Of War And Children

I hesitated to direct you to this, because it deals with an extremely difficult and emotional topic, but I believe it is a subject which needs to be explored and discussed, thoroughly and calmly. About a week ago, Grim, at Blackfive, posted a disconcerting exercise in logic, basically concluding that it is our love for all children that makes terrorists target ours, and use their own as shields. Thus, he says, ultimately it is we who endanger them, by making them valuable to the enemy, a tool to be wielded, and we must change the way we fight war, refusing to let the presence of children hinder our necessary decisions.

Here is another link, to a blog that rebuts this argument, basically by means of an emotional accusation. The real reason I include it is the comments. There are a few more thoughtful voices, but most react with the same emotionalism as that in the initial accusation, with name calling, and accusations of racism and desire for genocide. I must admit, when I read Grim's post I didn't see any indication of racism, or enjoyment of the conclusion he had drawn. I saw a sorrow about what the enemy has forced him to conclude--that our own love of children was putting them in danger, and that we need to pursue the war we must fight "without thought of the children," so that they "lose their value as hostages, and as targets." He is not saying we should target children the way the enemy does, but he is saying that we have to stop letting their presence deter necessary action.

That is really hard stuff. So, I'm looking to find out if there is a response to this piece other than complete agreement with Grim, or total emotional vitriol. I'd love to have you read the Blackfive post, and then answer a few questions. What I want to know is this, is the emotional content of the general topic--children in war--too potent to rationally address Grim's initial post and counter his argument with a logical rebuttal? Is there a logical rebuttal possible? If so, what is the logical refutation of Grim's position?-- not the emotional one we all want to have that just doesn't want him to be right, and thus refuses to believe it, but the rational one, that can calmly say, "Here's where you are wrong, and this is why the hard way you see as inevitable is unnecessary."

I have to admit, I see the logic in Grim's argument, and I have not personally been able to refute it. At the same time, anyone giving way completely to an undisciplined application of Grim's conclusions risks becoming the thing he is fighting. It is our value for life, our children's and theirs, that makes us different from the enemy. I don't believe a turning from all value of life is the thing he is espousing. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite, that his goal is ultimately to save as many as possible through an approach that takes fear as a weapon out of the hands of people who would use the death of children to make us capitulate to their dark world. What do you think? Is he right?

Hat tip: IMAO (for both links)

An Enemy Like We've Never Known

I know I'm posting a lot these days on the Islamist war with the West, especially in Lebanon, since that is the current hot spot in the ongoing ideological conflict that has engulfed our times. I don't mean to be single topic focused. Regulars to the Meow know that I love to explore the latest frontiers in science and technology, politics and current events of the less global, more mundane variety, and even sports and religion (of the not-desiring-to-take-over-the-world type) find their way into the Meow archives. Right now, though, the war is really on the front burner, and by that I mean the larger war, of which Lebanon and Israel are on the front lines in the greater conflict. So much valuable analysis is coming from so many sources these days, that I find myself simply swimming in things I want to pass on to you all. So, the war keeps emerging as topic number one.

I read another TCS Daily piece, by Gordon Cucullu, this afternoon that really defines the nature of the war we are in, and also how it differs from previous "world wars" we've known. Cucullu explains that we never faced the same kind of enemy before this, one whose motives are so different that their actions cannot be calculated in the same way as the enemies of the past:

"...we are in a global conflict, one that without exaggeration exceeds its predecessors in vitriol, intensity, and potential for destruction. While we ducked under our school desks waiting for the Soviets to attack with devastating nuclear weapons, political leaders on both sides accepted the doomsday strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as a reasonable deterrent."

With the current global conflict, however, we cannot rely on any of the past restraints for our opponents. The goals and motivations are completely different. With the Soviets we could believe on some level that, though they wanted to spread their rule and ideology, they also weren't really interested in total devastation. I remember a Sting song from the Eighties with the lyric, "I hope the Russians love their children too." On some level, we all believed they did, as history ultimately bore out; they didn't send a nuke our way, because it would have been suicide. Islamists, though, clearly have no problem with suicide. In fact, they believe they will be rewarded for it. The West and the Islamists simply want different things:

"The U.S.-led camp looks to free market democracy and open societies as a solution to the world's issues. The other sees itself under the flag of a resurgent, conquering Islam, sweeping the globe in a new order that aims to impose a new Caliphate upon heretics. Not only is the MAD strategy not applicable, but in the instance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad such global destruction would be welcome, even desirable, as a door-opener for the 12th Imam to reawaken and lead the hosts of Islam against the infidel foe."

The rest of the article I will leave you to read for yourself, or not, as you see fit. It's not cheerful, by any means, but it is a good call to arms--something we can't seem to get enough of in the war we're fighting. I got an email recently, from a new friend, with a question I will paraphrase: if 3,000 Americans dead on our own soil isn't enough to keep us roused, what will it take? She said it much better than I summarized, but it's still a good question.

The NSA Has Problems; Maybe Google Is The Solution

Here's another gander at the National Security Agency surveillance kerfuffle. Max Boot says, "Forget privacy, we need to spy more." He makes the case that, "When it comes to the war on terror, the biggest advantage we have comes from our electronic wizardry." There's this huge outcry about the alleged program to run myriad phone records through a computer (names deleted) to look for potential terrorist patterns, but it does seem silly for the government not to use this information when the average person could find so much more online.

With a few keystrokes, Google will display anything posted by or about you. A few more keystrokes can in all probability uncover the date of your birth, your address and telephone number and every place you have lived, along with satellite photos of the houses and how much you paid for them, any court actions you have been involved in and much, much more.

It is only a little more work to obtain your full credit history and Social Security number. Or details of your shopping, traveling and Web-browsing habits. Such information is routinely gathered and sold by myriad marketing outfits. So it's OK to violate your privacy to sell you something — but not to protect you from being blown up.

Maybe the NSA should just use Google to hunt for terrorist info. It could be Google's new ad campaign: "Need To Find Osama? We Know Where He's Shopping." At the very least they could find out which e-tailers are popular with the terrorist crowd, and where they find the best deals on incendiary devices. Why should the agencies charged with protecting us have less information than telemarketers?

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Interesting Update: Looks like Bellsouth is demanding a retraction from USA Today, the paper that started the whole NSA phone database story. The company claims not only did they not give phone records to the NSA, but that they were never even asked. They're facing lawsuits accusing them of violating privacy rights, and now it looks like USA Today could face a lawsuit of their own if they don't either prove it, or retract it.