Dirty War, Clean War

War has changed. The days of uniformed soldiers hunkering down in trenches are fading.

First of all, one main combatant today has no armied forces. Fighters operate out of clandestine cells spread around the globe. It is led by a nebulous, self-perpetuating cadre of men – you will not find women leading this insanity - directing a large flow of arms and terror with the goal to kill innocents and thereby honor a good and almighty God. It's a very dirty way to fight.

Make no mistake, man is not advanced compared to unreasoning animals.

The other main combatant is driving technology to its war-wicked limits by building bombs that penetrate deep bunkers, cruise missiles that can drop the bunker blaster on a peso, and drone airplanes that fire missiles that carry death to the enemy with nary an American scratch. The drones can be piloted out of Washington DC to kill people in Pakistan. It's a very clean way to fight.

The first combatant is motivated by the mad-minded extreme human interpretation of a religious book. The latter is driven by modern media that bring vivid photos of death to the doorstep over the cell phone, instilling a rabid desire for a sanitized war absent any American harm.

The motivation to avoid American deaths has driven American war policy since World War II. Cell phone and U-Tube videos have made it an obsession.

The Philippine connection comes from this principle of a sanitized war, and the price the Philippines played because of it.

Intramuros. Do you know of it? I did not until the History Channel a few weeks ago explained the battle for Manila in WW II in all its irrational, gruesome, heart-wrenching detail. Two mighty war machines met in Manila, one determined to win, no matter the cost, one determined to fight to the end, no matter the cost. The cost was the slaughter of 100,000 Filipino civilians caught in the ruthless cross-fire between Japanese atrocities and American cannons. About 16,000 Japanese soldiers died in the battle for Manila. About 1,000 Americans soldiers died. 100,000. 16,000. 1,000.

The American perspective was that any amount of firepower was preferable to the loss of one American life. No matter what or who was at the other end of the firepower. This was an extension of the thinking that would soon order up atom bombs for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Win, win decisively, no matter the cost to others. Stop the fighting with power and might. Win the war. Save lives. Especially American lives.

Back story. The Japanese in the Philippines were so decimated by February 1945 that they feared revolt from Filipinos. The Japanese knew they could not hold back such a tide. So they gathered up Filipino men – husbands, brothers, sons - killed them without mercy, and threw them into the sea or left the bodies in the streets and buildings. By the thousands. 600 corpses were found in the underground rooms of Intramuros alone, where the Japanese made their last stand. More bodies were found, arms and legs tied, outside the Intramuros walls, facing the incoming American artillery.

Many Japanese had to get drunk to sustain the insanity of their atrocities; others committed suicide or were killed. Few surrendered.

The madness of war also had the Americans in its grip. If Americans had been bound arm and leg and tied to the outside wall, would the cannons have been fired so relentlessly?

I doubt it.

That is a horrible recognition.

So how does an American who strives for high principle deal with the recognition that his fellow countrymen, on this occasion, were mindlessly ruthless? I stretch for any justification.

A: The past no longer exists. “Well, we Americans are different now. We were racist then but that changed in the 1960's and 1970's. So let's forget about it and move on. It doesn't count any more.”

B: Dump the blame. “Well, if the Filipinos hadn't coddled the Japanese, had risen up, they could have ended the war a lot sooner and easier. They were too passive. So they are just as much at fault.”

C: The Nagasaki rationale. “The Japanese were the villains here, not the Americans. If the US had not thrown all that firepower at them and ended the war quickly, they would have slaughtered even more Filipinos. The Japanese did not believe in surrender. Be thankful the Americans freed Manila from those butchers.”

D: War is hell. “War is fought from afar where generals do not see the destruction or smell the reek of death. They see markings on a war map. It is a cold, remote, rational exercise detached from the horror and loud, frantic bloodletting in the field. It's simply the way of things. Don't search for sanity in a battlefield.”

E: The apology. “I'm sorry for what those Americans back then did. I had nothing to do with it, you know.”

F: Build and defend. “Let's make sure the Philippines can take care of itself and no longer has to rely on those who serve their own interests first. That is something to work for.”

Well, of course, I choose Option F. But I soften my personal burden by believing each of the other arguments holds at least a thimbleful of water. But still, I feel a burden imposed by my country's acts.

What do we see if we move from WWII to the present?

The pro-forma American war is technological and sanitized.

The pro-forma Al Queda war is psychological and ruthless.

Today the fight is pretty much a standoff. Both combatants win or lose a skirmish once in a while; both are searching for the dominant strike: America, to kill Osama bin Laden, Al Queda, to nuke New York.

One can be assured that Al Queda will not take up a kinder, gentler approach. Their plan, after all, is working. Recruiting is up and even some American Muslims are tilting toward their religion and away from the patriotic American “freedom of religion” ideal. The extremists are successfully spreading terror and unrest in a score of nations, including the Philippines. From the chaos, they intend to see Allah rising. They have no agenda but death and terror. They offer no kindness.

The question I would pose is, should the US take up a more aggressive approach to stop this inhumane scourge? The US is cast as a demon if it kills one innocent. The enemy paints itself the angel if it murders thousands. There is no logic here.

If the strategy would reasonably assure that New York would not be nuked, should the US rain death across the hillsides of Western Pakistan and anywhere else where a good many known terrorists hide among civilians? Should the US return to the ruthless rain of bombs and aggression to impose unbearable suffering to stop the madness? In other words, deploy the same strategy that destroyed Manila, Hiroshima and Nagasaki but brought WWII to an end?

Is the moral imperative to do what is necessary to end the war soon, no matter the cost, or is the moral imperative to use restraint where civilians are present, even if it may place American lives at risk? Millions of lives?

I have my answer, but it is shaky. I'd welcome other insights.