disruption against the Allende government? (Wait, I can just hear it....)
As far as "non-violent," please note that police and firefighters who must saw apart and drag away militants are just that many fewer to respond to genuine emergencies should they occur.
Does this threaten civilian lives?
Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 21, 2003 12:29 PM
Actually, we did more than that. We actively armed and directed a contra army that waged war against "soft targets"
Nice point. My point, however, remains that the US military has not purposefully targeted civilians since the Vietnam War. It's because the policy has changed.
Posted by: Andrew Hagen at March 21, 2003 12:52 PM
Hi,
"the issue of sanctions rest souly upon to shoulders of ONE man. Its hard to count how many opportunities over the last 12 years that saddam hussein had to comply with the UN and the will of the entire world." -Zach
You hit the nail right on the head Zach.
And to Mr. Newman, we can both agree that War is a terrible thing and nobody wishes for it, but I see the war as a way of saving more than 100 times as many cvilians from the torure of Saddam Hussein. Thus, I conclude that accidental deaths due to misguided bombs and accidents are horrible catastrophes, but if it means the freedom of Iraq, than so be it. -Respectfully
Robert S. Morgan
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 21, 2003 03:41 PM
Mr. Morgan, the argument that war will save lives is the best argument for any war, and I supported it in the case of Kosovo as I noted. For many reasons, I think that calculation is wrong here given the inflamation of anger in the muslim world that will likely lead to destablization and deaths around the world in its wake.
But the argument that a few civilian deaths will prevent many others is the argument Hamas no doubt (maybe correctly) makes in killing Israeli civilians with the goals of forcing that government to end its brutalization and killings in the Occupied Territories.
As I implied, my argument is not that all death and terrorism is wrong or never justified. I just want to end the hypocrisy of the US declaring all terrorism by opponents de facto illegitimate while pretending that we never engage in it ourselves. We do and let's justify it or reject it on that basis.
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 21, 2003 03:48 PM
Robert says ". . . I see the war as a way of saving more than 100 times as many cvilians from the torure of Saddam Hussein."
Maybe this will be the case. But there are many, many situations in the world where we do not provide much or any help to civilians who are tortured.
Working agressively thought the U.N. it may have been possible to control or get rid of Saddam without destroying the country.
Bush converted and contorted support to go after the 9/11 terrorists into a reason to attack Iraq.
The "save the people" [by killing many of them] rational came later as part of the evolving justification for Bush's war.
Whether this war will help the Iraqi people remains to be seen.
You may see this as "helping the Iraqi people." What if they do not view it through your eyes?
We have not done well in Afghanistan. Why would we expect Bush and Co. to do better in Iraq?
Posted by: Gail Davis at March 21, 2003 04:14 PM
But the argument that a few civilian deaths will prevent many others is the argument Hamas no doubt (maybe correctly) makes in killing Israeli civilians with the goals of forcing that government to end its brutalization and killings in the Occupied Territories.
Nathan, I have nothing more to say to you.
Posted by: Jack Stephens at March 21, 2003 04:20 PM
just a note:
Somalia involved many attacks on civilians. I worked with a former cartographer who dropped into Iraq the first time, shot up a roadway of civilians. He has scars on his legs from the bone shards that tore through them during his drop on the Iraqi highway. He took a "vacation" in Haiti, and then was sent to Somalia. Here, among other soldiery duties, he was ordered to shoot several running children. He refused and was immediately threatened with the full response of the Army. He shot. The children were unarmed.
Posted by: Jace at March 21, 2003 05:03 PM
Hi,
But the argument that a few civilian deaths will prevent many others is the argument Hamas no doubt (maybe correctly) -Nathan Newmann
Mr. Newman, I have agreed that war is a terrible thing but I have never said anything about my views of the Isreli-Palistinian conflict(yet).
-Respectfully,
Robert S. Morgan
P.S. "Maybe Correctly"- Mr. Newman, with all due respect, this is very disturbing to me.
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 21, 2003 05:54 PM
Why "disturbing" Mr. Morgan? I didn't say I thought they were moral, since I've denounced Hamas many times, but if we are speaking of a cost-benefit analysis without morality, where lives of some can be traded for others, the question of whether Hamas is making the correct analysis that a few Israeli deaths could save many more Palestinian lives has to be evaluated.
I actually think Hamas is counterproductive even on that calculus, but if the US can kill Iraqi civilians to save more lives, why is it disturbing to ask whether Hamas may not be making the same calculation?
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 21, 2003 06:03 PM
In reading the above posts it becomes obvious why waging war never ends war. It only begets more war. And if the U.S wants to become the moral standard for the world, let it act in a moral manner. Bombing cities of people in a country that has not threatened you is immoral.
Posted by: Tin Soldier at March 21, 2003 06:53 PM
Hi,
O.k., I'll give you that; I just wanted to make sure you wern't supporting HAMAS.
To answer your question, Hamas deliberatly targets civilians and will never stop killing innocents untill all of Israel is destroyed. When American bombs accidentally hit residential areas, it is sad and terrible, but its an accident. Hamas deliberatly targets civilians and not military targets. Respectfully,
Robert S. Morgan
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 21, 2003 09:42 PM
Sorry folks, even IF the only targets are military this is still terrorism. There is nothing in the definition limiting the term as "only applicable to civilian targets". This from dictionary.com:
\Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
terrorism
n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Posted by: Anonymous Poster at March 22, 2003 03:58 AM
Hi,
Technically, by that definition, our "cohersion" in liberating Europe from Nazi Germany during WWII would be considered terrorism. Like it or not, war is necessary for the good of America and the others. -Respectfully
Robert S. Morgan
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 23, 2003 06:12 PM
Of course Dresden was terrorism-- that is the whole point of Slaughterhouse Five and all the belated analysis of the bombing of various German cities.
As I repeated, I don't necessarily say that all terrorism is wrong given pragmatic alternatives at times, but we should not engage in the hypocrisy of calling our own terrorism of civilians a different work than what we apply to opponents.
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 23, 2003 06:17 PM
Hi,
Mr. Newman, if you are not against all terrorism, which acts of terrorism do you support?
-Respectfully
Robert S. Morgan
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 23, 2003 06:31 PM
I alluded to Sherman's March as an example of terrorism and it was probably justified to help end the Civil War. I thought the limited use of terror against Belgrade during the Kosovo intervention was justified to break support for Milosevic and end the slaughter of Kosovars.
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 23, 2003 06:37 PM
Hi,
O.k., wait a minute Mr. Newman, if you supported the bringing down of Milosovich to stop the slaughter of Kosovars, why do you not back the end of Saddam's regime, a person who's killed AT LEAST twice as many people as Milosovich?
-Respectfully
Robert S. Morgan
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 23, 2003 09:41 PM
I won't try to play a numbers game since we'll get into relative size of populations debates, but the basic difference is this-- at the time of Kosovo intervention, there were hundreds of thousands of Kosovo refugees spilling into other countries and the imminent threat of mass murder by the Milosevic regime against the Kosovars.
There was no similar imminent threat of mass murder in Iraq that justified interrupting ongoing diplomacy and inspections that were working.
War is justified only to stop imminent death, not hypothetical conjecture as exists in the argument for invading Iraq.
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 23, 2003 09:55 PM
Hi,
How can you honestly believe that the inspections were working when we have already found WMD's in Iraq. Secondly, the reason there have been no floods of refugees to other countries is because Iraq has SEELED Borders! The people of Iraq have no freedom, which is just as bad the mass executions that you seem to ignore.
But anyway, I want to make sure of this...do you or do you not care about the THOUSANDS of Kurds and Shi'a's who were brutally murdered and torured by Saddams regime immiedietly after the Gulf War in 91'? -Respectfully
Robert S. Morgan
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 23, 2003 10:59 PM
Robert- you demonstrate how allegations become fact become justification for war-- all without a detour through proof. Note that the Pentagon is already saying that there is no proof yet of chemical weapons.
As for the uprising of the Kurds and Shias, I thought the US should have supported them, instead of selling them out. I've blogged extensively criticizing the sellout of the Kurds by Daddy Bush back in 1991. I've never opposed greater support for Kurd and Shia forces to oppose Saddam -- but our goal is not giving them democratic control of Iraq but giving that control to Haliburton and the US military.
Posted by: Nathan Newman at March 23, 2003 11:19 PM
i hate usa
Posted by: annas axnin at March 29, 2003 12:49 PM
Hi,
Thats great for you, Mr. Axnin. Untill you give me a good reason why you hate the U.S., I hate you too. -Respectfully
-Robert S. Morgan
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at March 29, 2003 09:54 PM
Shock & Awe (Bush) / Blitzkrieg (Hitler)
Homeland (Bush) / Fatherland (Hitler)
THE NAZIFICATION OF AMERICA IS ALMOST COMPLETE.
Any deviation from the "party Line" is considered treason.
The only way to achieve world peace is by world domination.
God is always on our side regardless to what we do.
The murder of innocent children is only “ collateral damage ”.
The media have become part of the “ state machine ”.
We support other totalitarian states in repressing their citizens.
The military is under the total control of one man (Bush-Hitler).
A permanent underclass “ second-class citizenship for non-whites ”.
Police brutality, abuse, corruption is the norm.
Only “ Party Members ” have access to the president-furer.
The economy is dependent on the military industrial complex.
Racism is as American as apple pie.
A great tragedy has galvanized support for repressive laws.
Vast number of non-whites are warehoused in jails-camps.
AMERICA IS HEADED FOR ITS TRUE DESTINY..
This nation was founded on the slaughter of millions, and built with the slave labor of millions more…can at last show its true colors
(no more of that democracy lie.
Posted by: c brezzz at April 6, 2003 11:18 AM
I think this whole anti-war stuff is bull. I really don't see anyone taking their peace, love and cookies over there. To me your backing up a non-human monster,how do all of you feel about all those people over there going thru hell, by the way all this sounds you people don't care.and your right america is a free country, but don't forget how we all got to be free to make asses out of ourselves.you can't preach to psycho's about what's right or wrong,or else we could fix america.I feel alot of this protesters is way out of line and should not be considered american,for not standing up for america.like standing in the way of food -n- supplies for the troops in oakland.not all of us feel the way they feel.If the want to do it, do it the right way.
Posted by: casper at April 7, 2003 08:12 PM
Hi,
C brezzz...did you forget to take your medicine this morning? -Robert S. Morgan
P.S. Right on Casper!
Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at April 8, 2003 10:29 PM
