Re: War on US Soil

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

French and Indian War, after 1789?  I did not know about that one.

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 01:59:13PM -0400, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
> Henry,
>       The "French and Indian" War, the American Revolution,
> and the War of 1812(-15) were all fought on U.S. soil.  But,
> they were long ago and not all that bloody, although the
> last one did include a torching of the White House.
> Barkley Rosser
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <gang8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 4:16 PM
> Subject: War on US Soil
>
>
> > US attitude toward war has been influenced by its unique history.
> > Except for the Civil War,
> > American experience with war has been remote, being that all recent wars
> > were fought on distant foreign
> > soil or international waters.  This has given Americans a notion of war
> > being heroic and romantic and
> > not particularly terrifying.  Also Americans entertain an illusion that
> > its wars can be stopped by political
> > will, i.e., when Americans decided that they have had enough, they can
> > just pack up and go home to
> > find better things to do.  That was the experience with all US wars
> > after WWII.  The US might not
> > achieved victory, but it was never exposed to any danger of real defeat,
> > in the sense that Germany and
> > Japan experienced defeat and occupation.  Thus to Americans, war is a
> > controlled exercise, with
> > comfortable downsides, not much different than a long football game,
> > with a little more blood.  Lately
> > even the blood part has been eliminated.  The Gulf War produced less US
> > casaulties than any long
> > week-end on american highways.
> >
> > With the globalization of violence through asymmetrical warfare, the
> > situation has changed.  Death and
> > destruction can rain on US soil, on US properties and citizens, without
> > the need of an organized military
> > machine, but only a handful of committed suicidal warriors.
> > Furthermore, the superior military strength
> > that the US has built up proves to be useless, because of lack of
> > symmetry. A technological army needs
> > another technological army to fulfill its full potential.  Bombers with
> > cruise missiles that cost millions are
> > useless without pricey targets.  Also, safe airports against terrorism
> > turn out to cost much more to
> > achieve than sophisticate missile defense systems, and even then full
> > security cannot be guaranteed.
> > The nature of terrorism is that the astronomical cost of hyper effeorts
> > to maintain high security is the
> > damage.  Yet this self-inflicted damage cannot stop, for that is when
> > terrorism will strike again. Thus
> > with zero cost, the opponent can drain US resources at an alarming
> > rate.  As the Reagan adminstration
> > pushed the USSR into financial bankruptcy and political dissolution by
> > forcing it to squander its
> > resources on Star War, the terrorists are doing the same to the US, by
> > forcing the US to self-destruct its
> > excessively sophisticated economy of maximum leverage and just-in-time
> > inventory.  It forces the US to
> > adopt redundancy which is the fatal enemy of productivity.  The fear of
> > another terrorist attack and the
> > cost of trying to prevent that possibility will be hundreds of times
> > more damaging than the attack itself.
> > In the end, the US would have to negotiate and sue for peace, because
> > counter terroism will prove more
> > costly than terroism itself, and retaliation will end up blowing up
> > empty tents and vacant caves with
> > million dollar missiles, not to mention the toll on civil liberty and
> > other life quality issues that the US
> > values.
> >
> > Fighting terrorism with terror means to win is to lose.
> >
> >
> > Henry C.K. Liu
> >
> >
> >
>

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx