Re: War on US Soil

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

     Henry did not specify "after 1789," although
clearly the F & I War was not fought by the US
government, as that did not exist yet.  He spoke
of "American experience," which arguably includes
that earlier conflict.  But, I agree that these are all
so long ago anyway as to be irrelevant to recent
or current attitudes.
     BTW, Michael, you argued that it woudl be a
good thing to have Bush be president rather than
Gore because he would get blamed for the recession.
I warned when you made that argument that it would
be like with Reagan, the recession would happen early
and he would get the credit for the recovery.  Now, not'
only will he get credit for the recovery, but he will become
a war hero president.  The WSJ is already urging him to
use his popularity to push through his "whole agenda."
Goody.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: War on US Soil


> 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
>