Many years ago I read a book about military technology from the crossbow to the H-Bomb. It advanced the position that, other things being equal, the guys with the most effective and lethal weapons prevailed in war. One could start with the club and the throwing stick and sling. Later, crossbows delivered enough velocity to a bolt (arrow) to puncture a knight’s armor; then gunpowder and artillery took down castles and wall and armies had to contend in open battlefields. It is an interesting history, that of technology and warfare, with the single constant that better offensive weapons are often the deciding variable. [1]
Military people know this very well. Why else, for example, would America import as many of the former missile scientists from Nazi Germany—Werner von Braun the most notable—so that we could develop ICBM’s and get to the military advantages of space before the other guys (the Soviets were, of course, up to the same tricks). Why else would the American military give Japanese bio-weapon scientists, who performed heinous and hideous experiments on live prisoners, a free pass after the war in order to obtain the “fruits” of their experiments? [2] If truth is the first casualty of war, morality must be second.
A third axiom is that fair play must be the third casualty of war. Forget about those chivalrous WWI “knights of the air” giving a wave to their enemies whose guns jammed. As von Richtoffen said, you show no mercy because that guy might be back to kill you tomorrow. War is about winning.
But there are conundrums, especially being from a country where fair play (isn’t democracy about fair play, even if it is rarely played fair?) is often touted as one of its qualities. And isn’t another American attribute “pulling for the underdog?” I know this is mostly about myth and stuff for novels and movies—remember, war is about winning—but some of it sticks. I remember as a kid when we played sand lot football there was one guy in the neighborhood, named Parnell, who had a complete set of equipment, from helmet to cleats. The rest of us might have a helmet, or shoulder pads, but no more than that. We hated Parnell (who couldn’t play for crap and, anyway, his father had changed his name from Parnello, a no-no in an Italian neighborhood), so we gang-tackled him and roughed him up at every opportunity. I can’t help but think of that sometimes when I am watching the news and there’s footage of American soldiers outfitted so well they look like those plastic super-hero figures that are like Robo-Cops, and they are fighting guys in flip-flops, gallibiyyas , and carrying rusty AK-47s. No, I am not pulling for these guys, but I wish I didn’t have to see this unnecessary fight that America picked, at all.
So let’s turn to Iran’s pursuit of the bomb. Why try to kid anybody, that’s what they want, everybody wants the bomb. Guns used to be called “equalizers”; now it is nuclear weapons. The new Iranian president is a bellicose, anti-Semitic zealot, and the ayatollahs are a bunch of creeps, too. But I can’t blame Iran for wanting the bomb. After all, we must accept some responsibility in this. We have conquered their Afghan neighbor to one side, their Iraqi neighbor to the other, destabilizing both countries. On their SE border the Pakistanis already have the nuclear missiles and we have given them a pass on the nuclear issue, as we have the Israelis. And, we have, stupidly, got ourselves in a mess in Iraq, and the Iranians (and the North Koreans) know that we can’t fight the whole damn “axis of evil” at the same time. So not only have we created the opportunity (and, I almost forgot, the technology) but we have also created a situation where we chose to act as the overlord of who gets to go nuclear (or “nuk-u-ler”), and who does not. It’s not called “The Nuclear Club ” for nothing.
The irony is that the democracies that the Bush administration wishes to implant in governments in its regime changing policy for Middle Eastern states may be more likely, given the religious composition of the region to create sectarian states that are unstable both to each other, but share a common dislike of America. Nothing will make a state feel impotent and vulnerable than when it is prevented from having the latest military toys that its surrounding states have. Nothing will make them feel like they are among the elite than having nuclear weapons. This is not to make a case for Iran to join the club, but if the other “un-invited members” are instructive, there are not many options in keeping them out other than taking them out. Their president looks like a whack-job and sounds like zealot, but then how about Kim Jong Il? Both are paranoid leaders who now have proof that America will attack a nation on the flimsy and bogus evidence, so why should they not seek weapons that they think may give them a deterrent protection? The US is now in the position that threatening one of these members of the club is likely to be met with the threat that they will attack one of our friends. What a fine mess Mr. Bush has made of things! We have called our “enemies” evil and now risk that they will avenge themselves on our “friends.”
My Right-wing friends will now go ballistic and say “there he goes again, blaming America”. That’s correct, I do, for our share of it, at any rate. But something else bothers me. Even though “all” is supposed to be “fair in love and war,” it bugs me when we are the big guy who challenges the little guy to a duel and when he shows up with a sword we pull out a machine gun.
I think it was the philosopher Martin Buber who said that civilization begins with “taking on the other.” Putting oneself in the other persons place, seeing things from the other guy’s perspective and circumstances. I agree with that. The “golden rule,” the Second Commandment, they are versions of the same notion. People who hold to that notion are people that I would like in my neighborhood, my country, but sadly, they are probably not the kind of people I would like to have in my foxhole. Maybe civilization is the final casualty of war.
___________________________________
©2006, James A. Clapp (UrbisMedia Ltd. Pub. 4.13.2006)
[1] Defensive weapons—and sometimes the distinction is with little difference—have also been proven to be extremely important; radar and sonar, for example.
[2] See,e.g., Hal Gold, Unit 731 Testimony , 1966