Monday, July 17, 2006
Morality in war and forgiving the technologically incompetent
Wretchard observes that the press applies a much tougher standard to countries with precision-guided weapons than to terrorists who do not have such weapons, thereby legitimizing the foul practices of the latter. He is right as rain. If there is a single betrayal of the Western media, it is its romantic refusal to hold insurgencies to the same standards of law and morality as counterinsurgencies.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jul 17, 02:52:00 PM:
Just a point regarding evacuation. Other countries may not the navy or logistics to compare with the US but they seem to get their act together pretty quickly.
We are still planning? Stop planning and do.
By 
ScurvyOaks, at
Mon Jul 17, 03:50:00 PM:
It's very apt that you call it a romantic refusal. One of sources of the difference in standard you describe (and of multiculturalists' tendency to prize the primitive) is the myth of the noble savage. My nomination for a guy who ought to get blamed more than he does for being a father of modern asshattery: J.J. Rousseau.
By C R Mountjoy - GDF, at
Mon Jul 17, 04:04:00 PM:
...romatic refusal of the press to hold insurgents accountable...you dignify both by not recognizing that the fact that 80% of journalists in the US are liberal (or communists in my book). There is no romanticism - this is Stalinist disinformation at its finest. The MSM views everyone as one of Lenin's Useful Idiots.
Bastards to a man - it's understandable why the journalists are one of the first groups to be rounded up in a left/right wing coup.
Great Blog by the way...I will revisit often!
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Jul 17, 04:27:00 PM:
Killing innocents is bad no matter who's doing the killing. If, by asking me to recognize the barbarity of terrorists' tactics and murders, you are insinuating that other nations should be given approval for civilian deaths, you'll find yourself in a room full of crickets chirping.
I hear the trumpets, Hawk. The call for a "kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out" approach to this assymetric war sends me into instant recoil when I hear it espoused in the right wing warosphere. I plan to be on the side of the good guys, and good guys, as a rule, don't set out to kill innocents. It seems a simple rule to follow - avoid civilian deaths. They'll happen, to be sure, but if we're not doing our level best to avoid them, then we're deliberately killing them.
I saw the photo you had up of the terrorists using children as human shields, and it's one of the most abhorrent photos I've seen. Would you drop the bomb that would kill the terrorists and the children? If not, why? If so, then is the deliberate murder of children acceptable in a war on terrorism?
And, so far as the media is concerned, they certainly hold Americans to a higher standard than others. It's a symptom of American exceptionalism and the idea that we're better than the other guy to begin with.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jul 17, 05:15:00 PM:
It seems a simple rule to follow - avoid civilian deaths.
To what extent, and how heavy a price are you willing to pay to this end?
We don't target them on purpose now.
Are you comfortable taking additional US casualties to specifically avoid hitting them? (which is what we do now)
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Jul 17, 06:55:00 PM:
purple,
Are you comfortable killing civilians?
Comfortable is probably the wrong word, eh? Let's go with what's acceptable. I'm uncomforatble with all of it, and I'm sometimes too literal for my own good.
Is it acceptable to preserve the lives of non-combatants even if it means our American combat soldiers are put at greater risk? You're asking if the life of one person is worth more than the life of another.
Is a civilian who happens to live in Lebanon worth less than an American? Obviously not. All men being created equal and all that. Nor is an American worth less than the civilian.
When we as a nation start advocating for civilian deaths in order to preserve the lives of the men who willingly chose to fight, we are at the beginning of a terrible slope. I will not advocate for civilian deaths.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jul 17, 07:38:00 PM:
Touchy questions that it seems all soldiers need to deal with now a days.
It comes down to a question of nationalism and identity. Whose lives are worth more? Ours or theirs? In some sort of universal cosmological sense, they are equal I'm sure.
However, this is earth, and we're fighting a war, a violent contest between nations. Every American soldier that dies is another lost friend, a drain on my country's resources, a step closer to my country's defeat, and one fewer person who can watch my back and help me not to die. It is absolutely in my interest, and the interest of my countrymen, to try to keep as many of our guys alive and kicking as possible. A certain element of morality enters this as well, in that we in America consider death a bad thing and like to minimize them whenever possible, sometimes by going out of our way to do so (though not so much now, with false surrenders and suicide bombs) but a fully rational argument can be made as well.
And though you might not like the idea, the life of an American is absolutely worth more than that of a Lebanese... to Americans. And vice-versa. Do they care when there's a suicide bomb attack against a US position? Not especially, except perhaps in an abstract political sense. Do we particularly care about the depredations of the various Lebanese factions on one another? Not really; it doesn't affect us. That's the reality.
We don't live in a perfect world where everyone cares about everyone else. Some people will hate you because of your ethnicity, language, beliefs, or state of origin. If you died tomorrow, someone somewhere (probably in Pakistan) would rejoice at the news.
BTW, non-combatants who purposefully put themselves into combat in this way are no longer considered non-combatants.
'The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians must not be used to try to shield military objectives from attack or to shield, favour or impede military operations.' - Articles of War, Chapter IV, Section 1, Part 3, Protection of Civilian Persons and Property.
If there's a Hezb-Allah position fighting in battle who is using non-combatants as shields who are there willingly, (as in that photograph) smoke 'em.
And if that's such a terrible thing, perhaps Israel could enlist some civilian volunteers to so stand around their own positions in hopes of deterring attack? Anyone want to sign up? No? I wonder why?
And just for giggles, a passage from the same place I found the other excerpt. 'The prohibition of attacks on civilian persons and civilian property includes all acts of violence, whether committed in offence or defence. Attacks or threats of violence intended to terrorize the civilian Population are also prohibited.[P. I, 49, 51, 52]
The prohibition includes attacks launched indiscriminately. In particular these are attacks which are not directed or which cannot be directed, because of the methods or means of combat employed, at a military objective. Also considered as indiscriminate are attacks which treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian property. The same applies to attacks which cause incidental civilian losses and damage excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.[P. I, 49, 51, 52]'
Hezb-Allah is, of course, guilty of this with their rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns. That means that they, since they are not the legal armed forces of a recognized state, should not be accorded legal combatant status and the Articles' protections no longer apply to them. (precisely like the Taliban and co.)
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jul 17, 07:55:00 PM:
When we as a nation start advocating for civilian deaths in order to preserve the lives of the men who willingly chose to fight, we are at the beginning of a terrible slope.
Seems to me we're well down that slope -- about 60 years worth in fact.
But then again, your ethical "escape hatch" is that the WWII soldiers weren't "willingly" choosing to fight right? Many were conscripts...
As I recall, Truman (and undoubtedly FDR who would have made the same decision had he lived) were both democrats.
By Raymond, at
Tue Jul 18, 08:54:00 AM:
Can we at least agree that terrorist are evil. Not only for the fact that they go out of their way to kill civilians but because they hide themselves with civilian populations. So when it comes time for lawful authorities to fight them it is nigh impossible to do so without causing more civilian casualties.
Is it so hard for the press to level the same amount of vitriol at the terrorist when they TARGET civilians as they do at lawful authorities when they ACCIDENTALLY kill civilians?
Or is that asking too much to hold the terrorist to a standard?
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Tue Jul 18, 06:48:00 PM:
Good post, very to-the-point about the hypocrisy of the racist double-standard invoked in conflicts between a civilized nation-state and a gang or tribe of savages.
I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/07/re-morality-in-war-and-forgiving.html
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Tue Jul 18, 06:54:00 PM:
Screwy,
To turn it around: Why should the lives of American service people be weighed as less valuable than foreign civilians?
If you really feel U.S. soldiers should be given less consideration when it comes to risking their lives, than I invite you to become one.
