Terrorism by any Other Name

If an Iranian warship shot down an American airliner, how would Americans* respond? With outrage and a desire for retribution, surely. Now, reverse the nationalities and remove the hypothetical and you can imagine how the Iranians feel about us.

On July 3, 1988 the American cruiser USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air airliner, killing 290 civilians, including 66 children.

The US first claimed that the airplane was actually a fighter attacking the cruiser. The wreckage and radar logs soon made it clear that the plane was a commercial airliner on a scheduled flight. George the First (Bush) defended the shoot-down and said "I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don't care what the facts are" (like father, like son). The sailors on the Vincennes were awarded combat-action ribbons. Eventually, the US government paid reparations, tacitly admitting culpability.

This was not “terrorism”, because the US Navy and government had no intention of killing these people. However, the captain had developed a reputation among his peers as being overly aggressive, earning for his ship the mocking nickname “robocruiser”. When inappropriate behavior is so widely recognized, those in command should be aware of the problem and it is their duty to act. (A parallel could be drawn with the Abu Grahib prisoner abuse scandal.) When they fail to exercise their responsibility, and deny the facts of the consequences, then their behavior effectively mirrors the terrorists'.

Americans, if they know anything of our troubled history with Iran, are vaguely aware of CIA support for the Shah, a brutal dictator, from the '50s to the '70s, the yearlong hostage crisis under Carter, and the Iran-contra imbroglio under Reagan. We should be reminded occasionally of the reasons why Iran might rationally fear us. Such a reminder might check our self-righteousness.

*The government-media-public triangle is more complex than "tail wagging the dog". The government ignores or ingratiates itself with the news media; the media arcs from lionizing to pillorying politicians while harping or pandering to the public; the public can make-or-break politicians and media, but is so misled and misinformed that it responds slowly and then acts capriciously.

Round Trip

Ellipsoid, actually. We turn the corner tonight at 22 minutes after midnight (UTC, formerly known as GMT).

The Holocaust?

Iran hosted a meeting bringing together many leading doubters of the Holocaust. This sad group disputes the historical record that millions of Jews were killed in the Nazi death camps.

The evidence of the Jewish Holocaust is overwhelming. One must believe either (1) the massive evidence from many diverse and seemingly unimpeachable sources or (2) it is a vast conspiracy. Have the conspiracy theorists ever presented a plausible motive? Justifying the formation of a Jewish state (Israel) isn't logical because the conspiracy must include non-Zionists and even anti-Zionists.

I once talked with an old man who believed the Jews were not killed but rather died in the camps from typhus, which actually is a scourge of overcrowded and underfed populations. The experience was particularly disturbing because he was clearly very intelligent and educated. He never claimed personal experience that countered the historical record, though naturally I wonder what he did in the war. He did not present a motive for the conspiracy and, after a spirited (albeit increasingly uncomfortable) half hour of conversation, the remainder of the 7 hour flight was silent.

I have visited Dachau and Auschwitz, two of the most notorious death camps. It is a numbing and challenging experience: numbing because the depth of the horror is unfathomable and challenging because the scale of the process demonstrates our human capacity to systematize and normalize even the most loathsome behavior.

Let us never forget the millions of Jews killed in the Holocaust. And let us also remember the many non-Jews killed because they were political opponents, homosexuals, gypsies, or because their homes were designated as “living room” (lebensraum) for Nazis. We naturally sympathize and identify with the victims. However, most importantly, we must guard against the stereotyping and vilification that led people like us to commit or tolerate these horrors.

Iraq Study Group: can you handle the truth?

The Iraq Study Group (ISG) report clearly states what anyone paying attention has known for some time: the situation in Iraq is dire and getting worse. It's a miracle that a bipartisan group could be so blunt. Bush performed his now-familiar routine, thanking the members of a panel for a study he didn't want, for news he doesn't understand, and for advice he won't follow. A few people want to shoot the messengers, calling the ISG members “surrender monkeys” and worse. Unfortunately, these people are the same fools who have supported Bush from the beginning, in other words, his political base. Nothing in Bush's political character indicates that he could ignore his base for any reason, even if he understood and accepted the ISG's conclusions.

Others are saying that we owe the Iraqis a strong effort to right the situation. They favor the definition of clear and achievable goals for the Iraqi government. They think such an effort would prevent any subsequent claim that we lost only because we gave up. This is the same argument that others still make about Vietnam. It's a little late to be defining goals. But the main problem with this approach is that it's twin goals are antagonistic: last chance efforts do not inspire the courage required to prevail.

There is even talk of replacing the Iraqi government. So much for democracy. The advocates of this approach are the most unrealistic: it's not like the Iraqis have Diebold electronic voting machines that make it easy to steal elections in Florida, Ohio, etc. Those purple fingers! So colorful, so dramatic, so nettlesome.