In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others - Voltaire, Candide.Voltaire refers to the execution of John Byng, Admiral of the Royal Navy, in 1757 for "failing to do his utmost" to engage the enemy, the French. 1 month ago on the 250th anniversary of Byng's death the Ministry of Defence refused a posthumous pardon petition from Byng's descendants. There is a view that Byng's death was unjust, but...
there was more truth in [Voltaire's] epigram than perhaps he knew, for the execution of Byng had a profound effect on the moral climate of the navy … the fate of Byng taught [officers] that even the most powerful political friends might not save an officer who failed to fight. Many things might go wrong with an attack on the enemy, but the only fatal error was not to risk it. Byng's death revived and reinforced a culture of aggressive determination which set British officers apart from their foreign contemporaries, and which in time gave them a steadily mounting psychological ascendancy. More and more in the course of the century, and for long afterwards, British officers encountered opponents who expected to be attacked, and more than half expected to be beaten - NAM Rodger, A Naval History of Britain.I sentence the Minister of Defence, the First Sea Lord and the commander of HMS Cornwall, to be besuited by an Iranian tailor and be taken from this place to the quarterdeck of HMS Cornwall, which shall be berthed by Tower Bridge to permit spectators to pelt them with rotten vegetables, and then be executed by a firing squad of Royal Marines. The bodies shall be gibbeted from a gallows at Wapping to be washed over by 3 tides pour encourager les autres.
Posted by Mark Adams on April 15, 2007 2:48 AM
| Permalink
Comments (2)
You've hit on what I consider to be the central issue of the war on terror.
The colloquialism, "Peace through superior firepower" is still commonly heard in the U.S. among its more sanguine citizens. Its a truism that we ignore at our peril.
You're enemies have to believe that every insult will be met with deadly retribution or they will be "encouraged" to insult you. I am chagrined that it is almost never mentioned that Libya gave up its WMD programs after Iraq was invaded because Khaddafi lost control of his bowels when he saw what happened to his friend Saddam.
Should we withdraw from Iraq, no westerner will be safe anywhere in the world.
Posted by Mick Stockinger | April 15, 2007 8:35 AM
Posted on April 15, 2007 08:35
For example, suppose we'd sunk a few Iranian warships and bombed some airfields in response to the 2004 kidnappings of British sailors or other provocations..how could we worse off than now? Likely much better off in terms of threat credibility with a good chance of far less bloodshed in the long run. Early devastating acts of war by the good guys (us) is the humane course and some fierce aggression by the west is long overdue. Bush has been too compassionate and consensus oriented for what's urgently needed - an iron fist in an iron glove. Romney is right to emphasize the expansion of the US military. A good time for a strike will be when Nancy P is negotiating world peace in Tehran.
Posted by mark | April 15, 2007 4:43 PM
Posted on April 15, 2007 16:43