Human Shields and Choice

[--Pete]

Hi,

Wars don't just happen. A situation builds up, discussions are held, negotiations fail, a period of escalation, then the failure of diplomacy and the start of a war.

There are reported cases in history where the breakout of war was avoided by the death of one of the leaders. Where war didn't happen because a plague broke out. Where a war was avoided because a storm destroyed an invading fleet. Even where a war was avoided because the omens where not favorable. All of these are recorded cases of wars that almost but didn't happen. So, apparently, people do write about wars that don't happen.

What I've never seen written about is the war that was prevented because of the actions of pacifists.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

The reserve F-106 Squadrons in Hampton/Virginia Beachused to scramble rather frequently, when I lived down there in the 1980's, when Soviet surveillance planes, and more frequently unknown planes that needed identification, were detected withing the ADIZ: Air Defense Identification Zone. The AIr National Guard units did stuff like that for 40 years. GW Bush was in the Air National Guard, and unlike many in that era who did not, for whatever reason, don a uniform -- you don't have to have served to be a good citizen -- he took the step to come when called. An enormous number of college students and college grads got deferments during Viet Nam for a large number of reasons, or registered as conscientious objectors. Rather than spit at soldiers who went where their country sent them, as some did, GW Bush filled a role, albeit modest.

Again, the Strategic Context was that the Reds Were Coming. That was the reality that we lived with, or the belief that formed our global strategy. The strength of our military in the 1960-s and 1970-s was both active and reserve, and was focused on Europe and NATO. The sick irony about our involvement in Viet Nam was that President Johnson inheireted a war that was not in the least bit part of his big plan. The only reason many can come up with for his continuing our involvement, and the escalation, was to avoid being seen as soft on Communism, a serious issue in American politics in the Cold War, and because he always felt that Ho Chi Minh could be persuaded to cut some kind of a deal. To say the Johnson did not "get" where Ho was coming from is an understatement.

Could GW Bush have volunteered to go to Viet Nam? Sure. So could have millions of others. Calling him a 'Chickenhawk' is a load of rot. The reserves were and are an intergral part of our force structure: some one has to be in it. That is the path he chose. If you have a problem with that, I suggest that you are too young to understand the Cold War, and what it was about. You are also throwing unwarranted disrespect at our National Guard. Having served with quite a number of National Guard members during the fun and games 1995 and beyond over in Yugoslavia, I suggest that you are out of your depth to cast aspersions at those often referred to as 'weekend warriors.'

The slam tossed at Bill Clinton, for example, about being a "draft dodger" was used in the campaign against Bush senior, however, he acted within the laws at the time. You can like or dislike how he approached Viet Nam via his own beliefs, but he did not run off to Canada to dodge the draft. He was not the only young man in America who was in disagreement with the policy at the time.

The bitterness over who was or was not eligible for conscription, and deferrment, reached its logical conclusion in our Congress. We adopted an "all volunteer force" due partly to the belief that conscription as it was implemented in Viet Nam was unfair.

Once again, you need not have walked point in the Mekong Delta to have served. I just tend to buy beers for the guys who did, and not others, in honor of their sacrifice. :)

[Skandranon]

All of these are recorded cases of wars that almost but didn't happen.  So, apparently, people do write about wars that don't happen.

True, but "all of these are recorded cases of wars that almost but didn't happen" is not the same as "these are all the recorded cases of wars that almost but didn't happen". Many times in history, people diplomatically came to an agreement, as rocky as it may have been, and some of the negotiators may have simply been unwilling to accept war - we don't know. When, in that escalation, we have "negotiations succeed, agreement reached" as opposed to "negotiations fail"...we get a terse three-sentence note in the history books.

On the bigger scale, diplomatic agreements look temporary, since the nations involved go to war some time later, whether it be ten or a hundred years. But that's hindsight, and about as useful as saying that every diplomatic agreement is temporary, as in the infinite expanse of time every nation might eventually go to war with any nation next to it (so why not kick off the wars right now and not waste time?). Looking over history, not even war always stops the next war - it's just as temporary a respite as diplomacy can be.

Can war be avoided? I think so, and I think that a group of diplomats committed to finding a peaceful solution is just as effective a method as breaking out the guns.

Returning to the topic, though, I think these human shields are not it. Basically, they're in it because their misguided beliefs tell them that the American forces will aim at civilians, which they won't do anyway. Their presence or absence is not going to change anything, and I suspect, when they die as they inevitably will as a result of collateral damage, the reaction of the world (except for a few raw-throated screaming activists) will be a shrug and a "well, they put themselves there...."

[Occhidiangela]

Can war be avoided? I think so, and I think that a group of diplomats committed to finding a peaceful solution is just as effective a method as breaking out the guns.

1. The diplomats are often effective when they have something to bargain with. The problem with a peaceful solution is that is be a solution acceptable to all parties. In any event, War itself is part of the continuum of human social interaction. It is an option.

2. You are probably right about this bit.

Returning to the topic, though, I think these human shields are not it. Basically, they're in it because their misguided beliefs tell them that the American forces will aim at civilians, which they won't do anyway. Their presence or absence is not going to change anything, and I suspect, when they die as they inevitably will as a result of collateral damage, the reaction of the world (except for a few raw-throated screaming activists) will be a shrug and a "well, they put themselves there...."

I suspect a few of those throat screaming activists will use the "martyr" deaths to spin a different message, and the media will give them a podium to speak from.

[--Pete]

Hi,

As I've said elsewhere, there are often rational solutions besides war. However, if the difference of opinion is enough to potentially cause a war, then it is the possibility of war that makes a compromise possible. If one side knows that other will not act, then that side can stand firm on its demands without any fear. If the difference of opinion is not enough to potentially lead to war, then nobody can take credit for preventing a war that would not have happened anyway. Either way, I can't see where the pacifists help.

As to the human shields, I don't claim to understand their motives, or even if they have any. To me they seem to be acting in an irrational and (as you point out) useless manner. Their effectiveness probably will be minimal, as you say. The result of their actions will depend largely on the news agencies and how they plan to play it. Unfortunately, that has less to do with truth or logic than it has with ratings.

--Pete

[Jester]

There's no reason to stop enforcing laws. Arrests need not be violent, at least more than a bare minimum. I think that even to a pacifist, there's a difference between a small (and minimized) amount of force used in law enforcement and a military action. While I don't support violence at any scale, it becomes a more case-by-case basis as you drop down to individuals. Some people are dangerous wihout their being able to help it. Other people cannot be brought to justice without some small quantity of force, or at least the implication of it.

I can understand why you would think that applies to the larger scales as well, and I don't have arguments that could seriously attack that belief. It certainly is consistent with the historical record.

I diverge from absolute pacifism, you're right. This is not consistent with an absolute ban on all use of force in all situations. My reasoning is that it is much easier to gauge the concequences of one's actions; while a war ripples throughout history in waves that nobody could forsee all the concequences of, small crimes are much more likely to be basically isolated incidents. Basic non-violence is still important. That which can be solved without force should be, and we must make as much of an attempt as possible before resorting to violence.

Of course you don't hear about wars that don't happen. Where would you hear about them? The only example that even appears on the list would be Tibet, and the jury's still out on that one.

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

That which can be solved without force should be, and we must make as much of an attempt as possible before resorting to violence.

That is but a reasonable attitude, neither pacifism nor whatever its opposite might be called. It is not an extremist attitude. It allows for the use of force when necessary and as necessary. The discussion leaves the realm of "war is never justified" which is neither factual nor defensible. It becomes a case by case discussion of whether war is justified in a specific case. What it would take to make the war justified. How much war is justified. And so on.

As I said, there are opinions specific to not going to war with Iraq that I consider reasonable. There are objections that the position of the USA is too precipitous, too hasty. There is some merit in those opinions, although they ignore the reality of fighting a war in Iraq during the summer. It is not so much a case of "a little more time" as a case of at least six months more time. And the question then becomes one of what can be done in six months that has not been done in 12 years.

If one accepts the rational standpoint that wars might be necessary in certain circumstances and at certain times, then the questions become:

"Are the circumstances such as to make a war with Iraq inevitable?" The behavior of Saddam throughout his career, and especially in the past few years tend to make me say "yes". That is a point that could be argued. The indication of the development of WMD and their delivery systems also contribute to my "yes". This point is slightly less debatable, since the indications are irrefutable except as a mass conspiracy. The significance of the development is a little more arguable. However, given the only use for those weapons and the history of Saddam's behavior in war (or even suppressing his "own" people) I think there is little room for doubt.

"Is the time for war now?" If there is to be a war, it will either be now or in six months. The only things delaying it does is give Saddam more reason to believe that it will not be fully prosecuted and give him time to further build up his forces. So, there is little to argue about on this point. If the answer to the first question is that war is inevitable, then it is best if it were done quickly. Delay will not change the final outcome, only the butcher bill.

Of course you don't hear about wars that don't happen.

Only if you don't listen. Do a Google search on the phrase "war was avoided" and you will get many hits telling you of wars that were either avoided or postponed for a time.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

This reminds me of that scene in "Demolition Man"...

Cop at Scene(to Headquarters): Maniac is imminent. Request advice.
Cop at Headquarters: With a firm tone of voice... demand maniac lie down with hands behind back.
Cop at Scene: Simon Phoenix! Lie down with your hands behind your back!
Simon Phoenix: What's this? Six of you. Such nice tidy uniforms.
Simon Phoenix: Oh, l'm so scared.
Cop at Scene looks puzzled.
Simon Phoenix: You don't have sarcasm any more?
Cop at Scene(to Headquarters): Maniac responded scornfully.
Cop at Headquarters: Approach and repeat ultimatum in an even firmer tone of voice. Add the words, "or else".
Cop at Scene: Lie down on the ground... or else!

You know the rest.

Pacifiscm only works when the "maniac" has a conscience. Or more importantly, cares about the lives involved. Where were all these "pacifists" when Saddam was dropping poison gas on the Kurds? I didn't hear about a flood of compassionate pacifists into Northern Iraq. Why is it that these pacifists only want to get in front of US bombs?

[WarBlade]

Pacifiscm only works when the "maniac" has a conscience.  Or more importantly, cares about the lives involved.  Where were all these "pacifists" when Saddam was dropping poison gas on the Kurds?  I didn't hear about a flood of compassionate pacifists into Northern Iraq.  Why is it that these pacifists only want to get in front of US bombs?

Because in their eyes the American war machine appears to operate in a callous and indiscriminatory manner.

Your film analogy implies that you think these protestors are trying to get between America and Saddam Hussein. They're not. They are intending to put themselves in the position of the Iraqi civilians.

[Jester]

Plus, every human rights organization worth a damn complained long and loudly about the slaughter of the kurds. And every other slaughter in the world. And Hussein was repeatedly condemned by both the UN and other organizations.

This whole "he killed the kurds" thing really smacks of hypocrisy. Slaughters entire magnitudes larger go on all the time, and it's not usually the US who complains about them. Sometimes they do, and I'm glad when it happens. But most of the time, it's the human rights organizations, the UN bureaus, the pacifists.

But, of course, nobody actually listens until it happily coincides with the war plans of the powers that be.

Jester

[kandrathe]

This whole "he killed the kurds" thing really smacks of hypocrisy. Slaughters entire magnitudes larger go on all the time, and it's not usually the US who complains about them.

Who built the camps in Turkey, that the Kurdish refugees from northern Iraq stayed in?

Is the US guilty of any of your "slaughters entire magnitudes larger"? So then why stand in front of US bombs? Maybe I have a different definition of hypocrisy. To me, submitting yourself to the authorities in Baghdad to aid Saddam in protecting his "critical infrastructure", whilst not doing anything to protect the millions of Sudanese, or even lifting a finger to aid other war refugee's smacks of hipocrisy. It seems like "fashionable protest" to me. I think the US has made it pretty clear with the types of weapons they deployed in GW1, that they are not trying to kill civilians. I think this side show will end as it did just before GW1. When Saddam has used them for his PR campaign and gets tired of housing the "guests", they will get an escort to the border.

But, of course, nobody actually listens until it happily coincides with the war plans of the powers that be.

And how much of your time and money do you spend helping the needy? It's the same with international aid. It seems to me that in the US at least, there are quite a few "help the needy" government programs around the world. But then, I don't see anyone listening now, just two sides making alot of noise.

[kandrathe]

Because in their eyes the American war machine appears to operate in a callous and indiscriminatory manner. 

But you don't think that the American war machine appears to operate in a callous and indiscriminatory manner? Crafty phrasing. I would ask them then, "What US military actions lead them to have that view?"

Your film analogy implies that you think these protestors are trying to get between America and Saddam Hussein. They're not. They are intending to put themselves in the position of the Iraqi civilians.

The reality is that they are trying to get in the way of the"somewhat disunited nations" ability to present a credible threat of force. With out the credible threat of force, Saddam will not comply with the disunited nations, and so war becomes the ultimate result.

[WarBlade]

But you don't think that the American war machine appears to operate in a callous and indiscriminatory manner?  Crafty phrasing.  I would ask them then, "What US military actions lead them to have that view?"

Well, from what I've seen of the interviews, I'd have to say they have some similar ideas to my own, yes.

As for asking examples of them, I only recall them mentioning the 400 killed in the bomb shelter. My answer OTOH would be "search Google". I did a similar search a couple of months back with terms like "military blunder", "collateral damage" and "civilian casualties". I wasn't surprised to find the usual news items we see on TV, but the accounts from military and ex-military personnel about the shortcomings of their own systems were deeply troubling.

The reality is that they are trying to get in the way of the"somewhat disunited nations" ability to present a credible threat of force.

I'm scratching my head over that one. The Human Shields are trying to impede the UN's attempt to present a case of credible threat of force at Hussein? (Assuming I interpret that right)

That doesn't sound like the situation at all.

With out the credible threat of force, Saddam will not comply with the disunited nations, and so war becomes the ultimate result.

Perhaps.

[kandrathe]

As for asking examples of them, I only recall them mentioning the 400 killed in the bomb shelter. My answer OTOH would be "search Google". I did a similar search a couple of months back with terms like "military blunder", "collateral damage" and "civilian casualties".

Hmmm, that is one of the problems of having ultra precise devastating weapons. Even when you have bad information, you will hit what you aim at. IIRC, more coalition soldiers were killed in GW1 by friendly fire, than from hostile fire. I would not call that "callous and indiscriminatory", but rather a consequence of mistakes in identifying where to drop high explosives.

I would bet that if you compared the ratio to civilian casualties from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and GW1 you would see that GW1 stands out as a war where a military was able to specifically hit almost exclusivly what they wanted. That is of coarse in contrast to Saddam's launching of SCUD's against civilian populations.

[Skandranon]

Hmmm, that is one of the problems of having ultra precise devastating weapons.  Even when you have bad information, you will hit what you aim at.  

Not quite. It's what comes from having powerful weapons, only. While the USA's weapons are the most accurate and precise in history, it doesn't mean you hit what you aim at. IIRC, the success rate of laser-guided and other "smart" munitions in the Gulf War was roughly 40%. Assuming improvement, let's put that at, say, 50-55% now, assuming they worked out the kinks in the JDAM guidance system (which, in its first combat trial, which was attacking Iraqi radar stations, accomplished a stunning 0% hit rate).

Don't get me wrong - 50-55% is phenomenally good. Considering a bomb dropped without guidance has a minutely tiny chance of hitting what you aim at, 50% is very good. But it means that yes, smart bombs do miss, and yes, they miss about half the time. It's better in clear weather, worse in cloudy weather. It works out to half.

Unfortunately, the American military's in a bit of a bind here. They can say, "well, our 'smart' munitions hit an incredible 50% of the time!" To which, the typically uninformed media will say "only 50%?!" when they haven't a clue as to how good 50% is, and then they'll turn it into some big mess which the military is better off without having to handle. Or, they can brag about pinpoint accuracy (which they do) and which certainly makes the bomb manufacturers happy (and, more importantly, doesn't get negative media attention), but then some people call that evidence that the American military really is aiming at citizens, or whatever it happens to hit. So they're faced with a choice of setting off the media (something to avoid, even if it is only because of their ignorance) or angering activists by appearing callous, and they chose activists.

[--Pete]

Hi,

but then some people call that evidence that the American military really is aiming at citizens, or whatever it happens to hit.

Fine. The media is ignorant, we all know that. That's largely because it matters more that they get large numbers of viewers than that they actually *inform the viewers of anything. And the general population is both ignorant (after all, they've no place to get accurate information from) and apathetic (which is why the media can be ignorant and get away with it).

But where does that leave the activists? After all, the truth *is* out there (sorry, couldn't resist ;) ) Clearly they care enough to act, that being the definition of the activists. So, either they are too stupid to track down the truth or so naive as to blindly believe the media. Neither speaks too highly of their mental abilities. Must be why the media loves them so, they're close kin. ;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hmmm, in terms of bomb damage assessment you may be correct. 50% sounds reasonable. But, it is not like they were aiming for a airport hanger and they hit a nursing home. It just means that they did not achieve their mission objective, and need to send another plane.

And, what do you mean by appearing callous? I'm still not buying the argument that the US military appears callous. In comparison to Mother Teresa most of us appear callous, but in comparison to other militaries in the world, or in history, I think we look pretty compassionate. Ya, know we kind of helped out in the Balkans. And, we went to Somalia to try to help get food to starving people, only to have our downed dead pilots dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

[Occhidiangela]

Precision weapons is a nice concept, however, less than half of the ordnance let loose in Gulf War II (gulf War I was Iran Iraq IMO) were in that class.

The USAF and DOD did a great job of selling the silver bullet story in 1991. Now, they have to live up to their press clippings. As anyone who has been invloved in acquisition knows, to field a system your Pk or Prob hit need only be XX percent: be it 80 92 or 70, depends on the spec and how much money per unit is acceptable. So, no spec is written as "100%" prob of hit, as no one has enough money to buy a weapon built to that spec, even if it were possible to make one.

The US Callous? Of course that is hyperbole. The number of NEO's we have done since Mayaguez, and the number of humanitarian missions we have conducted far exceed the amount of combat missions undertaken. But of course, the spin meisters in the media choose not to report on that little summary.

[kandrathe]

Yes, I agree. I would guess that for the most part if you have the military target with no immediate risks to non-combatants, you would choose the cheaper weapon. If your BDA indicated a miss, you would re-schedule that target. But, if the mission calls for the placement of a weapon into an airshaft, or the target is in the vicinity of a large non-combatant population, then the "uncallous" would choose the more precise weapon. I seem to remember almost continuous B52 bombardment of the Republican Guards in the vicinity of Al Basrah.

But of course, the spin meisters in the media choose not to report on that little summary.

Yes. I guess it is as in other parts of life, you only remember the extreme, not the normal daily grind. :)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Considering the number of engineers that I met while working on weapons design that were ignorant of CEP, is it any wonder that the population at large and, especially, the media does not understand the concept? When the vast majority of the practitioners of in a field only "understand" a concept on the basis of some published tables and some standard tests ("test" is engineerese for "experiment", as in "flight test"), how can they explain the concepts to people who've had even less math than they?

And therein lies a major problem. In the USA the population at large through their duly elected representatives decides their destiny. As Jefferson was found of pointing out, the basis for representative democracy is education. However in his day a single individual could compass all that was known. The situation has changed a bit in that even a "specialist" in a field seldom knows, or even can know, more than one or two sub-fields in any detail. In the rest of his field he is little more knowledgeable than the informed layman. The "Renaissance Man" died with the Renaissance, a victim of his successor's ability to acquire new knowledge.

Many of the decisions made by politicians, based on the combined ignorance (of other fields) and prejudice (within their field) of their advisers, have been wrong. These decisions have effected both the life we live and the life we will live. The fields effected are no longer just the technical fields. Agricultural policy, foreign policy, economics, even education and transportation have all been effected by decisions made in ignorance. And, yet to a large degree that ignorance is incurable and inescapable. It is the a simple consequence of the vastness of the total knowledge compiled to date by humanity and the limits of how much any one individual can learn.

So, what is the solution? An end to representative government where we turn the decision making more and more to the "experts"? This is becoming more and more the actual case. Aside from the fact that few experts have no agenda, there is the question of how to determine a true expert in the first place. Many of the events, at least in science, of the past few decades indicate that many "experts" are but plausible frauds. The true experts are too absorbed in their field to take time to educate or advise. It is easy to fault them for this, overlooking the fact that it is exactly their single minded devotion to their field that makes them experts. No, government by "experts" is not a pleasant prospect.

Frankly, I am at a loss for a solution of this problem. None of the proposals which I've seen seem to both be likely to work and still maintain a representative democracy. While the concept of more and better education is valid and valuable in itself, the amount needed to be mastered for a true understanding of a complex and technological world is too great to expect many, if any, to achieve. The application of the staff principle to a civilian government appears attractive, but can rapidly degenerate into bureaucracy (which we are already seeing) and nepotism. Other, more radical solutions, appear even worse.

So, what does all this have to do with the "hostages" and the situation in Iraq? I suspect that the situation itself has grown to the proportions it has because of ignorance: the willful ignorance of the world at large of the behavior of Saddam and Iraq over the twelve years since the end of the Gulf War of '91 (I don't buy your numbering, Occhi, in that that region has had wars since before recorded history. If were to keep track of all of them, then we'd be into six digit numbers). The ignorance of the American administration, both in trying the transparent terrorism bluff and in failing to prepare the world through diplomacy (read "propaganda") prior to going this route. The ignorance of the media on both sides, neither of which has given a balanced overview of the situation. The ignorance of many in the world of both the intentions and the capabilities of the military forces of the United States. And, finally, the ignorance of the self styled hostages both as to their importance and to their ability to effect the course of events.

The Ugly American by Burd!ck and Lederer has been in print over forty years. The incompetence of American foreign policy described in this book are still alive and well. I sometimes suspect that those in the government think this is a textbook on how to run a foreign policy rather than a cautionary tale on what to avoid. Again, just plain old fashioned ignorance.

--Pete

PS EDIT To the list of ignorance, let me add the ignorance of self styled censors that force me to employ a "!" in the name of an author to avoid a word that is, amongst other things, the common nickname of many men called "Richard". Simple tests are made up by simple people.