Kevin Drum reports an exchange he had with Michael Totten. In a TechCentralStation column Michael says “The Palestinian Authority should be given one last chance to eliminate terror.” If they “fail,” the U.S. must classify the PA as a terrorist organization, “Declare ‘regime change’ in the West Bank and Gaza the official United States policy” and basically get rid of everybody:
The first phase would not be complete until the enemies of peace are defeated, deported, imprisoned, or killed. These include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah, the Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. It may also include the Palestinian Authority.
Kevin complains that, despite paying lipservice to the complexity of the problems, hawks often backslide into these kinds of kill-em-all policy proposals. Having grown up in Ireland, I can sympathise with the “Scorch the Earth and Salt the Fields” reaction. It’s a natural expression of justifiable anger and frustration. But the hawks never seem to pause to think how they might react if they and their kin were the targets of the kind of policy Totten advocates.
It is possible to destroy an entire terrorist organization, if it’s of the right sort. You can exterminate freefloating gangs like Bader-Meinhof, say. But outfits like the IRA and Hamas bear an entirely different relation to the society they inhabit. The the idea that you can just “defeat, deport, imprison or kill” everyone in these organizations is a Boys’ Weekly fantasy. It assumes the number of people you need to kill is fixed. Irish history is stuffed with examples of British administrators or soldiers who thought they could just get rid of “the rebel element” one way or another. Usually their policies had precisely the opposite effect. Lieutenant General Sir John Maxwell was the military commander who made sure the leaders of the 1916 Rising were executed one by one. I believe he said at the time that he intended his actions to ensure that “no whisper of rebellion would be heard in this country for a hundred years.” John Dillon, a politician who’d worked his whole life for a political solution to Irish self-determination, saw things more clearly:
You are letting loose a river of blood … What is happening is that thousands of people in Dublin, who ten days ago were bitterly opposed to the whole of the Sinn Fein movement and to the rebellion, are now becoming infuriated against the Government on account of these executions …
This sort of approach often has the side-effect of making agents of a supposedly legitimate democratic state do some of the same sort of things as the terrorists they are supposed to be supressing. The news that the U.S. Army has has been kidnapping the wives and children of Iraqi army officers (and even leaving ransom notes: “If you want your family released, turn yourself in”) fits with this pattern.
It ought to go without saying that the Middle East of 2003 and Ireland in 1916 are different in all sorts of ways, but to fend off any “moral equivalence” jack-in-the-box I suppose it needs mentioning. In a way the differences are precisely the point. You can’t treat these kinds of problems as if they can all be solved simply by pulling up the same weed. You have to make peace with your enemies, not your friends. That’s why it’s hard.
I agree very much with your comments, but I think that the psychosexual basis for advocating acts of large-scale destruction against those deemed the enemy is also important to note.
I recently read Den Beste’s (infamous?) piece about his feelings of wanting to kill all the Palestinians. He recognized that this was wrong, certainly, but I think the unacknowledged factor is that he (and Tom Clancy, etc.) has libidnal investment in acts of massive carnage. Its sexiness is related to magical thinking: I recognize rationally that this is a complex problem which my own government (for which I bear responsibility) has certainly worsened, but everything would conform to how I think the world should be if they all died.
There’s a passage in one Clancy novel in which a German prison guard (or detective) shows a Baader-Meinhof prisoner a tape of her children with their adopted parents (bourgeois policeman and wife). She kills herself as a result, apparently, having in this narrative logic recognized the extinction of her struggle; and the joy Clancy invests in this passage is both a microcosmic illustration of the principle (revolution wilts before eternal values) and one of the most sickening things I’ve ever read.
The Turner Diaries, Footfall, Atlas Shrugged, and other rightist apocalypses show the inverse of this scenario.
I understood Totten to be arguing for dismantling terrorist organizations, not for genocide. Romantic identification with the “palestinians” seems to be yet another Irish disease, and unlike drink it has no upside.
“I understood Totten to be arguing for dismantling terrorist organizations, not for genocide.”
Kieran understood it the same way. He’s just pointing out how “dismantling terrorist organizations” like the IRA and Hamas is a lot harder than Totten makes it out to be.
“Romantic identification with the “palestinians” seems to be yet another Irish disease, and unlike drink it has no upside.”
This doesn’t even deserve a response, but you might consider whether it provides better evidence of your biases than any Kieran might or might not harbor.
Robert: Are you referring to Kieran’s post, or Chun’s reply? It’s Chun who brings up the genocide comparison, not Kieran. (Or do you know that Chun is Irish? I thought he was from far in the future.)
I think Kieran’s comparison to the Easter Rebellion is possibly apropos. Before the Easter Rebellion, the majority of Irish would have been satisfied with “home rule”; afterwards, nothing but full independence would satisfy them. Why is suggesting that an Israeli crackdown will radicalize the demands of ordinary Palestinians inappropriate?
“…hawks often backslide into these kinds of kill-em-all policy proposals.”
I think this is why war critics are so often dismissed as irrational. Totten’s proposal was to defeat, deport, imprison or kill terrorists. Kill was last on Totten’s list but you exaggerated it to be the only entry. This may seem to be just good clean phun, a little sneering to add some bottom to the whine, but that’s not how it is seen by any but the choir.
What Totten proposes is not just angry revenge, it’s a much colder thing. Failure to understand this, and failure to criticize what Totten actually said, suggests that there are no valid criticisms and that critics must resort to emotional display. This weakness of response, and apparent lack of reading and thinking skills, diminishes not only the critic who makes the blunder but also other critics seen to be aligned.
“But the hawks never seem to pause to think how they might react if they and their kin were the targets of the kind of policy Totten advocates.”
Yes, they do, that’s where they get some ideas and why they think they can work. They may be wrong, it doesn’t always work, but sometimes it does and they have examples to back their claims.
It may be that this inability to understand hawks is the glaring blind spot that accounts for the weakness of opposition to them. Here’s a clue: they are people, often bright people, who love their children, feel pain and have the courage (or something else) to imagine themselves in the shoes of their opponents. They study war and have sayings that help them be good at it. “Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer”. They are effective precisely because they dare to imagine themselves and their kin as targets.
“It assumes the number of people you need to kill is fixed.”
No, it doesn’t. It assumes that there is a tipping point where terrorism will be abandoned and folks will drop their guns and go home. This is the first objective of the plan, to defeat, it comes before deport, imprison and kill. It is followed by a program to change the conditions which breed future terrorists.
The failed efforts of the past that you cite were completely different. They sought to use terror to eliminate rebellion and had no second phase of cultural change.
“You can’t treat these kinds of problems as if they can all be solved simply by pulling up the same weed.”
To a great extent you can but the important issue is how you do the pulling and what you do to change the environment. You fail to understand current proposals and simply assume that no one has learned anything, as you have not learned anything.
A more useful criticism is one that reasons in good faith about current proposals such as those of Totten and finds their weaknesses.
One fault is that like insects and weeds terrorists become resistant to “pesticide”. If the effort is not quick and complete then those that remain will have been selected for resistance and their weans will be resistant too. A suite of methods that can be used in rotation are usually required. This is difficult and expensive. It’s not impossible, just less probable.
Another fault is that changing the breeding conditions is a difficult long term activity that crucially depends on the support of external entities. At present other Arab nations and much of Europe assist and support terrorists and do not want peace. They supply money, training and shelter to nurture terrorism. The first requirement of a realistic proposal to alter the situation in the middle east is to alter the situation in Europe. This will not happen, ever.
However sensible and realistic Totten’s proposals may be for dealing with the Palestinian problem as a discreet activity it will surely fail because of lack of international support. The Palestinian problem is unbounded, like the Jewish problem.
I imagine that Kieran’s example was chosen precisely to illustrate the point that, in fact, there usually isn’t a tipping point. Even massive retaliation doesn’t provoke a tipping, it just makes your enemies madder. There are innumerable examples of this throughout history.
Now, you can defeat such an enemy and — maybe — provide the basis for a long term program of cultural change if you are willing to wage an all-out war. Japan after World War II might be considered an example. But I doubt anyone is willing to do this, and in any case this war would have to be with the entire Arab world, not just the Palestinians.
Despite Michael’s protestations, his solution is entirely military in its first phase, and such a solution is doomed to failure unless it really is a kill-em-all strategy. I can only assume that Michael knows this, so characterizing it this way isn’t really the stretch you make it out to be.
Back40,
Did you write that “hawks” were “good at war?” Does it take a lot of courage to imagine yourself as a victim?
Totten’s views are difficult for me to understand because he does not accept the definition of terrorism as “politically motivated violence carried out against non-combatants.” Totten’s proposal, not very different from current U.S. policy, would ensure generations of unremitting gore; but the reassuring power of the boot-in-the-face fantasy occludes reason.
The classical approach to this kind of problem was to kill all the men and enslave all the women and children. “They made a desert and called it peace”. I do not regret the fact that contemporary political correctness forbids this method. If the British could have killed ALL the Irish their method would have worked. Perhaps that’s what Kieran is touchy about.
chun and Kieran are absolutely right. Short of genocide or near genocide, you can’t defeat a terrorist movement which has the support of a whole population by military means alone - trying to do so strengthens, not weakens, the terrorists.
Let’s not forget that since the beginning of the second intifada the ‘carefully targeted precision strikes’ of the IDF have killed three times the number of civilians that the ‘terrorists’ have. But of course they’re only Arabs.
Of course there’s a tipping point. The question is: is the tipping point beyond what is morally acceptable, or for that matter, what the Israelis would be willing to do. It’s quite possible that it is.
Healy’s argument amounts to a kind of pacifism. I elaborate here.
Speaking of tipping points. Surely the execution of the 1916 leaders was a tipping point … in the other direction. It turned what was by then (after several centuries of repression of varoius sorts) a relatively acquiescent population into one willing to support rebellion.
Tangentially, as far as clear differences between Ireland and Palestine, look at a map of the proposed two state solution, and notice how clear the geographical separation is compared to Ireland and England.
The problem with many of the comments here is the underlying assumption that there is nothing the PA could do if they really wanted to end or minimize attacks on Israelis.
Of course there can be no government that can COMPLETELY eliminate the attacks, but it is reasonable to assume that a government dedicated to a peaceful solution could seriously reduce the number of attempted attacks.
Syria has, in fact, determined that it is in its best interest to do just that, and as a result we hear very little these days of attacks from Lebanon in the North.
Are the PA the Israelis’ “partners in peace”? There is simply no reason to think so — not because they haven’t eliminated the attacks, but because they have made no substantial moves in that direction other than empty promises.
If the answer is, “No, the PA is not committed to peace in any meaningful way,” then I don’t see how continued negotiations with them can be successful.
Departing from the serious tenor of the previous comments, I’ll make a vacuous pop culture reference. Recently, I watched the “otherwise-not-so-great” film, Hulk, and couldn’t help but think about the relationship between U.S. terrorism policy and terrorist networks as I watched the Hulk rampage across the screen.
In the movie, the military tries to contain the Hulk by locking him down and incapacitating him. This only makes him more angry, which then drives whatever it is inside of him that makes him get bigger and more powerful. The more the military tries to stop the Hulk, the more angry and menacing he becomes and the less sucessful they are at stopping him.
Okay, so maybe I’m just trying to justify my use of time in watching a summer blockbuster, or maybe this really is a useful analogy of the current situation of U.S. policy and terrorist containment.
Pathos, how many attacks have there been BY HAMAS since the cease fire agreement that Abbas negotiated with Hamas?
Markus,
The “cease-fire” as you call it, was in fact a temporary suspension (for a limited term of three months) conditioned upon the release of all Palestinian prisoners (which Israel, of course, will not do, and which was not a term in the roadmap).
I have linked to the text of the “cease-fire”, or Hudna, as it is called. The term that is not intended to be implemented is standard in the Hudna, so as to permit the opportunity to break it as soon as is feasible.
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp
“As for Hamas, they have proven time and again their commitment to a tactical hudna — replenishing their strength during the quiet periods, then returning with increased deadliness. As recently documented by The Washington Institute, Hamas agreed to no less than ten ceasefires in the past ten years, and after every single one returned freshly armed for terror. Hundreds of Israeli citizens have paid for these hudnas with their lives.”
Assumedly, Hamas made a tactical decision that it was worthwhile for both sides to cease hostilities while they re-armed and rounded up a new set of suicide bombers.
One month of peace from Hamas — while attacks continue from other groups — hardly settles my concern that the PA is not honestly pursuing peace.
Hasn’t Israel already attempted phase one?
“The first phase would not be complete until the enemies of peace are defeated, deported, imprisoned, or killed. These include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah, the Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.”
Other than Fatah, which of these groups has Israel not targeted?
I wonder, if the cease fire and roadmap don’t work, and arresting/defeating/eliminating the terrorists isn’t an option, what to do then?
Frank,
Have you been paying attention for the past 1,000 years? Muddle is the name of the game. In long-lasting fights of attrition those with the least the lose have the biggest advantage.
Following up on Healy’s remark:
But outfits like the IRA and Hamas bear an entirely different relation to the society they inhabit.
I am not so familiar with the IRA, but anti-Israel terrorist groups unfortunately are embedded within Palestinian society. In some respects, they are the closest the Palestinians come to government agencies.
It’s not Israelis who find housing for widows; it’s people linked to anti-Israel terror. As long as Palestinians
I have to give grudging support to DeLay’s idea of a Marshall Plan for the Palestinian territories. Frankly, the Palestinian leadership has such a bad record with money, none should be given to them directly. We’d be better off giving directly to individuals, and possibly giving goods rather than money (building materials, schoolbooks, medical equipment).
Funding infrastructure and giving start-up money for Palestinian businesses, in order to restore the economy, as well as providing a safe route to funnel Palestinian goods (because Israel’s security policies have pretty much choked off exports) would be an enormous service to the peace process.
Not only would it be a direct help to Palestinians, but it would diminish support for terror organizations; many of the groups involved in terrorism also serve the community through schools, hospitals, charity, etc.
In order to de-legitimize those groups, we have to take their place in providing necessary civil aid.
Frank,
Have you been paying attention for the past 1,000 years? Muddle is the name of the game. In long-lasting fights of attrition those with the least the lose have the biggest advantage.
I haven’t been around for that long. But actually I was - because I am not looking forward to the consequences of the ‘defeat-em-all’ strategy - just wondering if opponents of that strategy had an alternative strategy to offer, besides doing nothing. Like I said, what to do then?. Doing something implies activity. Leaving it as it is could be a very bad thing, I think. I take both sides would radicalize only more. Possibly the conflict could resolve itself when democracy starts to get more traction in the Middle East (because of Iraq for example), which may also freeze the funds flowing towards the terror groups, but if that doesn’t happen the area’s going to not be a very fun place to be.
Coming late to the party, I know, but I don’t think anyone has picked up the guantlet layed down by back40. Kieren Healy suggests that Totten and other hawks are engaging in a “Boy’s Weekly” fantasy. Instead of fighting Palestinian terror elements, Israel needs to make peace with her enemies. But what supports this?
As far as I can gather, Healy makes the historical argument that a terrorist group with substantial popular support cannot be adequately contained only by acceding to its demands or commiting moral atrocities. I am no historian, but I imagine counter-examples can be found. To be sure, vigorous action against a popular terrorist group can increase the support it enjoys, and hence its strength. But it’s not like this is an iron-clad law of history. Similarly, making concessions to a terrorist group can increase its popularity and strength. It’s case by case, neither view is absurd, and anyone who says the other side just doesn’t get it is talking through their hat.
I am still happy with my first comment.
I further point out that Ireland was “neutral” in WWII.
Chun is not Irish, he is a space alien.
The other romanticism going around is 1968 vintage little red book romanticism. The guerilla is a fish who lives in the sea of the people. blah, blah, blah.
And the implication of Ireland’s neutrality being?
Sympathy for the Devil
As the song says:
They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there
You’ll either be a union man
Or a thug for J.H. Blair
Which side are you on?, boys
Which side are you on?
Mein Hobby ist es Gästebücher zu besuchen. Das ist immer ganz interessant und widerspiegelt so, was die Leute im Internet wirklich denken. War auch interessant bei Dir ! Bis zum nächsten Mal. All The Best OfNew Year. Sorry for my english i’am from Germany.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review