Quote of the day - civilian control out of control

"[T]he notion of civilian control of the military became meaningless, since civilians were the leading militarists."
- Michael Mann, "Incoherent Empire", quoted by Andrew J. Bacevich in "The New American Militarism".

This was in reference to the reaction to 9/11.  Same section states that military felt it failed to protect country against attack, but is it the military's job to stop criminals?

What 9/11 should have taught ALL of us

First, before the über patriots criticize me, let me question Al Qaeda.

What do you hope to gain?  You are like flies or mosquitos in a house.  You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful.  Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business.  You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.

If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")?  If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place?  And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?

If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries?  You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?

Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly.  These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it.  Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.

In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history.  They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture.  Have they forgotten their own history?  Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture.  Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language.  Have they forgotten the French Resistance?  At least many of the Germans spoke French.  But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.

The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands.  By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers.  Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.

Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda.  What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation?  Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?

Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.

Al Qaeda and Slaughterhouse Five

I have long had Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five" on my reading list. I borrowed it from the library recently and finished it yesterday afternoon.

I did know that Vonnegut was a survivor of the Dresden fire bombing. I had thought that Slaughterhouse Five was about five survivors who were in a meat locker. Actually it was the address of where they were bunked as prisoners of war assigned to work in Dresden: Schlacthof fünf. There were about 100 prisoners guarded by four old or teen-age German conscripts.

They were about the only survivors of the firebombing. When they emerged from their shelter, they saw no standing buildings. Even then, they were strafed by planes attacking anything moving.

One character, a retired Air Force officer justifies the bombing because of what "the Germans" did. He also states that more people died in Dresden than in either the firebombing of Tokyo or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. He also justifies the latter two because of all the things "the Japanese" did to other people.

Amazing the different attitudes of people in the air or far away and of the people actually on the ground.

The imposition of collective guilt is always wrong. Jewish children of the twentieth century had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. German children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the Holocaust or the bombing of England. Japanese children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor or the Rape of Nanking. Yet all these children are worth killing because of the actions of some of their elders. The god Maloch still lives and we still sacrifice children to his fires.

Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda thinks it appropriate to kill Americans anywhere anytime because they don't like the actions of a few Americans?

Obama's reaching out to people around the world is not going to quench the fires of Maloch soon, but let's hope it is a start.