Assassination

The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto has placed Pakistan’s big hope for democracy (From the Western point of view) into question. Fundamental Islamists have the potential to establish themselves as the government of Pakistan. This differs from Vietnam in that the assassination of its political figure was actually acting head of state. The parallel here is that of a major political assassination in the early phase of a guerilla war. At the time, the United States government was supportive of change in Vietnam, while today most were hoping that Bhutto would begin a run of positive change in Pakistan. The reason that I am attempting to compare this assassination with Vietnam is because many of the problems present in Pakistan are similar to those in Iraq. The problems are also similar to those found in Gaza, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other Islamic countries. One basic problem is that Islamic law is so hostile to that of the ‘West’. Some examples:

1) The penalty for leaving Islam is death.
2) The penalty for a married woman convicted of adultery is stoning to death.
3) Two women testimony equals that of one man.
4) Tribute. Payment of ‘protection’ money made to Islamic authorities by non-Muslim people.
5) Moral obligation to kill occupiers of Muslim lands.
6) The entire concept of ‘Jihad’.
a) Kill infidels
b) Kill apostates
c) The reward for fighting in Jihad is booty in this world, paradise in the next.
7) Islamic electoral policy of "One man (Men only) One vote, Once."

Islam is grappling with these and other issues today. Islamic fundamentalists believe in these laws. The problem is, these laws are considered to be ‘authentic’ by Muslim scholars. This means the laws are Gods words, and were created by God. You cannot change them without becoming an apostate. Another key here is that these laws (These are only some of them) are commonly accepted throughout the Muslim world. Fundamentalists may be a minority in our culture, but by this definition, Islamic fundamentalists are the majority in most, if not all-Muslim countries. Although this is not a completely accurate comparison, the Ten Commandments dictate behavior for those who follow the Bibles teachings. As you can see, many of the laws in the Koran are hostile and incompatible with those of the Bible and indeed the ‘West’.

Iraq – Vietnam combat losses

United States losses in Vietnam were 55,000 killed and 304,000 wounded. The vast majority of these losses occurred between 1965 and 1973. The time period involved is just under 8 years.
United States losses in Iraq to date are approximately 4,000 killed and 30,000 wounded. The U.S. involvement in Iraq has been for just over 4 and ½ years. At that overall rate, it will take the war in Iraq until approximately the year 2060 to equal the number killed in Vietnam. It will take approximately until the year 2048 to equal the number wounded in Vietnam.

Part of the reason that the percentage of wounded to kill being higher is better medical care. What is missed is the fact that in smaller battles, it is easier to reach and treat the wounded. For example, on June 6, 1944 the United States lost more than 1,400 dead and over 6500 wounded. It would challenge today’s medical staff to treat this many injured people in one day. Not to mention captured enemy wounded. We can be certain (Nobody’s fault) that some died as a result of nobody being able to get to them in time.

The obvious conclusion of the overall casualty rate comparison is that the current war in Iraq is a much smaller war than the war in Vietnam.

Neutron bomb

The Neutron bomb is a tactical nuclear weapon. The blast area is small for nuclear weapons. The weapon has such a design as to produce intensive radiation that decays rapidly. This produces a high fatality rate for those who are inside its blast area. Those who are outside of its range can safely enter the area within a short period of time. One argument against this weapon is that it is more likely to be used than the other weapons that are available. This would make the use of WMD more likely. The area impacted by these weapons is relatively small. The use of these weapons would require more of them to obtain the same overall damage. An argument for the use of this weapon is that if you do need to use weapons of mass destruction, then this has the most limited ecological impact in both the short-term and long term. In addition, relatively small targets may not require ‘larger’ nuclear weapons.

We will more than likely see another world war. Human nature almost demands it. The next world war will most likely see the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. Should Neutron bombs be available? The risk of the war becoming more likely is offset by the advantages in potential limits of ecological damage that exclusive use of neutron bombs could realize.

United States wars:

Included are all declared wars and wars that were undeclared in which the United States lost at least 10,000 dead.

1775 - 1782 Revolutionary War.
1812 - 1815 War of 1812 (Note: The war actually began with the French invasion of Austria in 1805)

1848 Mexican-American war.
1861 - 1865 U.S. Civil War
1889 Spanish-American War.
1917-1918 World War I (War actually began in 1914)
1941-1945 World War II (War in Europe actually began in 1939, Asia began in 1937)
1950-1953 Korean War
1965 - 1973 Vietnam War

The greatest time period between wars is the current period between the end of the war in Vietnam to the present. I put this together to demonstrate how war is common even in democracies. War is a constant factor throughout written history. (I suspect unwritten history as well.) Warfare is human conflict at it’s most violent level. Warfare is part of human nature. We find many reasons to wage war. Defensive wars generally do not require any excuses. But what is defensive war? You may actually start the shooting while acting in a perceived defensive manner. Most people fight and risk their lives to protect their way of life. What is required is to present the war as defense of that way of life. In this case, many times even an otherwise peaceful population will agree to fight.

Saudi King pardons ‘Qatif Girl’.

The case of a woman who had met with an unrelated man has been resolved. (From the point of view of international opinion.) She will no longer be punished by the Saudi judicial system. She and an unrelated man were caught together by 7 or 8 men and both raped. They were then convicted of "improper mingling" and sentenced to 6 months in prison and 200 lashes. This does sound like a set-up. Seven or eight men just happened upon these two, and knew that they were unrelated? And they raped them both? Rape has a rather strong stigma attached to it in that culture. This act appears planned. Possible they were having an affair?

I have searched and searched and have not been able to find out if the man she had been with was also let off. If you have knowledge about this, please leave a comment. It would not surprise me to find out that he is still to be punished. If this case were not so public, I would expect her to be killed within a short period of time. The dishonor she has brought upon her family is, in that culture, punishable by death. (Different from pre-war Japan in that you had to kill yourself.) Not everyone in this culture would kill their own sister or daughter, but many would. In many cases, her own family would likely be the driving force behind her death. In that culture, killing her is an act of penance. Cleansing the family honor. In our culture, it is murder. I think of this as being important because if this is how this culture handles people whom you care a great deal about, how will the same culture handle situations with people who are not close to you? How about people who do not belong within your culture? Most likely, not any better. Possibly, much worse.

How does this pertain to warfare? Although these events are not part of an actual war, the underlying cultural differences are influencing forces behind the conflict. The legal system of the United States and Saudi Arabia (Based upon Islamic law) are so different that they can be seen as being hostile to each other.

Madrassa

I have noticed that the Madrassas that we used to hear about so much after 9/11/01 are not in the news very much the past few years. Madrassa means school, although I am referring to the specific ones that teach ‘authentic’ Islam. Seeing that Islamic terrorists constantly refer to many of the ‘authentic’ laws of Islam, it seems that this is an important part in the ideological war that is taking place. So why little to no news on this subject? I suppose that this subject is not very interesting. Not as news worthy as a bombing which kills 10 people, or an attempt on the life of a major political figure. I have another theory as well.

Waging war is expensive. It costs large amounts of money to pay soldiers, pay for the weapons and training. The men need to eat, and require health care. A wounded soldier is very expensive to care for. Equipment is destroyed and needs to be replaced. Munitions seem to evaporate, through training and use in combat.

The war in Iraq is expensive for the United States for these reasons. Our enemy is also spending vast amounts of resources. Not as much as we are, but in order for them to field the army that opposes us, and supply them, they must be spending much more than they would be otherwise. These resources cannot be sent anywhere else.
In general, the Madrassas that teach ‘authentic’ Islam are free for the students. This is one of the main reasons why parents wish to send their children there. The children are well taken care of, the parents don’t have to support them, and they get an education. (Even if it is limited) The Madrassas cost money to operate. The individuals and organizations that support them now have a choice they have to make. Now that a war is going on in Iraq, money that was funding the Madrassa is not nearly as plentiful. A sizable amount will need to be sent to fight the war in Iraq instead of helping to spread the ‘authentic’ word of Islam.

Civil War in Iraq

One argument against the United States involvement in the war in Iraq is that it is a Civil War. It is not our fight. Although many sides in the war are becoming apparent, the two main groups are Sunni and Shiite. The difference between the two is a result of events that occurred more than 1,000 years ago. They differ in who is the rightful leader of the Muslim world. OK, a number of splits occurred in Christianity over the past millennium. Why are they not killing each other? A major contributing reason is the ‘authentic’ law of Islam that states: "The penalty for leaving Islam is death." The Christian faith may enforce ex-communication, but it is not one of the Ten Commandments. ‘Authentic’ Islamic laws are like the Commandments. They are the basis of behavior, although many other lessons are taught as well.
Sunni’s see the Shiite’s as having left ‘true’ Islam. So they are Apostates. Shiite’s see Sunni’s as having left Islam as well. Not only is the penalty death, but booty is promised to all who fight. In other words, property can be seized. No wonder a Civil War is taking place. However, it is not taking place just in Iraq. The problem is within Islam itself.
A number of laws in Islam are considered ‘authentic’. Authentic laws are considered by Islamic scholars to have been issued by Mohammed himself. In other words, they are God’s laws. If you disagree with other Muslims on any of these, they see you as not believing in God’s laws. Seeing as you are Muslim, you have left ’true’ Islam. If a group of fellow Muslim’s holds your view, it makes sense that organized conflict (war) would result. The promise of Booty encourages this. Both sides see themselves as enforcing Islamic law. Laws to disagree on are plentiful, hence a tendency toward civil unrest and violence. Example: Riots when Nigerian court refused to stone a woman to death when she was married and convicted of adultery.