Forgetting Pearl Harbor: the giant rolls over and goes back to sleep
Sixty-five years ago today Pearl Harbor was attacked.
That’s long enough ago that only the elderly remember the day and its aftermath with any clarity. Several generations–including my own tiresome one, the baby boomers–have come up since then, and the world has indeed changed.
Prior to 9/11, the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941 was the closest thing America had to 9/11. The differences between the two were profound, however: at Pearl Harbor we knew the culprit. It was clearly and unequivocally an act of war by the nation of Japan, which was already at war in the Pacific. But it was, like 9/11, a sneak attack that killed roughly the same number of Americans–in the case of Pearl Harbor mostly (although not exclusively) those in the armed forces. And the Pearl Harbor attack, in the reported (but disputed) words of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, awakened the “sleeping giant” of the US and filled it with a “terrible resolve.” This was also true of 9/11–for a little while.
In the case of Pearl Harbor, that resolve lasted the duration of the war, an all-out conflagration that required far more sacrifice of the US (and the world) in money, comfort, and the all-important cost of human lives. The scale of such a loss is not even remotely comparable to that of our present conflict–at least, so far.
In addition, the first years of World War II featured many losses and much peril. It was a different world, however, and failure was not an option.
This Manchester Union Leader editorial in honor of Pearl Harbor makes the point that:
one does not win a war by fighting it with timidness and half-measures. We are on the verge of proving our attackers of five years ago right — if they kill enough of us, we will lose our will to win.
The important part of that quote is “timidness and half-measures.” Yes, our casualties in this war have been light compared to those of WWII. And yes, mistakes were made in both wars–and always will be. But it is impossible to remain politically correct and successfully wage an asymmetrical war against an enemy that uses terrorist tactics. If you’re going to try to do that, you may as well not try, because every single life sacrificed to that cause will have been as though it were wasted.
The tactics of World War II don’t fit today’s war. I’m not suggesting heavy bombardment of civilian populations, for example. I’ve already made it clear what I would have preferred–an occupation with more teeth and more direction, and a firmer and less-PC hand to control the chaos at the outset.
But tactics aren’t the issue. The issue is will. And, in that respect as in many others, current generations don’t compare to the one known as “The Greatest Generation.”
What will it take to fill us with the “terrible resolve” necessary? Because I sense this giant is only too happy to go back to sleep.
I have every faith in the American mother of today. The moment she feels her children are actively threatened, she will demand that any political party that wants a future start piling skulls.
When the backlash comes, it will be terrible. I used to think we could avoid it, that the West would begin to push back before it got to that point. Now, I’m not so sure. The chance for peace without regret may have passed us by. Keep your eyes on Europe. It will probably start there.
– Brian
Fair enough. We won a quick military victory, but controlling Iraq at this point (3.5 years later) is not really about military force anymore, unless — as most of the posters around here counsel — you carry out some exemplary mass destruction.
Even then, as it is beginning to become clear, that won’t solve anything except cause the opponents to be intimidated into silence — until we leave.
I don’t think our “failure” in Iraq is a matter of a failure of will on the part of the American people. I don’t think we can force the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to get along. However, this war wasn’t supposed to be about that.
Remember that the war was fought to remove a threat to the US. Iraq is no longer a threat to us. True, it may become one again, but what are we supposed to do? Occupy half the planet?
Rather depressing post, neoneo. I only wish I could disagree with your conclusion….unfortunately I’ve had the same thoughts myself.
Let’s just give up, Steve. It’s not worth fighting for liberal democracy and western civilization is it? Of course, you’ve mentioned before that you don’t think our liberal democracy is very liberal anymore, so you’re rather glum about everything. Try sun lamps.
It’s not worth fighting for liberal democracy and western civilization is it?
How are we fighting for liberal democracy and western civilization in Iraq? You tell me.
I don’t accept this current meme that we are “losing the war” in Iraq (or wherever), because the American people don’t have the “will” of the “Greatest Generation.” Will for what? To do, exactly, what? We arrested Saddam almost 3 years ago. Iraq is worse now in December, 06 than it as in December, 03. What exactly are we supposed to do?
It’s hard to blame the American people for a lack of will when there’s a lack of concrete planning.
Gonna kill myself. Just thought you’d like to know.
If WWII is any indication, US will not interfere until American vital interests would be directly threatened by a major conflagration – this time, most certain, in the Gulf. And this will come soon.
Steve: Iraq is no longer a threat to us. True, it may become one again, but what are we supposed to do? Occupy half the planet?
Clearly implying that the only way to prevent a country from becoming a threat to us is to “occupy half the planet”. Which, of course, is nonsense, and defeatist nonsense at that. Iraq as it stands remains a threat to us and to the modern world generally simply because a number of the factions involved in its insurgency are Islamist fanatics and terrorists. They’ll either have to be decisively defeated now, or we’ll be confronting them again later. By which time we may indeed find ourselves having to occupy half the planet just to ensure our own survival.
How are we fighting for liberal democracy and western civilization in Iraq? You tell me.
Not fighting for democracy, to steve. Not fighting for America’s security, to steve. Just what does Steve think American soldiers are using up blood, guts, and treasure for anyways? Are wars fought just for wars sake or what?
We are on the verge of proving our attackers of five years ago right — if they kill enough of us, we will lose our will to win.
I think it is more like, if you kill enough Irais and Arabs that the Americans don’t care about, the Americans will pull back into their fortress and worry about themselves first.
The thing you have to remember about WWII, Neo, is that people could know whether victory or defeat was close by, by casualty lists and whether a battle was won or lost, territory gained or won. In a guerrila war as with Iraq, that doesn’t seem very clear. I mean, the US won all the battles so far, and yet we have violence every day, but we control all the territory, but and but and but. The human mind is not wired for this kind of fight and flight, fight then flight then fight then flight then fight schism. Because it pulls you from one way to the other, and eventually you will shred.
One part of your mind says you are winning. No attacks, US soldiers winning battles, etc. Other side of your brain sees you are losing, loss of support, violence, more violence, American deaths, demoralizing stories, etc.
I’ve mentioned this before of course, but the agony of defeat in WWII or even the threat of it, actually galvanized morale and support. You don’t have that now, because America itself is not being attacked and the world doesn’t “look” like the terroists are gaining ground. The terroists don’t invade countries, yet their end result Paris riots might just as well be the same. But this is not apparent because the media obfuscates the issues. So the population of America looks at the war with WWII eyes, when times have changed. Times may have changed but the Times has not.
If you want resolve, Neo. Then you will need to see at least one major American city be obliterated, casualties amongst the 1 to 10 million range. That is resolve.
I think you know that the loss of the Pacific Fleet left the entire Western seaboard of America open to Japanese invasion. It was a palpable sense of dread and DEFEAT, the idea that you could lose. You NEED that for resolve. In Iraq, the idea that we will lose, is not there, but the idea that we “aren’t winning” is there. So it creates friction. The friction of war, just in a rather unconventional war.
The issue is will. And, in that respect as in many others, current generations don’t compare to the one known as “The Greatest Generation.”
Will is vital, and there’s no question that a sizeable portion of the American population doesn’t have it. Still, many of us do.
But I have to disagree with the second part of your statement. The “current generation” is actually on the ground and shedding blood in Iraq. The Iraq Surrender Group is made up of elderly lawyers, politicians, and diplomats, and doesn’t represent the current generation.
Hope you’re right, rickl.
From what I have observed, a significant number of those opposed to the GWOT are people without children, many of them older”60s” generation. No vested interest in the future, perhaps? Many cannot conceive of why there could possibly be a threat to their lifestyles. After all, look around you: things look pretty normal, don’t they?
Two horrible developments might shake us out of our self-imposed doldrums. A bigger and better 9/11 and the loss of mid east oil. If it’s the first, I have every confidence that we’ll stack the bastards’ corpses high as the moon. If it’s the second, then only as high as Everest.
As a geneticist and an author of university published monograph on race formation, with special interest in ethnic psychology and genetic basis of racial features, I simply do not believe that these characteristic traits can irreversibly fade out in one generation. Cultural perversity can obfuscate and mask them for a while, but a mental shock of Pearl Harbor scale (may be, more severe at least) will wash out this cultural slime, and we’ll see again this stiff upper lip and deadly resolve, that I so much admire in Kipling and Churchill.
Two horrible developments might shake us out of our self-imposed doldrums. A bigger and better 9/11 and the loss of mid east oil. If it’s the first, I have every confidence that we’ll stack the bastards’ corpses high as the moon. If it’s the second, then only as high as Everest.
I used to think so too but the ability of people like Steve to rationalize away such events is truly impressive. If subsequent attacks in Madrid, London and various foiled attacks have done nothing to change those minds – further attacks in the US won’t either. The Steves of the world will continue to make excuses.
Besides, the problem of who to retaliate against remains. Bombs, nuclear or otherwise, or more anthrax will be impossible to trace – the more so because our FBI and CIA are ineffectual and seem to follow their own political goals.
Sure, we would know who probably gave the stuff to the terrorists but Steve and his ilk would never accept anything but a US justice system level of proof – so no retaliation would ever be possible.
As for the oil, we had shortages imposed during the Carter years and nothing was done. At that time the oil exporting countries bought the US economy to its knees and there was NO retaliation, even of an economic nature, much less military.
To be fair to the FBI, they have done a very good job of operational security and success rates, compared to the CIA. There’s a good reason why the FBI doesn’t share info with the CIA, but probably not the other way around.
So long as America (steve) believes that we will win easily or just in the end, grackle, then they are just going to cruise on as if nothing is going to happen. It is this notion, psychological belief, that must be undermined. Madrid didn’t undermine this, because, Madrid was in Spain. Just like the Cole, somewhere other than america. What people don’t see, they don’t believe.
If you don’t believe your life is at risk, grackle, then you are not going to be paying attention to much of anything except entertainment. When Americans start dying off in droves in American cities, then people will start to realize that they might be next.
“We are on the verge of proving our attackers of five years ago right — if they kill enough of us, we will lose our will to win.”
What I can’t figure out is this- How can it be that this war is simultaneously so bad we should pull out, but so nothing that no one at home is involved/sacrificing for the war? How can it be both ways?
I’ll never understand the ‘American public”.
Pingback:gameboys 2007