War Pigs

Evil minds that plot destruction.

By
51

Jonah overcomes his flu-induced hallucinations and ruminates on the current attempt by Congress to force a sale of TikTok and Trump’s suspicious flip-flop on the issue. The hallucinations reappearing, Jonah begins to complain about the bots on Twitter making dumb arguments for isolationism and ending Ukraine aid. With whatever sanity he has left he argues against Chuck Schumer’s call for new elections in Israel and explains the importance of commitment to allies.

Show Notes:
—The Dispatch editorial
—Boiling Frogs on TikTok divestment
—ISW: The Kremlin’s Occupation Playbook
—Jonah’s LA Times article on the use of “genocide”
—Sen. Schumer calls for new elections in Israel

By
Comments (51)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    The way to get peace is to win wars, not fight them halfway and then have to fight again ten years later.

    Collapse
  2. R. James

    War Pig has been used in English dating back to the 1960s anti-war movement at least. Black Sabbath even had anti-war song under that title. Not to mention that in ancient times, the Greeks and Romans employed literal war pigs that they would soak in resin and set them alight, driving them towards the enemy's massed war elephants. Pliny the Elder was a fan. The elephants were not. But I digress...

    Suffice it to say that the term "War Pig(s)" has a long history in Western culture and the English language.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Michael & Melanie Yancey

    Not gonna lie, Jonah the War Pig is a pretty awesome way to introduce yourself.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    John Will

    Agreement on Slow Horses and subtitles in general. Many of the Welsh, British, Irish, and Scottish crime dramas can be difficult to follow because of their accents, but they are the best shows. I am particularly fond of Scandinavian and northern European dramas, so I have become adept at quickly reading subtitles
    which I prefer to dubbing.

    Collapse
  5. Pohl

    I like the attention given to Putin’s war crimes regarding abducted Ukrainian children. But there are several other hot takes here on the two wars. To be anti-war is almost to be pro-war? Dumb. To paraphrase, giving Hamas a chance to get off the mat is akin to wanting future October 7ths? Dumber. To say it’s merely “preferable” to minimize civilian casualties in attacking Rafah? Dumbest. And then to say you don’t have all the facts on the ground, and maybe there are geostrategic reasons not to rush into Rafah? You don’t say.

    But Jonah has helpfully juxtaposed his ideas on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza here. I suggest his major error is seeking to justify certain actions in terms of strategic objectives. The Geneva Conventions and Protocols specify, in regard to the means used to protect civilians, that only TACTICAL considerations are relevant. It is not enough, for example, to say the military objective of destroying Hamas justifies this or that discrete action. See Leonard Rubenstein for this argument:

    https://www.justsecurity.org/90789/israels-rewriting-of-the-law-of-war/

    Jonah shows this same marked tendency to justify war in Ukraine as part of a larger deterrent in the long-term interests of the West. That is almost certainly true, but it’s largely irrelevant to whether each day remains a good day to support the war in Ukraine. Our aid, for example, will likely stop making sense if Ukrainians ever become bitter-enders. The country will not transmogrify into a justified proxy simply because we favor the deterrent effects of the war. Some, perhaps including the pope, think the current meat grinder is already asking too high a price. Others disagree; I disagree, for now. But the war has to make sense on its own terms. When fighting becomes utterly senseless, that’s when it’s over. It should not have to come to that, which is why peace talks should not wait until the battlefield decides it for Ukraine, even in its favor if you’re an optimist.

    In Gaza, it’s even more arguable whether every last Hamas fighting group needs eliminated, no matter what kind of humanitarian catastrophe is ongoing. Obviously, Hamas should surrender and stop committing war crimes against civilians. I’m not for Israel unilaterally ending the war. But they need to get civilians out of harm’s way in the south. Hamas doesn’t bear the responsibility for moving them all there, unless you think Hamas is responsible for every Israeli action, too.

    Ultimately, Jonah is not the voice you want to listen to for peace advocacy. Here, his gaffes and honest opinions speak volumes. He is not fluent in the language of peace. He scoffs at the pope for wanting to discuss peace. He probably thinks talking to Hamas is a waste of time, even though that’s how most hostages have been freed thus far. It’s unfair to call Jonah a warmonger. But no one will mistake him for a peacemaker either.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Michael Berkowitz

      I disagree with your dumb-dumber-dumbest. There's an obvious connection between Hamas surviving as a military player and serious risks to Israeli citizens. You can say that's a strategic issue and the laws of war are about tactical decisions, but since the tactics are in service of the strategy, it's a sterile distinction. Confronted with a decision of whether to bomb a Hamas stronghold, given a situation where there is no other tactical option, it becomes a question of whether the strategic goal justifies the collateral damage. And since you've made the point that only tactics are at issue, the implication is that the strategic goal isn't even subject to examination. It's valid to say that the strategic goal can be met short of killing every last Hamas soldier, but that seems to be exactly the kind of calculation you disqualify.

      And yes, the presence of civilians in Rafah because Israel moved them there is still Hamas' responsibility -- they'd be living in their homes had Israel not been attacked, and had it not needed to get them out of the way, for their own protection, while it fought Hamas in the north. Again, it comes down to tactics, which means options. What could Israel have reasonably done before? What can it reasonably do now?

      If you can explain how that's wrong, I'll listen. I don't intend to invest time in something called Israel's 𝑅𝑒𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐿𝑎𝑤𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑎𝑟, which kind of telegraphs the author's priors.

      Collapse
      1. Pohl

        There may be some confusion here. What I mentioned early in my last remarks was not a “sterile distinction.” It’s spelled out in the Additional Protocols Israel has signed onto. Basically, as shown in the article I linked to by a scholar at Johns Hopkins and affiliated with CSIS (TMD, coincidentally, linked to the same Just Security site this morning), strategic objectives are irrelevant to the pertinent Articles regarding civilian harm mitigation, especially 51 and 57. To restrict myself to the letter of the law there, though the 1987 Commentary is even more forthright, parties are to refrain from acts impacting civilians that are “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” The upshot is that everything targeted in Gaza, for example, requires its own risk analysis to determine if the military objective is worth the likely harm to innocents. Leonard Rubenstein at Just Security cites several examples where the Israeli government or military has sought to justify especially destructive bombing with reference to the end goal of the entire war. As he says, that approach would “swallow the rule.” Anyway, that’s the only point I was making upthread.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Michael Berkowitz

          I still don't see the distinction. Perhaps some examples would clarify, if you'd be so kind.

          Collapse
          1. Pohl

            Examples are still in the link. I’m not going to regurgitate it here since we’re the only ones paying attention to this thread, I’m sure. And you should recall from my other comments, I’m not eager to paint Israel as the bad guy, so I’ve said enough on this topic for now, which was only one part of my original post. Cheers.

            Collapse
  6. Pohl

    Jonah should know not to trust the mainstream media when reporting on what popes say. Pope Francis is hardly my favorite pope, but he is usually unfairly covered. I’m sure Jonah will still disagree with the actual drift, though, which, to me, is just a bog-standard plea for peace. Per Vatican News:

    “In the interview, the interviewer Lorenzo Buccella asks the Pope: ‘In Ukraine, some call for the courage of surrender, of the white flag. But others say that this would legitimize the stronger party. What do you think?’

    “Pope Francis replied: ‘That is one interpretation. But I believe that the stronger one is the one who sees the situation, who thinks of the people, who has the courage of the white flag, to negotiate. And today, negotiations are possible with the help of international powers. The word “negotiate” is a couragous [sic] word. When you see that you are defeated, that things are not going well, it is necessary to have the courage to negotiate. You may feel ashamed, but with how many deaths will it end? Negotiate in time; look for some country that can mediate. Today, for example in the war in Ukraine, there are many who want to mediate. Turkey has offered itself for this. And others. Do not be ashamed to negotiate before things get worse.’”

    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis-ukraine-interview-rts-holy-see-response.html#:~:text=PopeonwarinUkraine,notbeashamedtonegotiate'&text=OnthatoccasionthePope,ajustandlastingpeace.

    Collapse
    1. Acre00

      Pope Francis may get a lot of unfair press, but he invites a lot of it. In this case, for example, his words - the ones you quote, not what was reported in the media - are easily read to imply that Ukraine has already lost the war and that they should sue for peace regardless of the situation.

      If that was his intention, it was an incredibly irresponsible and ignorant remark. If it wasn't his intention, it was an ill considered and poorly phrased remark.

      Collapse
      1. Pohl

        Again, I’m not often in the position of enthusiastically defending this pope’s offhand utterances. But, it’s possible to read too much into his words here. You can go back to the beginning of the war, and his words will look alarmingly “defeatist” from this same point of view. It is essentially a function of his office to promote peace. I don’t want to live in a world where there aren’t leaders such as the pope who can be counted upon to promote peace. He’s not making any definitive recommendation other than to return to the peace table, which also applies to Putin who has received stern remarks from the pope in the past. But, could Pope Francis have spoken with more tact? Often, the answer seems to be yes.

        Collapse
        1. Acre00

          To be clear, I do not think Pope Francis was calling on Ukraine to surrender. I am just constantly surprised by how often Pope Francis shoots himself in the foot like this. You'd think someone whose primary responsibility is communication to be somewhat better at it, or at least recognize his own failings and not make so many definitive off the cuff remarks

          Collapse
          1. R. James

            Francis has shown himself to be a very poor communicator and someone who does not recognize his own failings.

            Collapse
          2. Pohl

            You’re not alone in this opinion. I’d like to make a Jesuit joke, but I try to roll with the different popes. I am biased towards the ones who are more Thomistic in their thinking, but that is a merely natural way of looking at them. It takes all kinds, and Pope Francis was chosen by the Holy Spirit, for a Catholic, so he has charisms that are of great value also. But I often miss Pope St John Paul II.

            Collapse
    2. R. James

      For the Pope to pressure the Ukrainians to negotiate in such a manner is reckless, naive, and hands Putin a propaganda win. To call for "the courage of the white flag" with the historical context and the context of the question meaning surrender is unjustified. The Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves against foreign aggression. This is covered under just war theory, which Catholic teaching has recognized in the past. The Pope commenting in such a way shows that he is very much out of his depth on foreign policy.

      Collapse
      1. Pohl

        How many divisions has the pope? I wouldn’t say he’s “pressuring” Ukraine. The pope also doesn’t need lectured on just war theory. He is basically doing his job as a man of peace. And popes, as leaders of a city-state having to deal with ambassadors and a slew of national problems via their own nuncios around the world, are not as naive as people may think. Pope Francis, furthermore, did not tell Ukraine to wave the white flag. It’s just clearly not ideal to remain away from the peace table for too long. There are great risks involved in not keeping lines of communication open. It’s too easy in the West to normalize the current stalemate. Jonah, as usual, dismisses “escalation” as something only wimps worry about. But the war can change overnight. Ukraine must be prepared.

        Collapse
        1. R. James

          "I wouldn’t say he’s “pressuring” Ukraine."

          So, what would you call the very public and much covered statement telling the Ukrainians to negotiate a part of their country away to the authoritarian dictator who invaded their land?

          "lectured on just war theory" Now we are really toying with language. How is my comment on a private sub stack a "lecture" to the Pope?

          "He is basically doing his job as a man of peace."

          The Ukrainians giving up part of their territory to Putin will only encourage more invasions in the future and more war, not peace. A person more sophisticated in foreign policy would understand this. Pope St. John Paul II understood the nature of authoritarian regimes. Francis clearly does not.

          Nothing would further escalate a future conflict in Europe than Putin invading a NATO aligned member state. Putin will do this if he thinks the West is too weak to stop him and he does not have to pay a high price for invading his neighbors. Forcing the Ukrainians to the negotiating table and to give up parts of their country to Putin will encourage Putin into invading more countries in Eastern Europe. So, negotiating at this point will only encourage a more escalatory situation in the future.

          Collapse
  7. Echack

    My brother was the set decorator for Tales of the Walking Dead. A pretty good shoot for him. He got a lot of calls for more work, in part based on it.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Tom Self

    I’d like to thank the magical gnomes who run the algorithms that determine the ads on this podcast. They blessed me with a “Peppa Pig Playset” commercial to kick off the show.

    Hope you’re feeling better Jonah.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Charley Warns

      I could say, "I could care less," but that would be a lie, as the truth is ... I couldn't.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Charley Warns

    In the "The Tyranny of Clichés" chapter on "Ideology," Jonah writes: "Because, again, pragmatism is the disguise progressives and other ideologues don when they want to demonize competing ideologies." To put it another way just for the sake of doing so, it's image laundering your ideology under the pretense of pragmatism.

    That came to mind after I read this recent quote from Trump: "I’m not conservative. You know what I am? I’m a man of common sense." In the book, Jonah had cited this passage from David Axelrod: "I think President Obama is a committed, practicing nonideologue. He’s consumed by neither tactics nor ideology. He is more concerned about outcomes than he is about process and categorizations." Jonah points out that everybody makes that claim:

    "Claiming that you are for what works is nothing like the get-out-of-ideological-jail–free card those who flash it around think it is. To date I am aware of no ideological school—be it Nazism, communism, Fabianism, progressivism, Toryism, Trostkyism, neoconservatism, paleoconservatism, libertarianism, Gandhism, futurism, Ludditism, anarchism, Lovestonism, Chavism, Castroism, Kemalism, Maoism, Stalinism, Uribism, Reaganism, Thatcherism, Thisism, or Thatism, just to name a few—that claims it does not work. And ideology without a claim on reality is little different than a game of Dungeons and Dragons or a Civil War reenactment club."

    From ch 7 in the book, "What is Conservatism?," S. Parry (author of that chapter) writes: "The radical consequence of this condition is that for every man the objective moral order available for his judgment is one which he himself has helped to build. ... In our confused age the question is asked: how do we know whose reason is right? The question assumes some third reality as standard, or else triumphantly proves the relativity of moral knowledge because of the lack of standard. But there is no such third reality."

    Collapse
  10. Bigdonmck

    I give you kudos for fighting through your illness to post The Remnant. Get well.

    Collapse
Load More