.jpg)
There is nothing civil about civil wars!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Iran a Threat? I Mean, Really?
Chirac, for one, said exactly what I have been saying for years. Anyone who owns a nuclear weapon and uses it can be expected to be reduced to a radioactive pile of rubble. It's a lot of money to spend on a weapon one dares not use, ever.
If Iran should even appear as though they intend to launch a Nuclear weapon toward Israel, those poor Iranians will pay dearly for the actions of a terribly irresponsible government.
By Ray McGovern
April 27, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- With all the current hype about the "threat" from Iran, it is time to review the record -- and especially the significant bits and pieces that find neither ink nor air in our Israel-friendly, Fawning Corporate Media (FCM).
First, on the chance you missed it, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said publicly that Iran "doesn't directly threaten the United States." Her momentary lapse came while answering a question at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, on Feb. 14.
Fortunately for her, most of her FCM fellow travelers must have been either jet-lagged or sunning themselves poolside when she made her unusual admission. And those who were present did Clinton the favor of disappearing her gaffe and ignoring its significance. (All one happy traveling family, you know.)
But she said it. It's on the State Department Web site. Those who had been poolside could have read the text after showering. They might have recognized a real story there. Granted, the substance was so off-message that it would probably not have been welcomed by editors back home.
In a rambling comment, Clinton had charged (incorrectly) that, despite President Barack Obama's reaching out to the Iranian leaders, he had elicited no sign they were willing to engage:
"Part of the goal -- not the only goal, but part of the goal -- that we were pursuing was to try to influence the Iranian decision regarding whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon. And, as I said in my speech, you know, the evidence is accumulating that that [pursuing a nuclear weapon] is exactly what they are trying to do, which is deeply concerning, because it doesn't directly threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and partners here in this region and beyond." (Emphasis added)
Qatar Afraid? Not So Much
The moderator turned to Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Al-Thani and invited him to give his perspective on "the danger that the Secretary just alluded to...if Iran gets the bomb."
Al-Thani pointed to Iran's "official answer" that it is not seeking to have a nuclear bomb; instead, the Iranians "explain to us that their intention is to use these facilities for their peaceful reactors for electricity and medical use...
"We have good relations with Iran," he added. "And we have continuous dialogue with the Iranians." The prime minister added, "the best thing for this problem is a direct dialogue between the United States and Iran," and "dialogue through messenger is not good."
Al-Thani stressed that, "For a small country, stability and peace are very important," and intimated -- diplomatically but clearly -- that he was at least as afraid of what Israel and the U.S. might do, as what Iran might do.
All right. Secretary Clinton concedes that Iran does not directly threaten the United States. Now who are these "friends" to whom she refers? First and foremost, Israel, of course. How often have we heard Israeli officials warn that they would consider nuclear weapons in Iran's hands an "existential" threat?
Time to do a reality check. Former French President Jacques Chirac is perhaps the best-known world statesman to hold up to public ridicule the notion that Israel, with between 200 and 300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, would consider Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb an existential threat.
In a recorded interview with the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, and Le Nouvel Observateur, on Jan. 29, 2007, Chirac put it this way:
"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."
Chirac concluded that Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb would not be "very dangerous."
Chirac and a Hard Place
Immediately, the former French president found himself caught between Chirac and a hard place. He was forced to retract, but chose to do so in so clumsy a way as to demonstrate rather clearly that he stood by his initial candor on the subject.
On Jan. 30, Chirac told the New York Times:
"I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on record. ... I don't think I spoke about Israel yesterday. Maybe I did so, but I don't think so. I have no recollection of that."
Israel's leaders must have been laughing up their sleeve at that. Their continued ability to intimidate presidents of other countries -- including President Barack Obama -- is truly remarkable, particularly when it comes to helping to keep Israel's precious "secret," that it possesses one of the world's most sophisticated nuclear arsenals.
Shortly after Obama became U.S. President, veteran reporter Helen Thomas asked him if he knew of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, and Obama awkwardly responded that he didn't want to "speculate." Thomas later commented, "I did not ask him to speculate; he is supposed to know!"
More recently, on April 13, 2010, Obama looked like a deer caught in the headlights when the Washington Post's Scott Wilson, taking a leaf out of Helen Thomas' book, asked him if he would "call on Israel to declare its nuclear program and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Watch the video, unless you have no stomach for seeing our normally articulate President stutter his way through an improvised mini-filibuster, and then grovel: "And, as far as Israel goes, I'm not going to comment on their program..."
The following day the Jerusalem Post smirked, "President Dodges Question About Israel's Nuclear Program." The article continued: "Obama took a few seconds to formulate his response, but quickly took the weight off Israel and called on all countries to abide by the NPT."
The Jerusalem Post added that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak chose that same day to send a clear message "also to those who are our friends and allies," that Israel will not be pressured into signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(Also the following day, the Washington Post made no reference to the question from its own reporter or Obama's stumbling non-answer.)
Consistent Obsequiousness
In his response to Scott Wilson, Obama felt it necessary to tack on the observation that his words regarding the NPT represented the "consistent policy" of prior U.S. administrations. This reflects the de rigueur attempt to avert any adverse reaction from the Likud Lobby to even the slightest suggestion that Obama might be ratcheting up, even a notch or two, any pressure on Israel to acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and sign the NPT.
Actually, the greatest consistency to the policy has been U.S. obsequious promotion of a flagrant double standard. Clearly, Washington and the FCM find it easier to draw black-and-white distinctions between noble Israel and evil Iran, if there's no acknowledgement that Israel already has nukes and Iran has disavowed any intention of getting them.
This never-ending hypocrisy shows itself in various telling ways. I am reminded of an early Sunday morning talk show over five years ago at which Sen. Richard Lugar, then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked why Iran might think it has to acquire nuclear weapons. Perhaps Lugar had not yet had his morning coffee, because he almost blew it with his answer:
"Well, you know, Israel has..." Oops. At that point he caught himself and abruptly stopped. The pause was embarrassing, but he then recovered and tried to limit the damage.
Aware that he could not simply leave the words "Israel has" twisting slowly in the wind, Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."
Is "alleged" to have? Lugar was chair of the Foreign Relations Committee from 1985 to 1987; and then again from 2003 to 2007. No one told him that Israel has nuclear weapons? But, of course, he did know, but he also knew that U.S. policy on disclosure of this "secret" -- over four decades -- has been to protect Israel's nuclear "ambiguity."
Small wonder that our most senior officials and lawmakers - and Lugar, remember, is one of the more honest among them -- are widely seen as hypocritical, the word Scott Wilson used to frame his question to Obama.
The Fawning Corporate Media, of course, ignores this hypocrisy, which is their standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in unflattering contexts. But the Iranians, Syrians and others in the Middle East pay very close attention.
Obama Overachieving
As for Obama, the die was cast during the presidential campaign when, on June 3, 2008, in the obligatory appearance before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he threw raw red meat to the Likud Lobby.
Someone wrote into his speech: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided." This obsequious gesture went well beyond the policy of prior U.S. administrations on this highly sensitive issue, and Obama had to backtrack two days later.
"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked if he was saying the Palestinians had no future claim to the city.
The person who inserted the offending sentence into his speech was neither identified nor fired, as he or she should have been. My guess is that the sentence inserter has only risen in power within the Obama administration.
So, why am I reprising this sorry history? Because this is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees as the context of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
Even when Israel acts in a manner that flies in the face of stated U.S. policy, which calls on all nations to sign the NPT and to submit to transparency in their nuclear programs, Netanyahu has every reason to believe that Washington's power-players will back down and the U.S. FCM will intuitively understand its role in the cover-up.
L'Affaire Biden -- when the Vice President was mouse-trapped and humiliated when Israel announced plans to build 1,600 new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem shortly after he arrived in Israel to reaffirm U.S. solidarity with Israel -- was dismissed as a mere "spat" by the neoconservative Washington Post. (If the Post has a vestigial claim to distinction, it is how well it is plugged in to the establishment.)
Making Amends
Rather than Israel making amends to the United States, it has been vice versa.
Obama's national security adviser, James Jones, trudged over to an affair organized by the AIPAC offshoot think tank, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), last Wednesday to make a major address.
I got to wondering, after reading his text, which planet Jones lives on. He devoted his first nine paragraphs to fulsome praise for WINEP's "objective analysis" and scholarship, adding that "our nation -- and indeed the world -- needs institutions like yours now more than ever."
Most importantly, Jones gave pride of place to "preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them," only then tacking on the need to forge "lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians." He was particularly effusive in stating:
"There is no space -- no space -- between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security."
Those were the exact words used by Vice President Joe Biden in Israel on March 9, before he was mouse trapped.
"No Space" -- a Problem
The message is inescapably clear: Netanyahu has every reason to believe that the Siamese-twin relationship with the United States is back to normal, despite the suggestion from CENTCOM Commander, Gen. David Petraeus, earlier this year that total identification with Israel costs the lives of American troops.
Petraeus's main message was that this identification fosters the widespread impression that the U.S. is incapable of standing up to Israel. The briefing that he sponsored reportedly noted, "America was not only viewed as weak, but there was a growing perception that its military posture in the region was eroding."
However, in the address to WINEP, National Security Adviser Jones evidenced no concern on that score. Worse still, in hyping the threat from Iran, he seemed to be channeling Dick Cheney's rhetoric before the attack on Iraq, simply substituting an "n" for the "q." Thus:
"Iran's continued defiance of its international obligations on its nuclear program and its support of terrorism represents (sic) a significant regional and global threat. A nuclear-armed Iran could transform the landscape of the Middle East...fatally wounding the global non-proliferation regime, and emboldening terrorists and extremists who threaten the United States and our allies."
A More Ominous Mousetrap?
Jacques Chirac may have gone a bit too far in belittling Israel's concern over the possibility of Iran acquiring a small nuclear capability, but it is truly hard to imagine that Israel would feel incapable of deterring what would be a suicidal Iranian attack.
The real threat to Israel's "security interests" would be something quite different. If Iran acquired one or two nuclear weapons, Israel might be deprived of the full freedom of action it now enjoys in attacking its Arab neighbors.
Even a rudimentary Iranian capability could work as a deterrent the next time the Israelis decide they would like to attack Lebanon, Syria or Gaza. Clearly, the Israelis would prefer not to have to look over their shoulder at what Tehran might contemplate doing in the way of retaliation.
However, there has been a big downside for Israel in hyping the "existential threat" supposedly posed by Iran. This exaggerated danger and the fear it engenders have caused many highly qualified Israelis, who find a ready market for their skills abroad, to emigrate.
That could well become a true "existential threat" to a small country traditionally dependent on immigration to populate it and on its skilled population to make its economy function. The departure of well-educated secular Jews also could tip the country's political balance more in favor of the ultra-conservative settlers who are already an important part of Netanyahu's Likud coalition.
Still, at this point, Netanyahu has the initiative regarding what will happen next with Iran, assuming Tehran doesn't fully capitulate to the U.S.-led pressure campaign. Netanyahu could decide if and when to launch a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, thus forcing Washington's hand in deciding whether to back Israel if Iran retaliates.
Netanyahu may not be impressed -- or deterred -- by anything short of a public pronouncement from Obama that the U.S. will not support Israel if it provokes war with Iran. The more Obama avoids such blunt language, the more Netanyahu is likely to view Obama as a weakling who can be played politically.
If I am right in thinking that Netanyahu feels himself in the catbird seat, then an Israeli attack on Iran seems more likely than not. For instance, would Netanyahu judge that Obama lacked the political spine to have the U.S. forces controlling Iraqi airspace shoot down Israeli aircraft on their way to Iran? Many analysts feel that Obama would back down and let the warplanes proceed to their targets.
Then, if Iran sought to retaliate, would Obama feel compelled to come to Israel's defense and "finish the job" by devastating what was left of Iran's nuclear and military capacity? Again, many analysts believe that Obama would see little choice, politically.
Yet, whatever we think the answers are, the only calculation that matters is that of Israel's leaders. My guess is Netanyahu would not anticipate a strong reaction from President Obama, who has, time and again, showed himself to have a preference for caving in-to be more politician than statesman.
James Jones is, after all, Obama's national security adviser, and is throwing off signals that can only encourage Netanyahu to believe that Jones's boss would scurry to find some way to avoid the domestic political opprobrium that would accrue, were the President to seem less than fully supportive of Israel.
Key Judgments on Iran Nuclear
Netanyahu has other reasons to take heart with the political direction in Washington.
According to Sunday's Washington Post, the U.S. intelligence community is preparing what is called a Memorandum to Holders of the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 on Iran, in other words an update to that full-scale NIE-the one in which all 15 U.S. intelligence agencies girded their loins and unanimously spoke truth to power about Iran's nuclear program.
The update is now projected for completion this August, delayed from last fall reportedly because of new incoming information coming from sources that the Post describes as "motivated by antipathy toward the government" of Iran. Does this not sound familiar? Think of the similar Iraqi "sources" who provided us with such stellar intelligence on Baghdad's nuclear program.
The Post article recalls that the 2007 NIE presented the "startling conclusion" that Iran had halted work on developing a nuclear warhead. That reportedly occurred four years prior, in the fall of 2003. Why "startling?" Because this contradicted what President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had been saying, repeatedly, for years-right up until the time the Key Judgments of the NIE were sanitized and made public.
It is a hopeful thing that senior intelligence officials from both CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have, as the Post puts it, "avoided contradicting the language used in the 2007 NIE." Some, though, are said to be privately asserting their belief that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. Apparently, "faith-based intelligence" is not yet dead.
The Post says there is an expectation that the previous NIE "will be corrected" to indicate a darker interpretation of Iranian nuclear program.
It seems a safe, if sad, bet that the same Likud-friendly forces that attacked experienced diplomat Chas Freeman as a "realist" and got him "un-appointed," after National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair had named him Director of the National Intelligence Council, will try to Netanyahu-ize the upcoming Memorandum to Holders.
The National Intelligence Council has purview over such memoranda, as well as over NIEs. Without Freeman, or anyone similarly substantive and strong, it is doubtful that the intelligence community will not be able to resist the political pressures to conform.
Resisting Pressure
Nevertheless, the intelligence admirals, generals and other high officials seem to be avoiding the temptation to play that game, so far.
The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen. Ronald Burgess, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. James Cartwright, hewed to the intelligence analysts' judgments in their testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last Wednesday.
Indeed, their answer to the question as to how soon Iran could have a deliverable nuclear weapon, in fact, sounded very familiar:
"Experience says it is going to take you three to five years" to move from having enough highly enriched uranium to having a "deliverable weapon that is usable... something that can actually create a detonation, an explosion that would be considered a nuclear weapon," Cartwright told the panel.
What makes Cartwright's assessment familiar -- and relatively reassuring -- is that five years ago, a previous DIA director told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade" -- this decade. Now, we're early in that decade and Iran's nuclear timetable, if you assume it does intend to build a bomb, has been pushed back to the middle of this decade.
Indeed, the Iranians have been about five years away from a nuclear weapon for several decades now, according to periodic intelligence estimates. They just never seem to get much closer. But there's no trace of embarrassment among U.S. policymakers or any notice of this slipping timetable by the FCM.
Not that NIEs -- or U.S. officials -- matter much in terms of a potential military showdown with Iran. The "decider" here is Netanyahu, unless Obama stands up and tells him, publicly, "If you attack Iran, you're on your own."
Don't hold your breath.
There is nothing civil about civil wars!
Why Soldiers Get A Kick Out Of Killing
Training young men to become enthusiastic killers. How, then, do you "untrain" them before they rejoin a civilized society.
Are we creating sociopaths to join the small percentage that already exist in uniform at any given time?
Nature or Nurture?
By John Horgan
April 27, 2010 "Scientific America" - April 23, 2010 -- Do some soldiers enjoy killing? If so, why? This question is thrust upon us by the recently released video of U.S. Apache helicopter pilots shooting a Reuters cameraman and his driver in Baghdad in 2007. Mistaking the camera of the Reuters reporter for a weapon, the pilots machine-gunned the reporter and driver and other nearby people.
The most chilling aspect of the video, which was made public by Wikileaks, is the chatter between two pilots, whose names have not been released. As Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times put it, the soldiers "revel in their kill." "Look at those dead bastards," one pilot says. "Nice," the other replies.
The exchange reminds me of a Times story from March 2003, during the U.S. invasion of Baghdad. The reporter quotes Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, a Marine sharpshooter, saying, "We had a great day. We killed a lot of people." Noting that his troop killed an Iraqi woman standing near a militant, Schrumpf adds, "I'm sorry, but the chick was in the way."
Does the apparent satisfaction—call it the Schrumpf effect—that some soldiers take in killing stem primarily from nature or nurture? Nature, claims Richard Wrangham, an anthropologist at Harvard University and an authority on chimpanzees. Wrangham asserts that natural selection embedded in both male humans and chimpanzees—our closest genetic relatives—an innate propensity for "intergroup coalitionary killing" [pdf], in which members of one group attack members of a rival group. Male humans "enjoy the opportunity" to kill others, Wrangham says, especially if they run little risk of being killed themselves.
Several years ago, geneticists at Victoria University in New Zealand linked violent male aggression to a variant of a gene that encodes for the enzyme monoamine oxidase A, which regulates the function of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. According to the researchers, the so-called "warrior gene" is carried by 56 percent of Maori men, who are renowned for being "fearless warriors," and only 34 percent of Caucasian males.
But studies of World War II veterans suggest that very few men are innately bellicose. The psychiatrists Roy Swank and Walter Marchand found that 98 percent of soldiers who endured 60 days of continuous combat suffered psychiatric symptoms, either temporary or permanent. The two out of 100 soldiers who seemed unscathed by prolonged combat displayed "aggressive psychopathic personalities," the psychiatrists reported. In other words, combat didn't drive these men crazy because they were crazy to begin with.
Surveys of WWII infantrymen carried out by U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall found that only 15 to 20 percent had fired their weapons in combat, even when ordered to do so. Marshall concluded that most soldiers avoid firing at the enemy because they fear killing as well as being killed. "The average and healthy individual," Marshall contended in his postwar book Men Against Fire, "has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility…At the vital point he becomes a conscientious objector."
Critics have challenged Marshall's claims, but the U.S. military took them so seriously that it revamped its training to boost firing rates in subsequent wars, according to Dave Grossman, a former U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and professor of psychology at West Point. In his 1995 book On Killing, Grossman argues that Marshall's results have been corroborated by reports from World War I, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic wars and other conflicts. "The singular lack of enthusiasm for killing one's fellow man has existed throughout military history," Grossman asserts.
The reluctance of ordinary men to kill can be overcome by intensified training, direct commands from officers, long-range weapons and propaganda that glorifies the soldier's cause and dehumanizes the enemy. "With the proper conditioning and the proper circumstances, it appears that almost anyone can and will kill," Grossman writes. Many soldiers who kill enemies in battle are initially exhilarated, Grossman says, but later they often feel profound revulsion and remorse, which may transmute into post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments. Indeed, Grossman believes that the troubles experienced by many combat veterans are evidence of a "powerful, innate human resistance toward killing one's own species."
In other words, the Schrumpf effect is usually a product less of nature than of nurture—although "nurture" is an odd term for training that turns ordinary young men into enthusiastic killers.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
John Horgan, a former Scientific American staff writer, directs the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology. (Photo courtesy of Skye Horgan.)
By John Horgan
April 27, 2010 "Scientific America" - April 23, 2010 -- Do some soldiers enjoy killing? If so, why? This question is thrust upon us by the recently released video of U.S. Apache helicopter pilots shooting a Reuters cameraman and his driver in Baghdad in 2007. Mistaking the camera of the Reuters reporter for a weapon, the pilots machine-gunned the reporter and driver and other nearby people.
The most chilling aspect of the video, which was made public by Wikileaks, is the chatter between two pilots, whose names have not been released. As Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times put it, the soldiers "revel in their kill." "Look at those dead bastards," one pilot says. "Nice," the other replies.
The exchange reminds me of a Times story from March 2003, during the U.S. invasion of Baghdad. The reporter quotes Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, a Marine sharpshooter, saying, "We had a great day. We killed a lot of people." Noting that his troop killed an Iraqi woman standing near a militant, Schrumpf adds, "I'm sorry, but the chick was in the way."
Does the apparent satisfaction—call it the Schrumpf effect—that some soldiers take in killing stem primarily from nature or nurture? Nature, claims Richard Wrangham, an anthropologist at Harvard University and an authority on chimpanzees. Wrangham asserts that natural selection embedded in both male humans and chimpanzees—our closest genetic relatives—an innate propensity for "intergroup coalitionary killing" [pdf], in which members of one group attack members of a rival group. Male humans "enjoy the opportunity" to kill others, Wrangham says, especially if they run little risk of being killed themselves.
Several years ago, geneticists at Victoria University in New Zealand linked violent male aggression to a variant of a gene that encodes for the enzyme monoamine oxidase A, which regulates the function of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. According to the researchers, the so-called "warrior gene" is carried by 56 percent of Maori men, who are renowned for being "fearless warriors," and only 34 percent of Caucasian males.
But studies of World War II veterans suggest that very few men are innately bellicose. The psychiatrists Roy Swank and Walter Marchand found that 98 percent of soldiers who endured 60 days of continuous combat suffered psychiatric symptoms, either temporary or permanent. The two out of 100 soldiers who seemed unscathed by prolonged combat displayed "aggressive psychopathic personalities," the psychiatrists reported. In other words, combat didn't drive these men crazy because they were crazy to begin with.
Surveys of WWII infantrymen carried out by U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall found that only 15 to 20 percent had fired their weapons in combat, even when ordered to do so. Marshall concluded that most soldiers avoid firing at the enemy because they fear killing as well as being killed. "The average and healthy individual," Marshall contended in his postwar book Men Against Fire, "has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility…At the vital point he becomes a conscientious objector."
Critics have challenged Marshall's claims, but the U.S. military took them so seriously that it revamped its training to boost firing rates in subsequent wars, according to Dave Grossman, a former U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and professor of psychology at West Point. In his 1995 book On Killing, Grossman argues that Marshall's results have been corroborated by reports from World War I, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic wars and other conflicts. "The singular lack of enthusiasm for killing one's fellow man has existed throughout military history," Grossman asserts.
The reluctance of ordinary men to kill can be overcome by intensified training, direct commands from officers, long-range weapons and propaganda that glorifies the soldier's cause and dehumanizes the enemy. "With the proper conditioning and the proper circumstances, it appears that almost anyone can and will kill," Grossman writes. Many soldiers who kill enemies in battle are initially exhilarated, Grossman says, but later they often feel profound revulsion and remorse, which may transmute into post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments. Indeed, Grossman believes that the troubles experienced by many combat veterans are evidence of a "powerful, innate human resistance toward killing one's own species."
In other words, the Schrumpf effect is usually a product less of nature than of nurture—although "nurture" is an odd term for training that turns ordinary young men into enthusiastic killers.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
John Horgan, a former Scientific American staff writer, directs the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology. (Photo courtesy of Skye Horgan.)
There is nothing civil about civil wars!
Progressive Surge In The U.K.
NTERNATIONAL RELATIONS With national elections approaching on May 6, the United Kingdom hosted its first-ever prime ministerial TV debate last week, featuring Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party, David Cameron of the Conservative Party, and Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats. Heading into the debate, the election was "considered too close to call" and "likely to be a two-horse race between Labour and the Conservatives." But Clegg, who offered himself "up as the fresh and honest alternative to two tired old parties," was the clear winner in the post-debate polls, instantly altering the dynamics of the race. Clegg's debate performance and the subsequent surge in the polls for the Liberal Democrats has led some observers to compare him to President Obama and his rise in the 2008 campaign. The three leaders engaged in a second debate yesterday, in which Cameron and Brown both engaged Clegg more aggressively in an effort to stop what some have dubbed "Cleggmania." Though the Liberal Democrats are often labeled the "centrist party" in Britain, much of Clegg's surge has been attributed to his steadfast advocacy for progressive policy positions.
STANDING FOR PROGRESS: Staking his claim to the mantle of progressive leadership, Clegg declared last night, "We shouldn't be facing allegations of complicity in torture. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq. ... I want us to lead in creating a world free of nuclear weapons and I want us to lead on the biggest challenge of all – climate change." Brown and Clegg stressed their policy differences. Clegg proudly declared his support for the legalization of undocumented immigrants, arguing, "If they want to play by the rules, pay their taxes, speak English: that is a smart, fair effective way of dealing with immigration." Brown and Cameron responded by accusing Clegg of supporting "amnesty." They also attacked Clegg from the right over his proposal to include Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent in the strategic defense review after the election, which Clegg says could lead to a "cheaper and better" alternative. In defending his position on Trident, Clegg cited Obama: "President Obama said last week, I think quite rightly, that now the greatest threat to us is not the Cold War threat of old. It's terrorists getting hold of dirty bombs." Both Cameron and Brown have tried to use Clegg's Trident position to portray him as weak on Iran. "I say to you, Nick, get real, get real, because Iran, you're saying, might be able to have a nuclear weapon, and you wouldn't take action against them, but you're saying that we have got to give up our Trident submarines and our nuclear weapon now," said Brown. "To say, get real, what is dangerous is to commit to spend" up to £100 billion "that we might not have on a system which almost certainly won't help, when the world is changing, when we're facing new threats," replied Clegg strongly. Among Brits who watched yesterday's debate, Clegg was viewed as the narrow winner.
EUROPE MATTERS: In last night's debate, Brown attempted to paint both of his rivals as outside the mainstream when it comes to foreign relations. "I am afraid David is anti-European, Nick is anti- American. Both of them are out of touch with reality," said Brown. Brown's claim that Clegg is anti-American is unfair, as Clegg says he is "an Atlanticist" who wants "a positive, strong and even uniquely warm relationship with the United States." But he is right to raise concerns about Cameron's Euro-skepticism. In a column released yesterday, Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta wrote that "worryingly, under David Cameron's leadership, the Conservative Party's traditional Euro-skepticism has become more extreme." Pointing to Cameron's decision to have the Conservative Party leave the European People's Party -- the main center-right grouping in the European Parliament -- "to form a new parliamentary group with a maverick collection of racist, homophobic, and xenophobic members of the European Parliament," Podesta noted that "Cameron's willingness to forgo political influence to placate extreme elements of his own party" would hurt U.S. interests if he were to become Prime Minister. "American hopes for a more dynamic and equal European partner are still much less likely to be realized if Britain is on the fringes of the debate about the future of the union," wrote Podesta. Both Brown and Clegg criticized Cameron yesterday for aligning himself with "right-wing extremists," in Brown's words, or as Clegg called them, "nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, [and] homophobes."
CAMERON'S PROBLEMS: Cameron's willingness to make common cause with Europe's far-right parties has caused him to stumble in his efforts to appear mainstream on a number of issues. Though Cameron has made an effort to reach out to the LGBT community in the past year, the change in conservative attitudes towards gay rights appear to be more rhetorical than substantive. Last summer, "Cameron offered a public apology for section 28, the controversial Tory legislation introduced in the 1980s that banned the 'promotion' of homosexuality in schools" even though he voted "against the repeal of section 28 as recently as 2003." Last month, Cameron sat for an interview with an LGBT magazine to promote the party's alleged move to the left on social and equality issues, but paused the interview after he fumbled an answer about the Tories' voting record on gay equality. Then, a Tory Member of Parliament was secretly recorded as saying that "people who ran bed and breakfasts in their homes should 'have the right' to turn away homosexual couples." Last week, Cameron's shadow defense minister said that gay sex should be illegal for 16 and 17 year olds and compared it to preventing "service personnel aged under 18 from fighting on frontlines." Though Cameron's political coalition is home to Britain's climate deniers, he says he believes that "we need a greater sense of urgency on climate change." Cameron has made some positive efforts on this front, even sending his shadow minister on the environment and climate change to America in order to lobby Republican lawmakers to support clean energy legislation. But at the same time, Cameron has described himself as a "Lawsonian," referring to Lord Nigel Lawson, who has written that he has "no idea whether the majority scientific view" on climate change "(and it is far from a consensus) is correct." Lawson has also said that "there is a strong moral argument [to keep emitting]" and that "a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages."
STANDING FOR PROGRESS: Staking his claim to the mantle of progressive leadership, Clegg declared last night, "We shouldn't be facing allegations of complicity in torture. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq. ... I want us to lead in creating a world free of nuclear weapons and I want us to lead on the biggest challenge of all – climate change." Brown and Clegg stressed their policy differences. Clegg proudly declared his support for the legalization of undocumented immigrants, arguing, "If they want to play by the rules, pay their taxes, speak English: that is a smart, fair effective way of dealing with immigration." Brown and Cameron responded by accusing Clegg of supporting "amnesty." They also attacked Clegg from the right over his proposal to include Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent in the strategic defense review after the election, which Clegg says could lead to a "cheaper and better" alternative. In defending his position on Trident, Clegg cited Obama: "President Obama said last week, I think quite rightly, that now the greatest threat to us is not the Cold War threat of old. It's terrorists getting hold of dirty bombs." Both Cameron and Brown have tried to use Clegg's Trident position to portray him as weak on Iran. "I say to you, Nick, get real, get real, because Iran, you're saying, might be able to have a nuclear weapon, and you wouldn't take action against them, but you're saying that we have got to give up our Trident submarines and our nuclear weapon now," said Brown. "To say, get real, what is dangerous is to commit to spend" up to £100 billion "that we might not have on a system which almost certainly won't help, when the world is changing, when we're facing new threats," replied Clegg strongly. Among Brits who watched yesterday's debate, Clegg was viewed as the narrow winner.
EUROPE MATTERS: In last night's debate, Brown attempted to paint both of his rivals as outside the mainstream when it comes to foreign relations. "I am afraid David is anti-European, Nick is anti- American. Both of them are out of touch with reality," said Brown. Brown's claim that Clegg is anti-American is unfair, as Clegg says he is "an Atlanticist" who wants "a positive, strong and even uniquely warm relationship with the United States." But he is right to raise concerns about Cameron's Euro-skepticism. In a column released yesterday, Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta wrote that "worryingly, under David Cameron's leadership, the Conservative Party's traditional Euro-skepticism has become more extreme." Pointing to Cameron's decision to have the Conservative Party leave the European People's Party -- the main center-right grouping in the European Parliament -- "to form a new parliamentary group with a maverick collection of racist, homophobic, and xenophobic members of the European Parliament," Podesta noted that "Cameron's willingness to forgo political influence to placate extreme elements of his own party" would hurt U.S. interests if he were to become Prime Minister. "American hopes for a more dynamic and equal European partner are still much less likely to be realized if Britain is on the fringes of the debate about the future of the union," wrote Podesta. Both Brown and Clegg criticized Cameron yesterday for aligning himself with "right-wing extremists," in Brown's words, or as Clegg called them, "nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, [and] homophobes."
CAMERON'S PROBLEMS: Cameron's willingness to make common cause with Europe's far-right parties has caused him to stumble in his efforts to appear mainstream on a number of issues. Though Cameron has made an effort to reach out to the LGBT community in the past year, the change in conservative attitudes towards gay rights appear to be more rhetorical than substantive. Last summer, "Cameron offered a public apology for section 28, the controversial Tory legislation introduced in the 1980s that banned the 'promotion' of homosexuality in schools" even though he voted "against the repeal of section 28 as recently as 2003." Last month, Cameron sat for an interview with an LGBT magazine to promote the party's alleged move to the left on social and equality issues, but paused the interview after he fumbled an answer about the Tories' voting record on gay equality. Then, a Tory Member of Parliament was secretly recorded as saying that "people who ran bed and breakfasts in their homes should 'have the right' to turn away homosexual couples." Last week, Cameron's shadow defense minister said that gay sex should be illegal for 16 and 17 year olds and compared it to preventing "service personnel aged under 18 from fighting on frontlines." Though Cameron's political coalition is home to Britain's climate deniers, he says he believes that "we need a greater sense of urgency on climate change." Cameron has made some positive efforts on this front, even sending his shadow minister on the environment and climate change to America in order to lobby Republican lawmakers to support clean energy legislation. But at the same time, Cameron has described himself as a "Lawsonian," referring to Lord Nigel Lawson, who has written that he has "no idea whether the majority scientific view" on climate change "(and it is far from a consensus) is correct." Lawson has also said that "there is a strong moral argument [to keep emitting]" and that "a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages."
There is nothing civil about civil wars!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)