History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I was listening to NPR this morning, and a commentator noted that one of the potentially problematic side effects of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was that the extremist groups would consider it to be a result of their suicide bombing and other terror tactics, and that would legitimize those methods. I was struck, at that moment, by the similarity to the sixty year argument we've been having about the atomic bombs. There are two primary arguments in favor of the bombings: the morally relativistic and the utilitarian. The former excuses those who used the bombs as ordinary products of their time; the latter as extraordinary prophets of life and order. Both arguments apply about as well to terroristic tactics as to the bombs, and it is not easy to draw distinctions between these tactics without resorting to special pleading.
The process of producing an Iraqi constitution seems to be foundering. I was reminded of the post-war Japanese Constitution which was produced by Americans after Japanese drafts did not live up to Occupation expectations. Given the likelihood that the Iraqi constitution will include Islamic Sharia law and less than full equality for women, I wonder if we could declare an impasse again and impose a more consistent document. I'm not sure it would work without serious subterfuge (Japanese newspapers were heavily censored during the US Occupation, and any mention of foreign involvment in the Constitution writing process was high on the censorship lists), as we've created an expectation of Iraqi authorship, not to mention handed over sovereignty, but a true impasse might give us an opportunity to see a more progressive result.
Actually you didn't, which is a shame, because if you had then we might have had a productive discussion instead of guess-what-the-heck-Jonathan-is-implying-here. But never mind.
Sergio Ramirez -
8/22/2005
I wrestled with it--and it is indeed meaningless and sophmoric. Not because we were necessarily correct to use the A bomb, and certainly not because the Palestinian terrorists are correct, but beacuse you haven't bothered to form anything like a coherent statement, much less argument. Go back and read what you wrote.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/22/2005
Mr. Allport,
It's not about you, you know. It never was. I'm not aware of any opinions or assumptions I have about your views on the middle east; all I know about your views on this subject is the previous discussion we had about the atomic bombings.
I'm not on any hooks as far as I can tell. You asked me to clarify something, and I did: if it doesn't apply to you, then fine.
Here ends the lesson.
Alan Allport -
8/21/2005
The question is whether there are meaningful differences between the arguments and circumstances.
Sorry, Jonathan, you don't get off the hook that easily. You didn't say that the use of 'total war' arguments by Palestinian extremist might cause a problem if I were to use the same arguments wrt the bombs; you said it would cause a problem. In other words you were making an assumption - a large and baseless assumption, so far as I can see, because I don't recall so much as once mentioning Middle East terrorism in a blog post here, certainly not in any involved way. So how could you possibly know what my opinions about it and its tactics are? Clearly you're not going to own up to this (I don't see why: it's hardly the most terrible of sins), but it does seem to justify the first point I made - that you really ought to have staked out your position more clearly at the outset. The patronisingly didactic note at the end was a nice touch, though.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/21/2005
The question is whether there are meaningful differences between the arguments and circumstances. And that's the last hint you're getting from me: the rest is homework.
Alan Allport -
8/21/2005
You're taking this awful personal yourself, Mr. Allport.
Am I? I don't think so, not really. All I want to know is why I can't raise the question of 'total war' in relation to the A-Bombs "because the same argument is used by Palestinian extremists." You still haven't explained what you mean by that.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/21/2005
You're taking this awful personal yourself, Mr. Allport.
Alan Allport -
8/21/2005
I said and say nothing about the beliefs that people hold.
I agree; you've said nothing about them at all. You've implied a heck of a lot, though. You suggest that any mention of total war wrt to the A-Bombs falls apart because "the same argument is used by Palestinian extremists." Well, so what if it is? (Heck, maybe they've got a point.) With respect, it appears that you've gotten so excited about the prospect of this almighty Gotcha! that you've forgotten to ask whether the people you're accusing (in effect) of inconsistency or hypocrisy actually hold the inconsistent or hypocritical views you assume.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/21/2005
It might be, indeed. Or it might not. Why don't you try wrestling with it for a while, and see what you come up with?
Sergio Ramirez -
8/21/2005
The problem with vague generalizations about the similarity of arguments in different historical moments and under deiffering situations, is that the mere similarity might be meaningless. Unless, of course, the analogy is explained further.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/21/2005
Mr. Allport,
I said and say nothing about the beliefs that people hold. I am making a statement about the parallels between the arguments that people use.
Alan Allport -
8/21/2005
Jonathan, why are you taking for granted the beliefs that someone who supports the 1945 A-Bomb attacks must necessarily hold about modern terrorism? This is why I suggested that you be a little clearer in your original post, because it appears to be chock-full of unexplained (and possibly invalid) ssumptions.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/21/2005
non-combatants. And "total war" isn't a defense, because the same argument is used by Palestinian extremists.
Alan Allport -
8/21/2005
Serious question: what does 'innocent' mean here?
David T. Beito -
8/21/2005
Mass murder of innocents is mass murder. Period! That is the point.
Sergio Ramirez -
8/21/2005
OK, so is the implication are then that Palestinians have been wasting the lives of Israelis and their own people just to "make a point?" A point that, like the atomic bomb, was ultimately unnecessary? Is that the argument?
David T. Beito -
8/21/2005
Your comparison of terrorist bombings to the Atomic bomb is apt. Both intentionally relied on indisciminate mass killing of civilians to "make a point." I too have yet to hear a good response that argument.
I am not an expert on Japanese history but it seems to me that the imposed Constitution better reflected postwar conditions in Japan e.g. a discredited militarist system, recent memories of a democratic interlude, a long sense of nationhood, and relative cultural and religious unity. These same conditions do not apply in Iraq.
The fact that the Japanese have not amended their Consitution in the last fifty years (even though they have had the perfect right to do so) indicates that it fit the public mood at the time. Once given the same chance to amend theirs (when?), I doubt that the Iraqis would pass up the opportunity to thrown out their "foreign imposed" Constitution and we would be back to square one, or perhaps minus square one.
Sergio Ramirez -
8/21/2005
I too am having trouble figuring out the meaning here. And special pleading for whom?
Alan Allport -
8/21/2005
Probably not, at least not this week.
Fair enough (this wasn't snarkery, by the way - I honestly am not clear about what you're trying to say).
Jonathan Dresner -
8/21/2005
Probably not, at least not this week. Try applying the arguments in favor of the atomic bombs to Palestinian terror tactics and see how well they fit. Try applying the arguments against terrorism to the atomic bombings and see how well they fit.
Be careful how you do it, or you'll fall into special pleading before you even start. Consistency is hard.
Alan Allport -
8/21/2005
Jonathan, could you explain your first point a bit more straightforwardly?
