Project Endgame - First Strike and Deterrence in the War on Terror: Part I

Introduction

In the outdoor smoking lounges of Walter F. George, several topics are regularly the subject of peer discussions by all. There's of course the sexual chatter, which is usually when Noba tunes out. There's the general "I'm-so-stressed-out-I-hear-the GRE-isn't-so-bad" talk, usually from the people who have the least to complain about. There's also, of course, political discussion. And Noba, being one of the few conservatives in his circle of section-mates, usually has to get a word or two in. Or 14,793. Starting school during the heat of the most bitterly contested presidential election of (arguably) all time was coming to a close didn't help either. I experience a range of reactions during many of these discussions, which I'll explain for you now.

Confusion: Very frequently I'll sit back and listen to two members of the same party discuss their varying views, or I'll get a chance to take in squabble between a Dem and a GOPer. Being a third party supporter myself, it's always stimulating. If it's a topic I overlap with, I usually join in on the GOP side. But other than that, I stay out of it, and observe...and I wonder to myself, if the <> passed an initiative to make the homeless where tutus, are these the kind of folks that would have the talking points ready to recite on why it's a good idea? I

Ted Rall Fan/Frequent Farenheit 9/11 Viewer: Sometimes you'll find a liberal so raging that they use Halliburton as a preposition and say "oil" when they mean to say "blood." Ask these people follow-up questions. It's a hoot once they run out of stuff to say not from Michael Moore's latest.

Did he just say that?: Sometimes (and when I say sometimes I really mean "someone") comments get made that are completely outrageous. We all know this. I get around to that a lot. However, some comments can be so out of bounds of logic so as to fail to sustain the properties of an abstract thought. Noba will illustrate.

NOBA: You know if we could have gotten to Hitler before he became a threat, we could have save

millions of lives.

OTHER PERSON, NAME RHYMES WITH "FARSHALL:" One life is just as important as a million.

Killing Hitler would be just as evil as what Hitler did.

NOBA: *Jaw drops, hits floor; Noba throws self out of 2nd floor window*

Wow, this person knows how to have a discission: The best discussions are with someone who can actually discuss. It's never fun when a debate between two people of different political persuasions ends with: "Baby-Killing Abortionist!" "Jesus Freak!" So occasionally, when you sit down with someone that can present their point of view, listen to yours, and then calmy critique the other without rancor, it's refreshing. Unfortunately, this is the most rare reaction I get to have. *Sigh*

Back to Politics - my views are unorthodox, I admit. I'd like to think that's because they're original. But more likely, it's because I've always tried to have my perspective be solution-based. As much as I enjoy analyzing a problem, I'd rather move to possible solutions quicker. This is especially true of the most hot-button type of political discussion you'll hear in the den of nicotine outside the Sidebar cafe: foreign policy. Bush foreign policy specifically.

Brief History Lesson

Let's flashback for a moment to Hiroshima, 1945. We all know what happened. But there are several misconceptions. Let's get the obvious out of the way. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less for the defeat of Imperial Japan as they were warning shots to Joe Stalin and Co. As the tentacles of the USSR were beginning to fan out across Eurasia following the Yalta conference, Truman and his cronies wanted to send a message that things were "getting pretty cold up in here." Remember, with Europe in ruins and FDR having had to sexually service Stalin at Yalta, a US-Russian showdown was imminent. I don't blame FDR, because we owed Russia after they kept the Second Front open while we stalled on the D-Day invasion. Russia suffered the worst casualties of any of the Allies, and the collapse of that front would have been deadly to Britain and, very likely, the US. Unfortunately, you can't always pick your poison, and Stalin was someone we knew couldn't be trusted.

Back to Japan, the common belief is that dropping the A-bomb was the sole way to avoid a ground invasion that would result in severe casualties on both sides. To be sure, there is some truth to this. In 10 minutes on a small Pacific island where Marines were attempting to destroy a supply port for Japanese flyers and ground units, 10, 000 US troops were killed in one hour. Urban combat in Tokyo would not have been any more pleasant. The additional factor was that the Imperial Japanese Army, still engaging in emperor-worship at the time, dealt with any conflict as if it was a last-man-standing. Surrender was not an option . . . right? Maybe not. Consider:

Throughout 1945, American political and military leaders discussed whether the atom bomb should be used. Three famous voices who spoke out against it were [Commander of the Allied Forces and, of course, future 2-term Republican President] General Dwight D Eisenhower, who called it "completely unnecessary"; General MacArthur, who said it was "completely unnecessary from a military point of view"; and Admiral Leahy, who believed that Japan would fall without even the necessity of a land invasion. Leahy later wrote that, in dropping the bomb, "we had adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the dark ages"; Eisenhower later told an interviewer, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

So if not to end the war, then what? Echoing the statements above, most Allied commanders hip to the Manhattan project considered the science experiment America's backup in case our enemies got it first. An often forgotten, but fairly obvious, fact about the years before the nuclear buildup is that the Manhattan Project was only the US-version. Hitler's Germany was actively attempting to manufacture an atomic bomb, but repeated Allied bombing and the escalation of the war in Europe made it difficult for the Nazis to sustain the space and cost needed to support its production. Some reports say that the Germans only required hard water to complete the construction of a nuke, and errant bombs dropped during the Allied run on Dresden incidentally struck the facility that was within an inch of providing it. For sure, FDR/Truman/Eisenhower all knew, from their respective positions throughout the war, that the prospect of the Axis obtaining the a-bomb before the Allies could easily shift the tide of the war. Fortunately, we got it first. But history shows that we used it despite the fact that (a) our military commanders felt it was not essential to the victory in the Pacific theater (b) none of the remaining Axis powers - namely Japan - had developed their own, much left had the capability to deliver it and (c) conflicting accounts from many historians say that the Japanese made attempts (!) to surrender prior to the dropping of either bomb.

So why then? Well, despite the fact that dropping the bomb would speed up the end of the war and save American (but not Japanese) lives, it has been recognized since the dropping of the bombs themselves that everybody and their commie brothers knew a throwdown between the Yanks and the Ruskies was on the bill for the rest of the 20th Century.

P.M.S. Blackett, a renowned British physicist and Nobel prize winner argued that there was no doubt that the atomic bombings were "not so much the last military act of the Second World War, as the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."

OK, but he didn't really drop the bomb, he might have an agenda. Let's ask the people who did drop the bomb:

"General Curtis LeMay [chief of the Air Forces, circa WWII], "The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. PRESS INQUIRY: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and without the atomic bomb? LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all." September 29, 1945, statement [Roughly 2 months after the bomb was dropped]."

Hmm...so I guess that's a coincedence. Let's hear from the conservative pulse of the nation from that day. To please my liberal friends, surely a conservative must come out on the opposition to this, right?

Editorial excerpt from David Lawrence, an avowed conservative and successful businessman, who knew eleven presidents of the United States intimately, and was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Richard M. Nixon, April 22, 1970.

"Military necessity will be our constant cry in answer to criticism, but it will never erase from our minds the simple truth, that we, of all civilized nations, though hesitating to use poison gas, did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children." On October 5, Lawrence continued his attack, "The United States should be the first to condemn the atomic bomb and apologize for its use against Japan. Spokesmen for the Army Air Forces said it wasn't necessary and that the war had been won already. Competent testimony exists to prove that Japan was seeking to surrender many weeks before the atomic bomb came." On November 23, Lawrence wrote, "The truth is we are guilty. Our conscience as a nation must trouble us. We must confess our sin. We have used a horrible weapon to asphyxiate and cremate more than 100,000 men, women and children in a sort of super-lethal gas chamber— and all this in a war already won or which spokesman for our Air Forces tell us we could have readily won without the atomic bomb. We ought, therefore, to apologize in unequivocal terms at once to the whole world for our misuse of the atomic bomb."

Hmm...while I'm not the type of person that thinks flinging a nuke could NEVER be justified (as you shall hear all about later), it appears the weight of authority, save most US High School history teachers, recognize Hiroshima is what it was - the shot that was really heard 'round the world. Furthermore, it was a nuclear f1irst-strike on an near dead horse. That last sentece makes Noba smile. First-strike? Is there an echo in here? You see, what I hear from most liberal buddies of mine is constant bemoaning of the Bush pre-emptive doctrine. For purposes of clarification, the magical doctrine of pre-emptive force from our current administration is cited as having 2 functions. First, you will often hear that it makes the policy of the United States to use nuclear weapons to strike at an enemy, rather than doing so only in retaliation. Second, you will hear it referred to as the guiding principle behind the Iraq war, which is the more truthful of the two allegations.

The problem with the first claim is that, as Hiroshima shows, it has ALWAYS been the policy of the United States to use a nuclear weapon before suffering a WMD strike on our own soil. This is where most people flip out, because some people cannot tell the difference between a nuclear policy and a nuclear strike. Policy is simply us telling you what we'll do if you f*** with us. A strike is us showing you what we'll do once you've f***ed with us. Kiddies, the whole purpose of a policy is so you don't get to the strike stage, especially when the strike you're talking about is of the radioactive variety. This is why since the words "Project" and "Manhatten" were grouped together, America has said it will strike with nuclear weapons when it feels threatened or justified. To date the United States is the only nation to ever use such a weapon against another country, war-time or otherwise. I'd say that's pretty good proof in itself that we've always had a pre-emptive doctrine. Disregarding the morality of such a position (which presupposes whether morality is even a consideration of high priority in the dog-eat-dog world of global foreign policy), the fact of the matter is that this kind of thinking fits in nicely to what is generally recognized as the goal of all military and diplomatic action: deterrence. We dropped nukes to deter Russia, or more appropriately, slow them down after Yalta. We also wanted to gain the upper hand as European power melted in the ruins of the war. Of course, there were dozens of tit-for-tat actions between us and them for long to come. Arguably, fighting in Vietnam and Korea were both simply deterrent wars defined under the banner of communist "containment." But you don't drop a nuke on anybody without either indicating to them what you won't tolerate or indicating to them that they won't be around much longer. It's the deterrence, stupid!

So the pre-emptive doctrine, part 1, is a farce. It's a restatement of radical things the Bush administration is "doing," which were actually done years before Dubya was even a sperm. Take the "shadow government" concept. After 9/11, when the Pentagon attack raised eyebrows as to the possibility of a total attack on essential government posts seemed very real, the Joint Chiefs and National Security Agency restructed our nuclear fall-out "shadow government." Created during the Kennedy era, the general idea was that those officials who would assume the highest positions in our government (should their current holders suffer multiple untimely simultaneous deaths) should be privy to their standing. That's it. Secret Service detail emphasize the protection of these individuals, and funding goes towards the implementation of the shadow government should nuclear fallout occur. Makes sense, right? Basically an extended presidential line of succession for the worst-of-worst-case scenarios. As mentioned, the "SG" was started by JFK and continued on until present day. Most presidents have not paid much attention to the contingency plan, and a bunch of no-names would make the list. With 9/11 showing the power of terrorists to bomb the very heart of American power, the NSA restructured the shadow government and hand-picked the officials (which, IMHO, any president should be doing). There was no Masonic plot behind this, and it wasn't even a Bush family creation. Yet you'll never hear this.

*abrir los ojos*

Having set up my little intro, let me brief you on future parts. It is my single contention that the War on Terror is a culture war similar enough to that experienced in the Cold War so as to be dealt with in much the same way. Islamic terrorists and the rest of the world cannot co-exist, which is the most overlooked and undisputed fact of the conflict we are fighting. There is no discussion that, one day, Al Qaeda and the US can live in peace and harmony. The only way either will be totally safe is with the destruction of the other. That destruction could be by appeasement, surrender, voluntary disbandonment, whatever . . . but destruction nonetheless. You know who I support.

The key - and I do mean key - distinction between the Cold War and the War on Terror is clear and significant, however. Borders. That's all. We don't know where to attack these guys. When you think about the massive amounts of funding and training that goes into equipping a covert operative to fight this kind of war, and the still slim chances of infiltrating a terrorist group like Al Qaeda to the extent necessary for attack prevention, the Bush administration recognized the only way to beat a deadly, determined, and devoted band of thugs like Osama's men was to take a big-picture approach. Just like ideological and trade restraints hampered direct engagement with the Soviets, the first-strike nuclear policy was the way for the US to send a message, and send it once: "We've got nukes, Joe and Nikita. You send one at Washington, we send one to Moscow. Have it your way." As an esteemed liberal colleague correctly pointed out to me recently, mutually assured destruction with Russia, while an abhorrent occurrence, worked! Despite close calls, the prospect of nuclear annihilation has been shown to deter an opponent that has nukes of his own and hates you just as much as you hate him. The policy is the strongest and most polarized statement that can be made, without a doubt. But when you have an opponent that wants you dead, the only realy threat you can levy that might work is "Well, if I die, you die."

But, getting back to the borders dilemma, how could a first strike doctrine with Al Qaeda, which would both act as a deterrent as well as a variation on the essential Cold War doctrine of mutually-assured destruction, be constructed? Welcome to Project Endgame, where we'll roll the nuclear dice and analyze how the United States could convince Osama and his goons that using a nuke, or similar WMD, on American civilians wouldn't even be worth the 70 virgins. The theories here are mine-own, inspired primarily by those I've talked to and my own study of the terrorist network I love to loathe.

What's the Frequency, Ahmad?: Nukes and WMDs Distinguished

Noba has been brought much joy by the fact that the Bush and his administration, despite any other linguistic problems, did a great service to the world and common knowledge by grouping nuclear weapons under the larger heading of (say it with me now!) "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Though they didn't invent the word in the same way Al Gore invented the Internet, the Bushies did make the term mainstream. And rightfully so. The fact of the matter is that warfare has evolved to the point that there is little difference, in terms of risk to civilian populations, between a nuke and a biological or chemical agent. Take VX gas. While most people only know it from the Sean Connery-Nicolas Cage vehicle "The Rock," VX is probably the most deadly substance known to man (that's why we were so determined to keep it away from Ed Harris!!). A teaspoon of the sarin gas-derivative, detonated in the atmosphere, would kill every organism in an 8-block radius. A warhead detonated in the atmosphere? Goodbye population of Manhattan! While a nuke will cause catastrophic property damage, it's just as much a "poisoning" weapon as any chemical/biological agent. You're going to die from the radiation...slowly and painfully, not the mushroom cloud. So, to be sure, the prospect of a terrorist obtaining the smallpox virus or a large quantity of weaponized VX and the means to disperse it is no less dangerous than him gaining a hydrobomb. Hell, nukes are easier to detect and locate than any other WMD. And since Osama doesn't have missle silos yet, we know we don't have to worry about a threat from the air. But when it comes to manufacturing, transporting, and detonating a WMD, chemical/biological threats seem to be more in line with AQ's M.O. Think about it, you can have the aerial shot of a devestated Chicago or the grutesque footage of VX-exposed Americans spasming so violently that they vomit their own guts. For the sickos in Osama's boys' club, if it bleeds it leads, and no image could better further their purposes. With that in mind, I will not draw much of a distinction between nukes or any other form of a WMD. They're all WMDs to me, and I'm no less concerned over a nuclear blast than a smallpox attack. In terms of US military action however, when I am discussing strikes I will be doing it with the opinion our attacks would be nuclear, as opposed to biological or chemical. The US will likely never use lethal agents in or out of warfare, no matter how dire the conflict in question, save the nuke. Despite how much lefties tend to demonize our country, we have a greater conscience to not actively desire the horrific deaths of civilians....remember, if the terrorists had our arsenal, we wouldn't be around anymore. America is wrong sometimes, but we'll never be that wrong.

Well kiddos, that's the end of Part I. It should all be coherent soon, I promise. As a final disclaimer, think critically about the upcoming theories before you attempt to knock them down. I'm going to be doing a lot less coddling of the Bush administration as I am generally endorsing, as promised, a War on Terror-version of deterrence. I don't want to hear Halliburton or Diebold mentioned once! :)

Coming soon...Part II: "History Repeats Itself" and Part III: "Global Politics and the Apocalypse: So Happy Together"