![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zeugma on June 12, 2006, at 18:50:50
The notion of 'asymmetrical warfare,' popular in Pentagon circles (apologies for the oxymoron) as an explanation for failures in Vietnam and Iraq to wipe out insurgents that are on paper grossly inferior to U.S. troops, has always struck me as a poor one. Isn't war meant to be 'asymmetrical'? (Perfectly symmetrical warfare- perhaps WWI trench stalemates that wiped out a generation of the best of Europe, and led directly to such 'asymmetrical' innovations as the German blitzkrieg and the American A-bomb? In any case I feel military minds explain their failures of creativity by appealing to 'asymmetry.' Or perhaps, they are engaged in warfare-as in Vietnam- for a set of reasons, none good enough for the American public to accept 'asymmetrical' innovations such as the nuclear bombing of Cambodia, which in 1969 President Nixon briefly contemplated, recently declassified papers show. So we got a 'symmetrical' war, in other words stalemate- Saigon would never have fallen if the U.S. had been willing to prop it up forever. Of course the political conditions at the time were not right for such resolve.)
It is interesting to see the latest application of 'asymmetry' by a military professional. The camp commander of Guantanomo bay, Rear Adm. Harry Harris, is on record as saying, of three detainees' recent suicides there:
<<
"I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us," Harris said.>>
Is an American commander not safe, not even in the super-secret precincts of Gunatanomo (not even the Red Cross are allowed there, we know what inflammatory and indeed 'asymmetrical' types Red Cross people can be, they are asymmetrical to the core, they even bend their shape to the Red Crescent in Muslim lands)from such acts of asymmetry?
The U.S. Naval Academy ought to start teaching Riemannian geometry in addition to the usual tactics. It is clear that in the face of so much asymmetry, non-Euclidean geometries are the only recourse. Or, perhaps we had better have wars in which the U.S. public is more well disposed to our own asymmetrical innovations. Necessary wars, not wars of choice.
-z
Posted by Jost on June 12, 2006, at 22:14:59
In reply to fearful asymmetry, posted by zeugma on June 12, 2006, at 18:50:50
As you read the stories about these latest events on Gitmo, it is amazing the lengths to which these annoying prisoners will go to make the US look bad.
. Have they no consideration?
Jost
Posted by llrrrpp on June 13, 2006, at 3:48:03
In reply to fearful asymmetry, posted by zeugma on June 12, 2006, at 18:50:50
And how about the original assymetry: the American Revolution. Didn't we invent the concept of modern guerrilla warfare, attacking columns of British and Hessian troops as they marched through our woods? Determination and will, and the feeling of nothing to lose will often trump military powers with vastly superior technology and formal training.
DAR,
-ll
Posted by Declan on June 13, 2006, at 17:36:56
In reply to Re: fearful asymmetry, posted by Jost on June 12, 2006, at 22:14:59
Unneccessary ones. Tragic ones. Ones that continue because noone knows how to stop them. All sorts. Without knowing much about it, Vietnam seemed like a tragedy, remediable only by the US not backing the French Empire in 46(?). So, even if not neccessary, it was understandable.
Declan
Posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2006, at 13:03:55
In reply to Neccessary Wars, posted by Declan on June 13, 2006, at 17:36:56
"Necessary wars" - that depends on which side you are on.
To the aggressor a war should never be 'necessary' - by definition, as he is the one starting them.
"Necessary" is only true to the defender.
So the only thing left is to define "aggression."
Posted by Declan on June 14, 2006, at 14:02:20
In reply to Re: Neccessary Wars » Declan, posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2006, at 13:03:55
Even Hitler, although a willing barabarian, thought he was (in part) redressing past wrongs, or at least fighting the war again the way it should have been fought. Normally everyone feels attacked and sometimes are delighted to have been. Trapped by history?
What do you think of this (about WWI)? I don't understand the second sentence.
"The war had no meaning. For something that has meaning war is not neccessary. But once war is there people find a meaning for it; they cannot believe that all their sacrifices are meaningless. The leaders look for a meaning in order to fill the people with enthusiasm and to keep down despondency and indifference. The meaning of the German war therefore was to measure Germany against Britain, to punish Britain for jealously having wanted to destroy Germany's greatness. Those poor people everywhere--how they allowed themselves to be fooled, how they fooled themselves. How courageously, how patiently they bore the consequences; what sorrow, what immeasurable misery they suffered." (Golo Mann, "The History of Germany Since 1789")
It's very beautiful, not quite sure why.Declan
Posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2006, at 16:50:50
In reply to Re: Neccessary Wars » AuntieMel, posted by Declan on June 14, 2006, at 14:02:20
I think it's saying that if you really care about something, and you are educated in it, you probably don't have to resort to violence to get a good outcome.
The third sentance says a lot.Sometimes people find themselves in a war - and can't figure out why. Those people need to, in their own minds, find that meaning, that cause.
I think WWI was one of those. Didn't it start when an archbishop was assasinated?
But I'm not so sure that Adolf really was worried so much about past harms as he was *using* the past harms and the League of Nations to get power.
Not that the country wasn't a mess after WWI. Inflation was rampant, times were hard. And worse, they felt humiliated. The people of Germany were ripe for someone like Adolf to come along.
There's a lot to be learned from history.
Posted by zazenduck on June 15, 2006, at 18:20:54
In reply to fearful asymmetry, posted by zeugma on June 12, 2006, at 18:50:50
The IRA in the early eighties used suicide by starvation as a weapon in the English jails. Thatcher chose to allow them to starve to death rather than use force feeding which was the American strategy a few months before the hangings. (The hunger strike ended in the face of forced feeding.) Was it successful? I don't know. It certainly kept the issue in the public eye and an asymmetric war is political. The monks who burned themselves to death in Vietnam were I think instrumental in the end of that war. So I think that it can be a weapon.
> It is interesting to see the latest application of 'asymmetry' by a military professional. The camp commander of Guantanomo bay, Rear Adm. Harry Harris, is on record as saying, of three detainees' recent suicides there:
> <<
> "I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us," Harris said.
>
> >>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by zeugma on June 15, 2006, at 19:29:25
In reply to Re: fearful asymmetry (TRIGGERS violence SUI) » zeugma, posted by zazenduck on June 15, 2006, at 18:20:54
> The IRA in the early eighties used suicide by starvation as a weapon in the English jails. Thatcher chose to allow them to starve to death rather than use force feeding which was the American strategy a few months before the hangings. (The hunger strike ended in the face of forced feeding.) Was it successful? I don't know. It certainly kept the issue in the public eye and an asymmetric war is political. The monks who burned themselves to death in Vietnam were I
think instrumental in the end of that war. So I think that it can be a weapon.>>Weapons are not the only instruments that end wars. Unless we are talking metaphorically. When George Bush denounced the Axis of Evil as a prelude to his invasion of iraq, the weapons of asymmetric war he alleged were in Hussein's possession were assuredly not the unconventional 'weapons' of a Vietnamese monk or IRA hunger striker.
the act of killing oneself to make a political point, so long as all parties inflict it solely on themselves, and of course intend that to be so, is not analogous to the act of doing so with the intention of committing simultaneous homicide.
The Pentagon has closed off all access to Gitmo, I hear. Does that bode well for the justice of our system?
-z
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is interesting to see the latest application of 'asymmetry' by a military professional. The camp commander of Guantanomo bay, Rear Adm. Harry Harris, is on record as saying, of three detainees' recent suicides there:
> > <<
> > "I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetric warfare against us," Harris said.
> >
> > >>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by zeugma on June 22, 2006, at 17:52:44
In reply to Re: Neccessary Wars, posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2006, at 16:50:50
Sometimes people find themselves in a war - and can't figure out why. Those people need to, in their own minds, find that meaning, that cause.>>
I find that it is profound comments like these that make sense of the news for me.
From today's N.Y. Times:
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, leading Democratic supporter of the war:
"The war to remove Saddam Hussein may have been a war of choice, but it now a war of necessity. We must win it."
That sentence is rather ominous, don't you think?
Wars of choice become wars of necessity when disaster is looming.
But I would say that wars of choice lead inevitably to disaster, simply because a war of choice is, for moral and strategic reasons, always the wrong choice. A war of choice is, by definition, the wrong choice.
-z
Posted by Declan on June 22, 2006, at 20:15:32
In reply to Re: Neccessary Wars » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on June 22, 2006, at 17:52:44
The Iraqi trade minister and entourage have been shot up by Australian troops, one of his bodygards killed and a number(5?) wounded. With its characteristic prudence and committment to the democratic process, the Government did not mention this in Parliament yesterday.
No more wheat deals, that's for sure.
Declan
Posted by zeugma on June 22, 2006, at 21:19:04
In reply to Iraqi Trade Minister, posted by Declan on June 22, 2006, at 20:15:32
apparently, negotiating a wheat deal with the Australian government is as dangerous as defending Saddam Hussein in court.
-z
Posted by Declan on June 22, 2006, at 22:42:01
In reply to Re: Iraqi Trade Minister » Declan, posted by zeugma on June 22, 2006, at 21:19:04
Maybe Iraq will declare war on Australia first.
Dec
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.