home / subscribe / about us / books / archives / search / links / feedback

 

New Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively to Subscribers: Patrick Cockburn's Eyewitness in Baghdad: Saddam's Stuffed Horse; Inside the Looting of the Iraq National History Museum; the Rise of the Guerrilla War; Jeffrey St. Clair on The Anatomy of a Swindle: How the Bush Administration is Giving Away Public Lands to Its Political Cronies; Scott Handleman on the Return of the Aliens: Why the CIA Was Paranoid About UFOs. Remember, the CounterPunch website is supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide web audience is soaring, with more than 60,000 visitors a day. This is inspiring news, but the work involved also compels us to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now!

Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840 3683 or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Coming in September
From AK Press



Featuring Essays by: Edward Said, Robert Fisk, Michael Neumann, Shahid Alam, Alexander Cockburn, Uri Avnery, Bill and Kathy Christison and More

Recent Stories

August 6, 2003

David Krieger
Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Stan Goff
Military Equipment and Pneumonia

August 5, 2003

Uri Avnery
The Prisoner of Ramallah: Arafat at 74

Forrest Hylton
Terrorism and Political Trials: the View from Bolivia

Ray McGovern
"We Cook Estimates to Go"

David Morse
Poindexter's Gambit

Edward Said
Orientallism: 25 Years Later

George W. Bush
My Resumé So Far

Hammond Guthrie
It's Incremental, Watson!

Website of the Day
National Prayer Day


August 4, 2003

Bruce K. Gagnon
Another Peace Activist Detained by Airport Cops: My Story

David Lindorff
Fear-Mongering About Social Security

Mark Zepezauer
George F. Will: Descent into Self-Parody

James Plummer
Tracking You Through the Mail

Mickey Z.
Marriage Insecurity from Sharon to Bush

Bruce Jackson
News that Isn't News: How the NYT's Pimps for the White House

August 2 / 3, 2003

Tamara R. Piety
Nike's Full Court Press Breaks Down

Francis Boyle
My Alma Mater, the University of Chicago, is a Moral Cesspool

David Vest
Sons of Paleface: Pictures from Death's Other Side

Neve Gordon
Nightlife in Jerusalem

Uri Avnery
Their Master's Voice:
Bush, Blair and Intelligence Snafus

Robert Fisk
Paternalistic Democracy for Iraq

Jerry Kroth
Israel, Yellowcake and the Media

Noah Leavitt
What's Driving the Liberian Bloodbath: Is the US Obligated to Intervene?

Saul Landau
The Film Industry: Business and Ideology

Ron Jacobs
One Big Prison Yard: the Meaning of George Jackson

Thomas Croft
In the Deep, Deep Rough: Reflections on Augusta

Amadi Ajamu
Def Sham: Russell Simmons New Black Leader?

Poets' Basement
Vega, Witherup, Albert and Fleming

 

August 1, 2003

Joanne Mariner
Stopping Prison Rape

Alex Coolman
Who Moved My Soap: Trivializing Prison Rape

Steve J.B.
Prison Bitch

Stan Goff
Injury and Decorum: The Missing Wounded in Iraq

Wayne Madsen
Europe Unplugs from the Matrix

Robert Fisk
Wolfowitz the Censor

Elaine Cassel
Ashcroft Loses Big in Puerto Rico

Website of the Day
Stop Prisoner Rape

 

July 31, 2003

Ray McGovern
The Prostitution of Intelligence

Brian Cloughley
Wolfowitz's Operative Statement

Sheldon Hull
The RIAA's Jihad:
The Devil's Music (Industry)

Elaine Cassel
The Next Time You Crack a Lawyer Joke, Think of These Attorneys

Sheldon Rampton
and John Stauber
True Lies: Propaganda and Bush's Wars

Hammond Guthrie
Speculation Blues

Website of the Day
Army of One?

 

July 30, 2003

David Lindorff
Poindexter the Terror Bookie

Marjorie Cohn
Why Iraq and Afghanistan? It's About the Oil

Elaine Cassel
How Ashcroft Coerces Guilty Pleas in Terror Cases

Zvi Bar'el
The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War

Lisa Walsh Thomas
Killing Mustafa Hussein: Death of a Child, Birth of a Legend?

Sean Carter
Pat Robertson's Prayer Jihad: God, Sodomy and the Supremes

ND Jayaprakash
India and Ariel Sharon

Steve Perry
Bush's Top 40 Lies

Standard Schaefer
Correction about Bloomberg and Outscourcing

Website of the Day
Bring Them Home Now!

Congratulations to CounterPuncher Gilad Atzmon! BBC Names EXILE Top Jazz CD

July 29, 2003

Jeffrey St. Clair
"Journalist Spotted! Journalist Dead!" Guatemala Bleeds; US Press Yawns

Thomas J. Nagy
The Belligerent Dr. Pipes

Kurt Nimmo
Tom Delay Goes to Jerusalem

Chris Floyd
Dead Reckoning: Bush Warriors Sign Off on War Crimes

Robert Fisk
Another Botched Raid; Another Massacre

Jason Leopold
Did Chalabi Help Write Bush's State of the Union Address?

Conn Hallinan
Food Bully: Bush's Biotech Shock and Awe Campaign

Dan Bacher
Sacramento's War on Free Speech

Ray McGovern
Cheney Chicanery

Website of the Day
Julie Hilden Caught on Tape

 

Hot Stories

Steve J.B.
Prison Bitch

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda in the Iraq War

Wendell Berry
Small Destructions Add Up

CounterPunch Wire
WMD: Who Said What When

Cindy Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter I Can't Hear From

Elaine Cassel
Civil Liberties Watch

Michel Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I Saw Marines Kill Civilians"

Uzma Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War: What America Says Does Not Go

Paul de Rooij
Arrogant Propaganda

Gore Vidal
The Erosion of the American Dream

Francis Boyle
Impeach Bush: A Draft Resolution

Click Here for More Stories.

 

 

Subscribe Online


Search CounterPunch

 

August 5, 2003

An Open Letter to Nicholas Kristof

Japanese Don't Think They Were Bombed for Their Own Good

By HUGH SANSOM

You are one of the few journalists I have seen note the anniversary of the atomic bombings. (Only marginally less attention than on the 50th anniversary.) But are you seriously suggesting in your column "Blood on Our Hands?" that there is a developing consensus in Japan that the atomic bombing was a good thing, or at least necessary, and that, because some Japanese see it as justified, it was justified?

That some Japanese see an after-the-fact justification for the bombings is not equivalent to saying the U.S. should have bombed Hiroshima (and Nagasaki, which merits only the briefest mention in your essay.) Nor does it say anything of actual American intelligence, motives, etc, at the time. There can be no doubt that the bombings occurred in a context of revoltingly racist sentiment towards Japanese (raising the question of whether the U.S. would have used the bomb against Germany if it had been ready.) If there is a prevailing view in Japan, it is that the U.S. still needs to admit that the bombings were morally reprehensible, even while Japan has yet to fully confront its own atrocities.

There is certainly no suggestion in Japan (and little in the U.S.) that either Hiroshima or Nagasaki were military targets. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population," according to the official report of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. The United States deliberately bombed civilians, something now recognized internationally -- even by the U.S. -- as a war crime.

Today, people recognize a distinction between combatants and non-combatants They did then, too, but you don't. After the fire-bombing of Dresden, members of Parliament condemned Air Marshall Harris ("Bomber Harris"). And after the war, Churchill conceded that the bombing of civilians had gone too far. (That despite the fact that the British had faced total loss to the Germans, something that cannot be said of the United States with respect to the Japanese.)

You seem to concede that even if Hiroshima was justified, Nagasaki was not. At the least, you equivocate on this: "The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate... [plural and ambiguous]" but "We could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb...." Are you claiming the second bombing was necessary, just further down the road. You must claim this to maintain your case. But the evidence suggests that the second bombing was planned in advance, in which case it could not have been a response to a perceived failure of Hiroshima to have the "necessary" effect.

Your defense of the atomic bombing appears to amount to nothing more than a reassertion of the standard American defenses of the past fifty-eight years, with a smattering of Japanese testimony to make Americans feel better. If there is an emerging consensus among U.S. historians, there is none among Japanese. For that matter, what work is your Japanese testimony intended to do? It doesn't balance, by quantity or quality, the American accounts.

There are two general features I find interesting in arguments like yours, whether about Hiroshima and Nagasaki or Iraq. First is the sudden turn to purely instrumental reasoning. Moral thought, such as it is in the U.S., routinely appeals to rights -- the right to property, to life, etc. Rights are taken to trump the instrumental or utilitarian thinking (especially of "socialists" and the like). Suddenly, to justify war, rights fly out the window.

Second is an undercurrent of near-religious fervor in the defense of American actions. It is taken as axiomatic that the U.S. acts out of good intentions. Undesirable consequences are accidental, and ultimately outweighed by good consequences. Contrary views, especially from "the left" are obviously false and thus require no substantive response.

In service of this defense of the U.S., you do a kind of juggling act with those accounts you accept and those you challenge. You lump American historians together as revisionist (and outside the mainstream) while claiming a consensus has emerged here. So the consensus is revisionist? Then you take as accepted Japanese accounts which might just as legitimately be called revisionist. (But why do you say "revisionist" at all? It's a term now widely and vaguely used to condemn through guilt by association with actual revisionists about the Holocaust, or Japanese revisionists about Japan's wartime atrocities.)

I recommend an essay by the late philosopher John Rawls ("Fifty Years After Hiroshima", Dissent, 1995) -- not one of his great essays, but illuminating on the ethical issues and reasoning surrounding the bombing.

Finally, I have to ask whether your essay is intended as an extended metaphor for the war in Iraq? In a "complex and brutal world," the alternatives to war were worse than the loss during and following? I took that to be Bill Keller's line. Is it yours also?

Hugh Sansom lives in Brooklyn. He can be reached at: sansom@gravitylens.com


Weekend Edition Features for August 2/3, 2003

Tamara R. Piety
Nike's Full Court Press Breaks Down

Francis Boyle
My Alma Mater, the University of Chicago, is a Moral Cesspool

David Vest
Sons of Paleface: Pictures from Death's Other Side

Neve Gordon
Nightlife in Jerusalem

Uri Avnery
Their Master's Voice:
Bush, Blair and Intelligence Snafus

Robert Fisk
Paternalistic Democracy for Iraq

Jerry Kroth
Israel, Yellowcake and the Media

Noah Leavitt
What's Driving the Liberian Bloodbath: Is the US Obligated to Intervene?

Saul Landau
The Film Industry: Business and Ideology

Ron Jacobs
One Big Prison Yard: the Meaning of George Jackson

Thomas Croft
In the Deep, Deep Rough: Reflections on Augusta

Amadi Ajamu
Def Sham: Russell Simmons New Black Leader?

Poets' Basement
Vega, Witherup, Albert and Fleming

 

 

 

Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!

home / subscribe / about us / books / archives / search / links /