Article

2005-02-09 Home Front: WoT

Perceived US Cowardice Fuels Terrorism, Former CIA Head Declares

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-02-09 10:17:49 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Does al Qaeda still perceive cowardice after Afghanistan, Iraq, and the re-election of George Bush? I don't go for this theory -- Palestinian suicide bombers don't blow themselves up at Israeli bus stops because they believe Israel is cowardly. I think the truth is more along the lines that they attack by cowardly means because conventional attack is utterly impossible.

Posted by Tom 2005-02-09 11:09:37 AM|| 2005-02-09 11:09:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Have to disagree a bit about the Japanese. They attacked us because the OIL and steel embargoes were squeezing them hard and they could see they could never defeat the fleet we started building in the late 30's. So either they moved in '41 or faced a deteriorating correlation of force. That was why they accepted the limited victory Yamamoto could deliver. With it, they hoped to negotiate a victory that ensured them the Greater East Asis Co-Prosperity Sphere they had conquered in Yamomoto's year.

Unfortunately, for them, they did not understand that our default position is pacific. With Pearl Harbor, they flipped the bit to warrior mode. After that it was Unconditional Surrender only.

Likewise our culture and capitalism are a very real threat to the fantasy caliphate of the Islamists. They know if they don't establish the caliphate now, the ummah will turn infidel and it will likely never happen. Because World War II happened so long ago, they too do not recall that pacific is only our default mode, not our only mode.

What I don't understand is why we did not flip the bit after 9/11 and go to warrior mode. I shudder to think what it will take to make this happen. But something will, the bit will flip and then it will be Unconditional Surrender time, if there's any body left to surrender.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-09 11:13:18 AM|| 2005-02-09 11:13:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Iran and Syria are working hard to "flip the bit".

Posted by Tom 2005-02-09 11:18:12 AM|| 2005-02-09 11:18:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 What I don't understand is why we did not flip the bit after 9/11 and go to warrior mode.

Because to some of our countrymen, 3,000 dead isn't enough provocation. No, they'd prefer to see hundreds of thousands more lives extinguished, and yet even then, it would still be "our fault".

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-02-09 11:33:25 AM|| 2005-02-09 11:33:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 The MSM, CAIR, and Liberal Democrats (Kennedy, Kerry, etc...) are trying very, very, hard to mask the interrupt which 'flips the bit' to warrior mode.

Somehow I imagine the american PSW having a 'Warrior Mode' bit just as some computers have a 'supervisor mode' bit..... Nice one Mrs Davis.

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-02-09 11:39:03 AM|| 2005-02-09 11:39:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 MD: Unfortunately, for them, they did not understand that our default position is pacific. With Pearl Harbor, they flipped the bit to warrior mode. After that it was Unconditional Surrender only.

Actually, the Japanese had a strong basis for their beliefs. Most non-colonial American wars to that point had not been fought to the point of unconditional surrender. WWI, in particular, was fought to an armistice, after the deaths of 100,000 men. And it was a deeply unpopular war.

Holding out for unconditional surrender is relatively rare in American wars - the Korean War was fought to a ceasefire and if we had won in Vietnam, that, too would have been fought to a ceasefire. Roosevelt's insistence on unconditional surrender, over Churchill's objections, probably resulted in hundreds of thousands of additional American combat deaths. (It may also have strained the resources of the British empire to the point that it fell apart after the war). Note also that we haven't insisted on the unconditional surrender of the regimes that had any part in the 9/11 bombings.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 11:48:54 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 11:48:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 The Japanese ignored the advice that Yamamoto gave them, that hitting America in this way was waking a sleeping giant (he had trained here after all) and he could only guarantee six months of victory.

Some of the thought in Japan had to be that we would cave if they hurt us badly enough in the opening of the war.

ZF- I think that we need to take note of UC as a tactic. It worked to demand unconditional surrender, ending that conflict. Germany and Japan are now peaceful nations whom exist with us on a rational and even basis.

Posted by Jame Retief 2005-02-09 12:43:12 PM|| 2005-02-09 12:43:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 ZF, I agree. The only wars we have fought in warrior mode are the Cousins' Wars the Revolution, Civil War and World War II. That is probably why I should not be so surprised that the bit did not flip. Perhaps we're just getting in the mood to do it after China takes out a CBG in order to invade Taiwan.

80 years is a life time. Look at the dates. 1780, 1860, 1940. Somebody is cruising for a bruising and will misunderestimate our mode shortly.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-09 12:53:25 PM|| 2005-02-09 12:53:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I found Walter Russel Mead's thesis convincing. What we are talking about is what he calls the "Jacksonian" wing of our foreign policy. It's the one least understood by foreigners. It tends to follow the "mind your business" philosophy (the lack of support for intervention in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, ...).

But, when we are attacked, that's a whole different matter. Similar to Mrs. Davis' "warrior bit," Jacksonians view war as an On/Off switch, not a rheostat. Either you fight to win, or you don't waste lives fighting. That's one reason Korea and VietNam were so unpopular.

The Unconditional Surrender follows in that someone who attacks us must understand that he is defeated, beaten, crushed. At that point, we're willing to forgive (and help rebuild). But only after the enemy admits his total defeat. Someone like Saddam in the 90s, saying "Oh, running away, eh? All right. We'll call it a draw." doesn't merit forgiveness.

Finally, there is the matter of honor. In spite of the horrible acts Germany committed on its own people and those of occupied countries, the Wehrmarcht fought a relatively "honorable" war against the Western Allies (with a few exceptions). Japan, on the other hand, attacked without a declaration of war, and grossly mistreated prisoners. That is the ultimate insult, and against "dishonorable" enemies, Jacksonians say that all rules are off. Bulldoze up fortress so the troops die of asphyxiation without a chance of surrender? Fine. Fire-bomb cities? No problem. Torpedo a troop transport, then machine-gun the lifeboats? You get a medal.

And note when an "honorable" enemy does become dishonorable, we reply in kind, except two or three time over. After Malmedy, German troops in black uniforms (primarly the SS, but also the Panzers, unfortunately for them) found it difficult to surrender, and those who did often didn't make it to the POW camp.

The Moslem world is perhaps fortunate in that they attacked on 9/11/2001, rather than 9/11/2000. If the election had been held in the aftermath of the attack, we may very well have had a "Nuke Mecca" person run and win the election.

Posted by jackal 2005-02-09 3:44:25 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-02-09 3:44:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 JR: The Japanese ignored the advice that Yamamoto gave them, that hitting America in this way was waking a sleeping giant (he had trained here after all) and he could only guarantee six months of victory.

That line is actually from the Hollywood movie Tora! Tora! Tora! (Tiger! Tiger! Tiger!). There is no record of Yamamoto ever having said that. He did say the following: Yamamoto warned Premier Konoe Fumimaro not to consider war with the United States: "If I am told to fight... I shall run wild for the first six months... but I have utterly no confidence for the second or third year."

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-02-09 4:05:22 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-02-09 4:05:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 It was actually
Torah! Torah! Torah!
Climb Mt. Hebron!

Then Gawd caller down on me and said:
"Ima say promised Land dammit! Not promised continent"

Posted by Moshe Yamamoto 2005-02-09 6:47:01 PM|| 2005-02-09 6:47:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Mucky drinks too much kosher saki?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-09 7:05:12 PM|| 2005-02-09 7:05:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Didn't Yamamoto say something to the effect that he was educated in the U.S. and has seen the vast industreal might and was afraid that they had awakened a sleeping giant to a terrible resolve?

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-02-09 7:10:52 PM|| 2005-02-09 7:10:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Spot on Mr.Jackal wrt Jacksonian foreign policy. IMHO that is the best way to fight a war.

Posted by Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead 2005-02-09 9:34:30 PM|| 2005-02-09 9:34:30 PM|| Front Page Top

23:48 .com
23:48 Alaska Paul
23:41 Alaska Paul
23:38 OldSpook
23:33 anonymous2u
23:31 OldSpook
23:26 Alaska Paul
23:24 gromgorru
23:23 Alaska Paul
23:12 Atomic Conspiracy
23:10 Atomic Conspiracy
22:58 OldSpook
22:58 Edward Yee
22:48 2b
22:48 CrazyFool
22:46 Rafael
22:43 Edward Yee
22:33 2b
22:24 2b
22:15 Matt
22:15 2b
22:11 2b
22:10 Mark
22:02 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead