What I ought to have written is that proportionality is part of just war theory, and that an attack on any site deemed holy by Islam for the reason that it is deemed holy by Muslims would only be justified if necessary to the effective prosecution of the war and proportional to the war waged upon us. To me it is obvious that, with literally hundreds of millions of Muslims opposed to bin Laden's fanaticism, we cannot attack Islamic holy sites without committing an act of grievous immorality as well as strategic incompetence of the highest order. The use of the atomic bombs on two Japanese cities was proportional to the harm our troops would have suffered via conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland, and MAD theory was bottomed on proportionality. Suggesting that WW II tactics or Cold War theory support bombing Mecca betray the ignorance of the proponents, as wellas their indifference to the interests of the United States and the safety of Americans living in Muslim countriesWhich is good stuff...and I can agree with it in total. But then he goes on with this in the next paragraph:
Those advocating an attack on Mecca following a nuclear strike on the United States are arguing that the threat deters the attack. This is absurd and foolish thinking, playing right into bin Laden's madness and propaganda. In the hundreds of e-mails I have received on the subject, not one has yet quoted any military officer of field rank or greater --active duty or retired--or any elected federal official except Congressman Tancredo who has even given lip service to the idea. That's because there are none. The pro-escalation crowd tells themselves that this silence is p.c.-generated censorship when in fact it is proof of the old Irish saying: "When everyone says your drunk, you'd better sit down."First of all, nobody knows if the threat to bomb Mecca would or would not be an effective deterrent. You can call it foolish or absurd if you like, but you are foolish and absurd if you think you know the answer to that question. But if the threat does prevent an attack, isn't the threat worth that risk? And if the Islamofascists do attack us with nukes, there is little harm in not retaliating as prescribed in the threat.
I get what Hugh is trying to say, I just don't think he understands fully what Tancredo is suggesting. Furthermore, I don't care for the name-calling and inflammed rhetoric on his part.
Mark's Remarks
Note to Mr. Hewitt: SHOW ME THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS OPPOSED TO BIN LADEN, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Because, according to most polls, you would be wrong. You are a lawyer, Mr. Hewitt, let's see some evidence.
