A former US defence adviser called Edward Luttwak will speak in Melbourne in September about the conduct of the war in Afghanistan.
I have actually read a well-known book by this guy called The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. I have a taste for history and it presented a controversial theory about how the Romans solidified their borders which I found interesting but faulty.
Can't say I agree with what he has to say about the conflicts of our times either...
He said building schools and other civilian infrastructure in Afghanistan was "infinitely more outrageous than bombing".
...uh.. yeah, you read that right....
"It is not intervening in the country to knock off the enemy and go home... this taking over Afghanistan, wanting to determine the history of Afghanistan and have it evolve the way you want it."
Yes Dr Luttwak... I would like Afghanistan's history to evolve in a way that makes it a tad less fertile for terrorist safe havens. Pure military force is failing to achieve this. Clearly he doesn't give a shit about civilians either....
Luttwak bases this view on the idea of "frozen" conflicts that never end.
He calls the creation of the UN a "colossal mistake", noting "The Israelis eventually fought hard wars with the Egyptians and they fought enough to reach a peace. They fought with the Jordanians, they reached a peace. But with the Palestinians, the rules are United Nations cease-fires - there is fighting, people are horrified … so you impose a cease-fire and the war doesn't end."
I've heard this before... mostly on the Right wing but occasionally on the Left too: The notion that all would be okay if Israel simply wipes the Palestinians out, ironically as these same jerks go on to dismiss any photo of a dead Palestinian child or other non-combatant as "fake"...
I enjoyed Luttwak's book about Roman strategy and keep it on my shelf, but anyone who sees unlimited war as the way to peace needs his head examined. The UN was created because people didn't want another conflict like WW2, and had there been no UN, there may have been none of the slight relief the world has had from famine, disease, cultural destruction, environmental destruction, child slavery and just about every other evil you care to name.
A world without the UN...? Seriously?
By the way... Luttwak stated in print of Obama prior to the election that he was "born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood".
Hmm..... very few understandings are indeed "universal", Dr Luttwak... that's why we have wars in the first place.
I have heard this UN abolishing from the rightwingers too. I guess they want to take us back to biblical times and wars with whomever they want, whenever they want, for no good reason at all! Rightwingers love war and hate authority by anyone other then their God.
ReplyDeleteI just read your reply to me a few posts back, you're having your winter! We are 100 degrees and humid and it is unbearable, Wish I was there!
ReplyDeleteWanting to get rid of the UN has been the mission of several groups - mainly on the right - since it was founded. But you're correct about what life would have been like for millions of people had it not been for the UN.
ReplyDeleteThe other points I would make...
ReplyDeleteLuttwacko blithely assumes his preferred outcomes will be the results of wars without restraint.... Heck... what if the war spread and Israel lost? Then what the hell do we do?
Further the reason for all these limited wars since 1945 is partly because they were de facto skirmishes between Cold War adversaries. Unlimited war there would have meant nuclear war and no-one wins one of those, except maybe the cockroaches.
And even if it didn't come to that, a UN cease-fire didn't cause the fall of Saigon. The Vietnam war was unwinnable in conventional terms, as perhaps the war in Afghanistan is - and certainly was for the Soviets.
I'm a warm-weather creature, Sue. I hate the cold.
Thanks for coming by.