“It should be noted that when President Harry Truman was considering whether to invade Japan instead of dropping the bombs, his advisers estimated that an invasion would result in one million American casualties and at least two million Japanese deaths. In the strange calculus of war, the bombs actually saved Japanese lives.”This statement is categorically and demonstrably false, as was discussed in the previous post. The military’s casualty estimates were actually far, far lower; only after the bombs were dropped did Truman start citing the million-man statistic. As a result, Kozak’s claim that the atomic bombings saved Japanese lives and were therefore not only justified, but humane – America’s first atomic-age “humanitarian intervention,” if you will – is a gross distortion of the facts. Perhaps sensing the unconvincing nature of this argument, Kozak attempts to bolster his case by making a number of sweeping generalizations:
“Focusing on the atomic bombs paints the Japanese as victims, like other participants in World War II. They were not. The Japanese, like their German allies, were bent on global conquest and the destruction of other people who did not fit their bizarre racial theories.”This is truly an astounding statement, staggering in its implications. Are we really expected to believe that all of the women and children and old men obliterated by the bombs were “bent on global conquest” or fervent believers in “bizarre racial theories”? By painting “the Japanese” as a monolithic aggressor, Kozak conveniently denies any distinction between ordinary citizens trapped under totalitarian rule and their militarist leaders. But to Kozak and fellow advocates of total war, there are no distinctions – there is only the Enemy, and the Enemy must be destroyed, by any means necessary.
Kozak goes even further, likening the U.S. envoy’s presence at the Hiroshima memorial to President Reagan’s paying of respects to SS troops interred in a German cemetery – equating the countless thousands killed in the atomic blasts to Hitler’s infamous personal guard. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of those killed by the atomic bombs were civilians, a far cry from the “demented murderers” of the SS that Kozak rightfully castigates. But to acknowledge any dissimilarity between these two radically different groups is a sign of weakness as far as Kozak is concerned:
“Young people today may have a hard time understanding that point because of the moral equivalence and political correctness that have taken over our society, our media and especially our universities. It teaches our children that all countries have good and bad elements within them — something so obvious that it's trite. But this lesson has become so powerful that it is not out of the norm for young people today to believe that, while World War II was certainly horrible, all sides share some blame.”What other lesson is there to draw from the deadliest war in world history, one from which none of the combatants emerged with clean hands? Atrocities were committed on all sides. Responsibility for those atrocities should be doled out accordingly. Kozak derides this notion as “moral equivalence.” But what else would he have us make of acts that are, at base, morally equivalent? Rather than acknowledge that “all sides share some blame,” Kozak seems to want to persist in the fantasy that the U.S. and its allies were uniquely blameless, that the other side “forced” them to commit this or that atrocity, and their hands remain clean in spite of the innocent blood shed.
This is not unfamiliar territory for Kozak, however. His byline mentions that he has authored a biography of General Curtis LeMay, architect of the Tokyo firebombing, who once admitted he would have been tried as a war criminal if the Japanese had won the war. And a quick perusing of Kozak’s work for the Journal turns up last December’s op-ed “The Real Rules of War,” the sub-headline of which reads: “Sometimes the good guys do commit ‘war crimes.’” The scare quotes around “war crimes” are the least of the problems with that article, which contains this gem:
“Rules of war are important. They are something to strive for as they separate us from our distant ancestors. But when only one side follows these rules, they no longer elevate us. They create a very unlevel field and more than a little frustration. It is equally bizarre for any of us to judge someone's behavior in war by the rules we follow in our very peaceful universe. We sit in homes that are air-conditioned in the summer and warmed in the winter. We have more than enough food in our bellies and we get enough sleep. The stress in our lives won't ever match the stress of battle. Can we honestly begin to decide if a soldier acted in compliance with rules that work perfectly well on Main Street but not, say, in Malmedy or Fallujah?”In other words: the Geneva Conventions are nice guidelines, but if they get broken, no big deal. And if they are broken, who has the right to judge, anyway? Stripped of its pathos-laden depictions of the trials and tribulations of war, Kozak’s point is simple: if one does not have military experience, one cannot question, much less criticize, the actions of soldiers on the battlefield. The brilliance of this sort of logic is that it essentially demands that war critics shut up, while a convenient loophole allows armchair generals like Kozak and the rest of the Journal op-ed hawks to continue spouting their pro-war rhetoric. They may not have fought on the battlefield. But then they’re not questioning – or criticizing.
No comments:
Post a Comment