Left of Correct

 Although I am usually revolted far more by the misinformation and disinformation of the “Right,” who have been and are far more powerful where it counts, there is plenty on the “Left” as well.  Some examples:

1) Revisionist thinking about North Vietnam being this splendor house of noble characters.  While they may have looked okay compared to their insanely murderous or corrupt neighbors (China, Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, South Vietnam), both their motives and their processes were FAR from pure.  And I don’t mean just because they tortured American prisoners of war.

2) Dropping atomic weapons on Japan.  While it is a false and covering myth that they were used to make an invasion unnecessary and “save a million American lives” (would have been closer to 25,000, and unlikely to be needed since Japan was on the ropes primarily because of the blockade), the Left’s condemning of atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in absolutist terms is shallowly considered.  Dropping the weapons did several things, some intended and some unintended (but with benefits): a) Get Japan, who was reeling from the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets and the quick defeat of their best Army, the Kwantung Army, by the Soviets, to surrender to us first and primarily, not the Soviets.  No mean feat, given we had been their primary enemy and had just committed what outside observers would probably consider acts of terror (the firebombings). Having Japan surrender to the U.S. was important for post-war situations and the setup of the Cold War. b) Show that America both possessed weapons of enormous power and was willing to use them—and not just once. This had considerable deterrence effect, and not just immediately. c) Gave a hard shove to developing anti-militarism in Japan, and helped seed future pacifistic sentiments there, all from the horror and shock. d) Gave the world a truly terrible look at destruction on such a scale and such a soul-sucking horror, that it never wanted to go down that road.  There would be no need to demonstrate (as was felt necessary in WW1) their general use before combatant nations—even greatly malevolent ones—forswore their desire to use them again.  In that way, the bombings perhaps saved far more lives and suffering than they cost, and so were “worth” it.

3) Absolutist condemnings of collateral casualties in the fight against terrorists.  While there is reason to question some tactics, methods, and targeting—especially ones whose effects end up doing more harm than benefit—and there are insufficient answers to questions of constitutionality, some collateral casualties are unavoidable.  And one prime reason: terrorists purposely put women and children—often even their own—in harm’s way, thinking we will hesitate long enough to lose opportunity.  Precisely because we want to make this a useless tactic for them, we strike anyway.  In this way, we show the futility of such “human shield” tactics, and perhaps save more innocent lives in the future by making such tactics irrelevant and ineffective.