[lit-ideas] Re: A Room of War's Own

Re #'s of casualties in wars.
 
Does anyone else find it ironic (at best) that the number of U.S. soldiers  
killed in the war on Iraq now equals the number of lives lost on 9/11?
 
I guess we showed them.
 
Julie Krueger

========Original  Message========     Subj: [lit-ideas] A Room of War's Own  
Date: 11/18/05 9:14:15 AM Central Standard Time  From: _pas@xxxxxxxxx 
(mailto:pas@xxxxxxxx)   To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) 
  Sent on:    

>Andreas Mentioned: By the way, I saw Dr.  Strangelove again a few days ago. 
>I've not seen this since the mid-70s.  It's extremely funny. George C. 
>Scott does some great comical acting in  it.

My favourite line [as Turgidson and Sadesky tussle] Muffley  
says:  "Genltemen, You can't fight in here... this is the war  room."

In my [possibly objectionable] reading, this line by itself [and  the movie 
on the whole] displays the hypocrisy of a 'just war'. People have  been 
crying out about "war crimes" for the past few days.

On  tuesday:

>AA: Neither do I.  But that's not the issue.  Eric  is arguing not so much 
that
>Saddam was a monster but that our soldiers  are inherently good.  By
>comparison yes, absolutely, but just about  anything is better, and only
>because the system demands it.  Even  civilian Americans want secret
>executions.  If Rumsfeld and Cheney  weren't held back, if that inner
>monster weren't suppressed by law, let's  all guess where things would be.

Well, for one thing, the war would  probably be over because they wouldn't 
have to play ther emperor's new  clothes and they could be like Saddam -- 
like they really want to be. I  don't understand why there are such things 
as 'war crimes'. It's a fucking  WAR!!! Every single soldier who ever pulled 
a trigger and shot at someone is  "guilty" of a crime in civilian times. 
But, we forget, this is  war.

In another scene from the same movie:

[Turgidson advocates a  further nuclear attack to prevent a Soviet response 
to Ripper's  attack]
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a  
moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our  
nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now  
to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but  
nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got  
twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and  
fifty million people killed.
President Merkin Muffley: You're talking  about mass murder, General, not war!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President,  I'm not saying we wouldn't get our 
hair mussed. But I do say no more than  ten to twenty million killed, tops. 
Uh, depending on the breaks.

This  ridiculous conversation is NOT too far from the actual conversations 
that  take place in the upper echelons of government. The whole idea that a 
lesser  'mass' is more acceptable is what the debate between Yoist and 
Chaise is  about -- I think.

We use terms like 'holocaust' and 'genocide' and 'mass  murder' but 
sometimes won't admit to differences between the methodical  extermination 
of > 5,000,000 souls and a few thousand people macheted for  the same 
reasons. A guy who kills 13 nurses is a "serial killer". A guy who  
encourages hundreds to drink tainted kool-aid is a leader of  'mass  
suicide'. People talk of 'atrocities' only when it's "really bad". Isn't  
ONE guy being tortured and decapitated "atrocious"? Isn't ONE little girl  
running out of a cloud of napalm on fire "atrocious"? These realities are  
every bit as atrocious as people being systematically kidnapped, shipped,  
starved and gassed. Never mind the fucking reasons. Underneath people can  
be diabolical. The impediment to so-called "civilized" countries from  
prosecuting wars is that they can't be diabolical.

But War is not  only Hell, it's war... and war is a struggle to the death. 
Why do people try  to pretty it up? It just makes it more tolerable. I say 
MAKE people watch 17  year old boys get their arm ripped off and bleed to 
death. Film and  broadcast the general public the atrocities of war and THEN 
see how people  feel about it. Putting carefully edited  'shock and awe' on 
CNN is  doing NOTHING but churning enthusiasm "Look how shocking and awesome 
we  are". People have said that one of the major problems with the Iraq war 
is  that Bush can't 'sell it'. No shit?

We should go into war situations ONLY  after careful deliberation and with a 
clear understanding that we are going  to take weapons and grievously harm, 
maim and kill other humans. Most  people, [politicians included] simply 
DON'T understand this and certainly,  if they do, won't admit it to the 
general public.

That being said,  you can't do it cleanly. Your actual object in a war is to 
pummel the other  side into submission and surrender. You can't be nice at 
the same time. Fuck  the Geneva Convention!!! Gentlemen, you can't fight in 
here. This is a war.  Uh Huh!!! No wonder nothing ever gets finished. I'm 
beginning to think that  Hanson had something.

Did anyone see the piece on 60 Minutes this past  Sunday? It was about 
eco-terrorists. In a startling display of division,  some of them were 
staunchly saying "well, we've never hurt a single  person... 4/5 of what we 
plan does NOT go through as planned because there  was a chance that there 
would have been casualties." Then... other loonies  as much as admit that 
certain people who disagree with their activism need  to be taken out. Well, 
regardless of his 'beliefs' at least he's being  honest. Because in his 
eyes, it's a war.

My point is that you can't  fight a non-diabolical war, so you might as well 
pull out the stops.  Ensuring your own casualties by limiting THEIR 
casualties (in the name of  political fairness) seems like a really stupid 
thing to do. The US has the  might to utterly CRUSH their opponents, but 
they can't because "we're not  like them". That's right, and that's the 
problem. If you're not like them,  then you shouldn't be in the fight -- 
you'll lose in the end. The only  strategy is to wipe out the opposition. 
Any other strategy is assinine. THE  US is hated because it lies and chooses 
its battles.  The 'hated' part  is going to be there regardless of what your 
ostensible motives are. Why not  be truthful and alive -- at least your 
citizens will respect  you.

When Konigsberg says "Hypocrisy lies at the heart of the institution  of 
warfare", I tend to agree with him in that insofar as we prosecute wars,  
yes, it is extremely hypocritical to do it nicely. It's even WORSE to try  
and fool people into thinking you CAN do it  nicely.

p

##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville,  ON, Canada  

------------------------------------------------------------------
To  change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest  on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: