Going MAD

there is enough treachery, hatred
violence absurdity
in the average human being
to supply any given army on any given day
--The Genius of the Crowd,
Charles Bukowski

You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil.
You're the margarine of evil.
You're the Diet Coke of evil.
Just one calorie, not evil enough.
--Dr. Evil in Austin Powers (1997)

I'd say that you're all in line
for some important promotions and personal citations
when this thing's over with.
That goes for ever' last one of you
regardless of your race, color or your creed
--Dr. Strangelove (1964)
_________________

for Chief

Let us pretend we are a lensatic compass and that we can turn the bezel ring and change our declination a few degrees -- let us reorient our bearings. Then let us talk about Hitler and World War II.

Let us start with Ranger's belief that the United States should not have participated in World War II. In his opinion, this war was as fruitless and meaningless as any war ever fought (from the U.S. perspective.) Also be aware Ranger is not a closet Nazi or fan of Hitler or of the Japanese Emperor.

Let us set a ground rule: A nation does not fight wars with the sole objective of opposing evil. Foreign policy that opposes evil will always find a war to fight. National strategic objectives and fighting evil are two exclusive concepts, unless one believes in comic book superheroes.

The most common comment justifying the entrance of the U.S. in WWII is that we had to fight the evil that was the Japs and the Lugerheads. But did we really, or did we just bite the big one for the team?

If the Japs were so bad, then why did we not hang Hirohito as a war criminal? Why did the German high command swing but not the Jap chap, and especially since he was a certifiable war criminal, defined as a dude that invades foreign countries, bombs, kills, tortures and generally ignores international law? If he was evil we should have hung him high, especially if fighting evil were our objective.

Compare the actions of Hitler, everyone's favorite bad guy, to those of Hirohito. He was a carbon copy, with the addition of a nasty bit of work in the genocide arena. Hitler also had millions shot, gassed, starved, worked to death and more; the worst sort of customer. But then compare his actions to those of Stalin -- did not the latter do all of those evil things in spades, as well?

Let us remember, too, that Hitler thought Communism the greatest threat facing Western society, and that Fascism and Communism could not exist on the same chessboard. After defeating Hitler, the U.S. adopted his beliefs and policies concerning the Soviet Union; his idea was right but obviously we objected to his operational imperatives.

U.S. Cold War policy was to oppose and destroy Communism, in a civilized manner, meaning no genocide or other nasty stuff. Instead, we adopted a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) in which we were willing to destroy the entire world to defend Capitalism. It was a policy that made sense to us, and we were all in.

The Question is: Why was Hitler evil for his operations, while were the good guys for standing ready to light up the world with unrestrained nuclear war?

If WW II was a just war from the perspective of the U.S., then the resultant good would have had to outweigh the evil required to counter the forces of Hitler and Hirohito. Considering the stance the U.S. chose, it is hard to say that good would have triumphed with any certainty.

The same moral conundrum also addresses the issue of Iranian nuclear aspirations. Are we afraid that they will adopt our policies? Evil is evil wherever you find it, and the employment of nuclear weapons would be evil, regardless of who slings them in his quivers.

Streets Without Joy -- Pt. II

Part I of Streets is what Ranger would explore if giving an introduction to an Army audience. Pt. II is what can never be said concerning State-Sponsored Terrorism.

The military/government courses on terrorism try to keep it simple, and only explore the Bad Guys. Let's throw caution to the wind and discuss the Good Guys.

Of course failed states can breed terror -- but so what? That threat is manageable. Established rogue nations such as Syria, Iran, North Korea present the greater threat.

Russia and China area exactly what they are. Unlike America, they do not purport to base their policies on democratic principles. Their policies reflect ancient, deep-rooted national security concerns, and are based upon these historical facts.

How does the democratic beacon, America, comport itself in this global arena? Presently we have invasion armies occupying two nations. The president and Vice President, with the concurrence of Congress, have given secret instructions to the CIA on the torture of prisoners captured and detained in this Phony War on Terror (PWOT©).

Further, the CIA runs secret prisons worthy of the KGB. Renditions, detainees, indefinite imprisonment, suspension of habeus corpus, warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps ad nauseum are the order of the day. This adds up incontrovertibly to a rogue state. That would be us.

To add insult to injury, in the run-up to the upcoming presidential elections, hawk-alternatives Clinton and Obama are talking tough about using nuclear bombs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is sobering dialog. Clinton said the nuclear option should always be on the table for the U.S. president. What a psychedelic moment for flower-child Hillary and her military-loathing partners.

But she is no more to be censured than than her opportunistic opponents on the Republican side. They are all scooping out rhetoric from the same slop bucket.

The question remains: How can the U.S. oppose the use and development of WMD without being absolutely hypocritical when the option is always a presidential playing card? It's o.k. for us, but not for them, because. . . We have leaders of such Solomon-like wisdom -- say, GWB -- who know how to employ them wisely? Wise nuclear deployment? GWB, Solomon?

What is the yardstick by which one measures an "evil empire"?