Sunday, August 25, 2013
Squeamishness leads to genocide
Let's try some cold hard Stalin-style thinking about Syria.
Everyone is "horrified" by the apparent use of chemical weapons.
I don't understand. Dead is dead. Dead by a bullet, dead by gas. Still dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. No more dead one way than the other. Just dead. Dead. Dead.
Now a series of basic questions with answers.
Basic question 1. Which side in Syria would be better for US interests? We don't know. As far as we can tell, both are equally bad.
Basic question 2. Which side would be better for the Syrian people? We don't know. As far as we can tell, both are equally bad.
Basic question 3. Given that both sides are equally bad, what is the best result? A quick end to the fighting. If the fighting continues, it will kill everyone in the country FOR NO PURPOSE.
Basic question 4. What ends a war quickly? Think of Dresden and Hiroshima. HUGE and SUDDEN civilian losses cause a determined fighter to lose his will.
THEREFORE: Instead of wringing our hands in horror, we should be ENCOURAGING the use of more chemical weapons as fast as possible, so the rebel side will give up.
= = = = =
This style of hard objectivity is Unthink and Crimethink today, but before 1950 American experts and media were fully capable of rationality. I've been listening at bedtime to a couple of radio series: America Looks Abroad from 1940, and Story Behind The Headlines from '46 to '48. Both appeared on commercial networks, both were written by foreign policy experts and academics, both were perfectly objective and well-rounded. No avoidance of uncomfortable truth, no meaningless platitudes, no false logic.
¶ 5:46 AM 
