more on "War on Terra" saves few lives, expert says

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: h_bray () globe com
Date: September 11, 2005 1:34:49 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on "War on Terra" saves few lives, expert says


I see this as an "apples and oranges" issue, combined with the  
difficulty
in deciding how best to fend off foreseeable catastrophes, when it's
unclear how likely these catastrophes are.

First, apples and oranges.  I think I've explained this one.  Wars  
aren't
just fought to prevent loss of life, but also loss of national power and
liberty.  It is highly unlikely that we would have faced invasion from
Japan if we'd let them have free rein in Asia; to avoid war, we could  
have
turned a blind eye.  But the Roosevelt administration concluded that
Japanese aggression posed a long-term threat to the power and national
interests of the United States.  So we began to resist, by doing such
things as launching embargoes of critical exports to Japan, such as oil.
The Japanese responded by attacking the US.  Had we not interfered  
with the
Japanese, the attack on Pearl Harbor would never have happened.  On the
other hand, there's a good chance that most of Asia would now be  
under the
dictatorial rule of Japanese imperialists.  Was preventing this worth  
a war
that killed tens of millions of people?  Go figure.  You pays your money
and you takes your choice.   But studies like this one don't provide any
assistance in making that decision.  It's counting apples and  
ignoring the
oranges.

The study also suggests that money spent on fighting terrorism is spent
inefficiently, because a terrorist attack is far less likely than,  
say, a
New Orleans levee breach.  Well, maybe.  But I write this on the fourth
anniversary of an event so astonishing that nobody--except Tom
Clancy--would have expected it until it happened.  Since that time,  
we've
uncovered ample evidence that terrorists worldwide are doing everything
they can to kill those of whom they disapprove, in as large numbers  
as they
can manage.    The idea that, say, the spread of bird flu is a greater
hazard than an attack by Islamic fanatics armed with dirty bombs  
requires
us to assume that these fanatics are few and far between, and have no
access to such deadly weapons.  Such assumptions are plainly  
unjustified.
To be sure, the maniacs have not succeeded in the past four years in
pulling off an attack of similar scale.   But mightn't that be precisely
because of the money and blood spent on fighting them off?  Some say  
Iraq
is an irrelevant distraction; perhaps they're right.  But then, perhaps
they're wrong.  Often, only time answers such questions.

Example:  Who knew at the time that Antietam would be the turning  
point of
the Civil War?  It was the bloodiest battle ever fought by Americans,  
and
the Union gained an incomplete victory.  But it was victory enough for
Lincoln to transform the nature of the war by issuing the Emancipation
Proclamation.  That turned the American Civil War into a glorious  
crusade
against slavery--something it wasn't up to that point.  And that ensured
that the Brits, who'd been toying with embracing the Confederacy, would
stay on the sidelines.  And that, in turn, ensured that the  
Confederacy was
doomed.

Even now, the slugging match at Tal Afar, with American and Iraqi troops
fighting side by side to clear out a nest of foreign-born terrorists,  
may
be a turning point.  Then agan, maybe not.  That's the trouble with  
wars;
apart from corpses, you never know what'll turn up.  Just one more  
reason
why clever cost-benefit analyses like the one from Emory U. tend to  
leave
me cold.

PS:  I've gained some insight on this in the past few months because  
of my
subscription to the Live365 Internet radio service.  There you can  
listen
to thousands of streamed audio channels, featuring every sort of
programming.  One of the channels features some of the most eye-opening
stuff I've ever heard.  It's called WW2--The Wireless War.  Some clever
fellow has acquired about 60 hours of actual news and propaganda  
broadcasts
from the war, each featuring the date on which it aired.  The stuff
includes William L Shirer broadcasting Hitler speeches from Berlin in  
the
run up to the Munich conference;  bulletins on Hitler's entry into  
Austria
and conquest of France, Pearl Harbor, of course.  There's even enemy
propaganda, like the amazing American-born British traitor Lord Haw Haw,
with his sneering, contemptuous comments on British military defeats at
places like Dunkirk.

Why do I bring this up?  Because I've listened, transfixed, to hours of
this stuff.  It puts history--not just WWII history, but history in
general--into a whole new perspective.  What you hear are  
descriptions of
the most important events of the 20th century, described as they
happened--by people who had no idea how it was all going to turn out.
That's the key.  All my life I've read WWII history, as written by  
people
who knew the outcome of the struggle.  It's utterly fascinating to  
hear it
from those who were living it, who didn't know what would happen next.

I recommend the experience to you all, and everybody else, who thinks  
he or
she can foresee the value or the cost of conflict.



Hiawatha Bray



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/