I do think there has been a certain weakening of nerve today when it comes to anything dangerous or threatening, and this comes from our ever-greater pursuit of security in all things. Perhaps this is a function of the “feminisation” of our society, perhaps it is a function of technological advances and the habits of convenience and safety that eliminate a large part of risk from ordinary life. On the other hand, there is a fairly sane reason behind this trend when it comes to conflict, which is the horror of millions upon millions being killed for the benefit or this or that government.

Losing a callousness towards the taking of life on a large scale seems to me to be a small measure of moral progress, but becoming so enamoured of life itself that you balk at taking necessary action against, say, hostage-takers for fear that it may backfire is to respect life less by being less willing to protect it. There is probably a softening that has resulted from an indulgent and relatively easy lifestyle, and this kind of lifestyle makes solidarity with the soldiers even harder, as the ongoing sacrifices and dedication of men at war are an embarrassment to a people so self-absorbed that their biggest worry is how high gas prices are, and so on. The continuation of these small wars is the worst for this sort of thing, because we all know that we continue to live our lives basically unchanged while men are dying for…well, it’s not at all clear to me what they’re dying for.

The irony of democratic wars is that if the mobilisation of the society is total and the casualties are high, antiwar sentiment may materialise but will be driven from the field of respectable opinion. Governments, especially in WWI, might have wanted to make peace but simply could not defy the nationalist, democratic frenzy into which the general population had been thrown–only victory could make the deaths of millions seem meaningful. Democracies are the most persistent in war once they have committed many lives to a cause.

Wars of choice are the worst for democracies, especially those with professional armies, however, because the public sees the casualties (typically lower than in the large-scale mass wars) and perceives two things: they are contributing nothing to the war effort in which these men are dying, which makes them unsure that they should continue to support a war to which they have given nothing, and the numbers are small enough that the losses become personalised in a way that the mass casualty lists do not allow. This does sap domestic morale–this is only heightened in the age of constant news coverage, etc. During wars of choice, antiwar sentiment always has a chance to win the day because there are always nagging doubts in the minds of the people about whether the war of choice was really worthwhile. The longer it drags on, instead of steadfastness and endurance until victory (however it is defined) you have fatigue and a desire to end the war that simply could not happen if millions are in uniform committed to the effort.

Also, that America went for total surrender is interesting. It’s a better example of what Podhoretz is talking about. Today we’d jumped at the first opportunity of a end to a war, even if that meant giving in a little bit to immoral demands. (Not that I think it’s that simple that Japan was immoral.)

Another example is hostage taking. I imagine years ago the people would have been able to deal with the deaths of hundreds of hostages at the hands of terrorists with whom they refused to negotiate. Today, there’re are plenty of people who would want to give in and just hand over the money.

think in times of peace and reflection we can admit that even in an existential struggle certain actions should not be undertaken, and one such is the indiscriminate bombing of civilians under the aegis of modern, “total war.” This does not mean that the Nazi regime had any standing to complain, of course, nor the vast legions of Nazi supporters within that regime did not deserve their fate. That said, simply because we were on the right side of that war does not mean that there were no horrors or excesses that were objectively wrong and should not have been undertaken.

There is no need to adopt a consequentialist morality that says for any good goal any means may be pursued. The distinction between civilians and combatants is an essential Western concept. It’s the basis for our condemnation of terrorism. It’s regrettable that the strategic bombing of WWII did much to erase that distinction in our own behavior.

The Japan case is somewhat different, as the objective impact of the bombing was to end the war and save countless American and Japanese lives, in contrast to the gratuitous firebombings of German cities in late 1944 and early 1945. It should still trouble conservatives, however, who recognize that there are values that transcend our own nation’s interests, such as the distinction between civilians and combatants, a distinction worth risk ultimately to our own forces and, perhaps, our own survival.