November 9, 2003
THE PRICE OF RESISTANCE (via ef brown):
Military in Iraq Deepens U.S. Resentment (HAMZA HENDAWI, November 8, 2003, Associated Press)
Houses shook, walls cracked, chandeliers swayed and children woke up screaming for their parents as U.S. planes dropped 500-pound bombs on the outskirts of Saddam Hussein's hometown overnight.The show of force late Friday and early Saturday was a warning to the 120,000 people of Tikrit not to support insurgents, suspected of shooting down a Black Hawk helicopter hours earlier, killing six soldiers.
But while it succeeded in scaring residents, the barrage only confirmed for many that the United States is their enemy.
Of course we're their enemy. The question is whether the failure to decimate places like Tikrit and Fallujah under cover of the war is an irreparable mistake. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 9, 2003 12:40 PM
"Local people called the Americans ``terrorists,'' ``mercenaries'' or ``Jews'' - a word used colloquially in Iraq and other Arab countries to refer to Israelis."
Like when I treat myself to a hearty anti-Muslim rant, I am of course speaking colloquially about the Indonesians.
AP and the Guardian are quite the duo.
Posted by: Peter B at November 9, 2003 6:09 PModerint dum metuant
Posted by: mike earl at November 9, 2003 10:35 PMMike, no you want the fear, but not the hate. Read more Machiavelli.
Orrin was right - the time to kick butt would have been during the war. Harsh measures are better done all at once, not incrementally. That kind of creeping harshness only inflames the situation, never defuses it. If we have to get harsh now, better to apply overwhelming pressure, not "send messages."
Posted by: Chris Durnell at November 10, 2003 12:34 PMChris:
Yeah, you have a point, and I have read that - it is not necessary to be loved, but it is important not to be hated; and you cannot make people love you, but you can make them fear you.
He also notes that:
he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.
A few targeted raids shouldn't be a problem; it's accidental killings, "it's all about the oil", and insults to their women that will inflame things (whether any of these occur in truth or not).
Here's the pertinent Machiavelli:
Someone could question how it happened that Agathocles and anyone like him, after infinite betrayals and cruelties, could live for a long
time secure in his fatherland, defend himself against external enemies, and never be conspired against by his citizens, inasmuch as many
others have not been able to maintain their states through cruelty even in peaceful times, not to mention uncertain times of war. I believe
that this comes from cruelties badly used or well used. Those can be called well used (if it is permissible to speak well of evil) that are
done at a stroke, out of the necessity to secure oneself, and then are not persisted in but are turned to as much utility for the subjects as
one can. Those cruelties are badly used which, though few in the beginning, rather grow with time than are eliminated. Those who
observe the first mode can have some remedy for their state with God and with men, as had Agathocles; as for the others it is impossible
for them to maintain themselves.
-Chapter VIII, Of Those Who Have Attained a Principality through Crimes
http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/744/Prince.htm
Posted by: oj at November 10, 2003 2:10 PM