previous post next post  

The War of the Tribes...

By The Armorer on July 25, 2006 | | Comments (21)

...1938 edition.

The War of the Tribes [John Derbyshire]

Thought for the day (after reading JPod's fine bellwether column in this morning's newspaper.

"You cannot be objective about an aerial torpedo. And the horror we feel of these things has led to this conclusion: if someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother. The only apparent alternatives are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails and burn holes in children with thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more ready to do these things than you are yourself; as yet no one has suggested a practicable way out."

—George Orwell, reviewing Arthur Koestler's Spanish Testament for the magazine Time and Tide, Feb. 5, 1938.

Note the date. WW2 hadn't even officially started.

Of course, then, there, the target was an identifiable nation-state and its allies.

The problem being faced here is what would France and Britain have done had, say, the Nazis *lost* the 1933 elections, revived the Freikorps, and gone reiving, in cahoots with, oh, Mussolini's Blackshirts?

That is the dilemma we're facing now - Weimar with the Brownshirts a state-within-a-state. Yet, not a state so easily targetable in itself, without trampling upon others.

Will we learn the lesson? Sadly, there's nothing in the history of the region or the players (in and out of the region) to suggest so.

Because *before* the event, it's never so clear as *after* the event, when historians have sifted through the rubble and made it all seem so clear.

As John Podhoretz notes:

July 25, 2006 -- WHAT if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests? What if the universalist idea of liberal democracy - the idea that all people are created equal - has sunk in so deeply that we no longer assign special value to the lives and interests of our own people as opposed to those in other countries?

What if this triumph of universalism is demonstrated by the Left's insistence that American and Israeli military actions marked by an extraordinary concern for preventing civilian casualties are in fact unacceptably brutal? And is also apparent in the Right's claim that a war against a country has nothing to do with the people but only with that country's leaders?

Can any war be won when this is the nature of the discussion in the countries fighting the war? Can any war be won when one of the combatants voluntarily limits itself in this manner?

Read the rest here.

Alan? Trias? Jack? What's the sane liberal response?

Share This Article:

Categories:

21 Comments

By C.S. Scott on July 25, 2006 1:14 PM
Podhoretz's concerns are valid and in fact I discussed this very issue with Timothy Naftali (author of "Blind Spot"), who agreed with the difficulty of waging armed conflict within a liberal democracy. The problem is, the peace at any cost crowd refuses to acknowledge that there are dangerous men and regimes out there (other than the Bush administration) that must be confronted still...they are pushing for world peace before evil has been erradicated and advocate on behalf of co-existing with this threat. I suggest everyone read about how the British liberal elites ruined Britain as a hyperpower in the 1930s, and heed those lessons.
 
By Alan on July 25, 2006 3:16 PM
What is the sane liberal response? The trouble is that there in a wicked insane group at play with no interest in any civil society: Hezbollah is fundamentally nihilist and not much else. Yet killing hundreds under some umbrella of co-conspirator (as is so easily bing bandied to give the functionally indifferent cause to feel justified again) is killing based a lie as well. Families in vans trying to make an escape are being exploded by helicopter gunship. People forced by thugs to live in apartments above the offices of thugs are being blown apart by tank shells. There is no co-conspiracy just as the 13 year old prostitute is not a conspirator. There is practical powerlessness. And there are those being attached by the nihilist thugs. The question, then, is not one of left or right but ethics. You have to accept that all are equal if you are either or both a supporter of western democratic society or a Christian. If you accept they are your equal and powerlessness in their misery what do you do? Create a lie to make yourself feel better likely. And besides, 20 times more died in a similar way off the TV news as well as the blogging screen today in Congo. So what is the correct response? Do not deny that they did not deserve this I suppose. I wonder, if one of the kidnapped soldiers ever is returned whether they will ask why all this was done in their name? Or maybe their will see that until wicked nihilists are stopped someone will be dying.
 
By April on July 25, 2006 3:20 PM
Right on--the goal, of course, is exactly that--to achieve a level of humanitarian concern that "dwarfs cold-eyed pursuit of national interests." The problem is that it only works if EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE has reached the same level. We are certainly seeing the effects of this moral conflict now, with the peace crowd's good intentions and humanistic concern fogging the reality that not everyone has reached said level. Furthermore, when even our warriors share some of this concern, we have situations like Iraq where much of the criticism is directly related to a seeming inability to "take control." We could take control easily enough, but at a civilian cost that many of us could never accept. Which leaves me with the same question--CAN any war be won when we have reached this level?
 
By Alan on July 25, 2006 4:04 PM
You should review your Founding Father's writings about the need to stand by principle in a time of war despite the depravity of the enemy. It does not only work when everyone does it. That is the first lie of comfort. But thanks for the handy illustration on my point.
 
By kat-missouri on July 25, 2006 5:46 PM
(on library computer: god-bless public libraries) What you would become is a martyr in the true sinse of the word: ie, the person who dies for their beliefs with humility and honor having never struck a blow in defense or offense. However, I really believe that the problem is a lack of clarity. Even today while people watch international news, purchase a shirt made in India, coffee from Colombia and gasoline that surely originated in any one of 50 nations around the globe, they really do not understand the interconnectivity of our commerce, much less how international trade can effect our economy, our ability to feed, clothe, provide medical care, heat or cool, provide work, free education, etc, etc, etc for 300 million people. They simply do not put their minds to it. Yet, on any given day, I can simultaneously hear people angry about the war in Iraq, demanding that we withdraw from the middle east as a whole (since our presence there angers the terrorists and allegedly creates more), demand that we somehow stop the war in Israel and lebanon and wants the government to do something about the rising price of oil and gas. But, please don't have war for oil. Nobody get's it. And, as far as our vaunted forefathers are concerned, let's not pretend they were virtuous gods of humanitarian goodness who would destroy this country before doing anything dishonorable like lying, cheating, stealing, using our bigger military to enforce our will or protect our trade. I can write prose all day about honor, integrity and heroics. I can quote all sorts of fantastic phrases imparting the virtuous, hallowed personalities of these men and insist that they be the high water mark we should aim for in our every day lives and politics. Yet, I am no idiot, nor naive, nor illiterate. I know very well that these men were at times scoundrels and rogues; that they were imminently pracitical and pragmatic when it came to matters of economy and resources. We didn't get a declaration of independencethat reads "all men are created equal", insist on justice and security for all, while nary a comment about the evils of slavery, nor a constitution that outlaws it. I am not condemning these men. For all intents and purposes, they understood the necessity of pragmatism towards something many may have abhored, yet they could not simply destroy the economic base or alienate slave holders since they needed their material, physical and monetary support. Then there is the whole Barbary Pirates incident where we could have just did what the Europeans did: paid tribute to the pirates and went on our way worrying about our trade, ships and men, but instead: sent warships, destroyed a city with bombardment and deposed a ruler. All so we wouldn't pay tribute anymore. Then, Jefferson, the man who writes the declaration of independence, when he's elected, tries to use sedition laws in order to quiet his critics who are lambasting him in the newspapers. Please don't make out our forefathers to be more than human or that they would not have done this or that in the name of survival, security or their own political ends. They were certainly not above the rest of us and certainly far from perfect. At least I'm reminded that, with all their roguish skullduggery, we got this country we live in now. Not bad and goes to show you a little imperfection is good for the soul.
 
By ry on July 25, 2006 6:11 PM
You know Al, I just spent the weekend with a guy whose job it was to understand the situation and cull out targetable sites, he was pretty good at it. He worked the invasion of Panama which had a real low civilian casualty number despite the 'Liberty Battalions' that hid amoung the cits. He'd be staring at you rather open mouthed right now(and based on what's been reported by ABCs WLS.AM today he'd have good reason--check out the Roe Conn show between 4pm and 5pm). Something like Hezbollah doesn't operate and become as ingrained in the basic structure of life there without a wink and a nod from the general populace. Come on, the Berlin Wall and much of the Soviet police state was built to keep people from leaving. Hezbo is far less well equipped and has built nothing like the giant state structures(physical and otherwise) to stop people fleeing such bast-turds. The Sovs couldn't stop people from fleeing or defecting. What makes you think Hezbo is that much more effective? The on the ground reporter(ABC news) who has been working the Roe COnn show claims that the areas that Hezbo exists in is becuase Hezbo is absolutely supported by the Shia there(and those Shia think of the leader of Hezbo as some kind of prophet or the hidden imam). This isn't the VC that came in and held hamlets and villages hostage at gun point. This is a segment of society deciding to fight using lawfare as cover. That's immoral and tolerating it is akin to covering for the SS as far as I'm concerned. No, I'm not engaging in the hyperbole I'm famous for but talking pretty straight: the cits helped Hezbo tacitly and at times overtly. There is a co-conspirator status that's justly earned and suffered for. The sol'n to avoid this was clear: last year, when Syria was forced out during the Cedar Rev, these people could've rolled over Hezbo militants to the central gov, but they didn't(well, thanks in part to that the police force in these areas are as much on Hezbos payroll like the Chicago police were on Al Capone's back in the 30's). They could've reported all of the Hezbo network to the UN peacekeeping force there in Lebanon(but they didn't, which tells you something. Or should.). So, utterly innocent victims who have had no hand in this being put upon unjustly is just wrong. It shows that the myths surrounding victimhood is strong and pervasive(which is what this statement seems to me to be about: " Furthermore, when even our warriors share some of this concern, we have situations like Iraq where much of the criticism is directly related to a seeming inability to "take control." We could take control easily enough, but at a civilian cost that many of us could never accept." Sometimes I'm forced to draw an energy of activation graph to explain this. Go grab your texts or do your googling. Now, substitute a misery index for the energy axis. That's the ME. War is the point of transition from reactants to products. Yes, we want it to be short in time. And that, counter intuitively, comes with brutal measures in some cases. So 'civilian cost that many of us could never accept' is just dooming things to exist at a high level of misery with no pay off, in some cases.). Peace isn't just the absence of conflict. But a state of laws and attitudes that govern conduct. I wish that people would get that and get out of the way so wars can be prosecuted to actually secure such conditions where those laws and those attitudes become prevalent. ANd lets make no mistakes here. Int'l law says it's the thugs who are responsible for the people they force to live as human shields(and as such, the thugs should be, when captured, tried as war criminals, ala Hideki Tojo, and hung if found guilty. In accordance with int'l law AS WRITTEN.). John's pointed this out many a time. Making so much out of the victims means that nothing will be done to end their being continued victims, something the thugs hope to exploit. Which means a continued high level on that misery index vs time graph. How is that in the human interest or best serving our fellow man, eh? "Which leaves me with the same question--CAN any war be won when we have reached this level?" My answer is yes. When we're honest about what the rules are and, more importantly, are not; and what our actual responsibilities are based on those rules. When political operatives(on both sides) don't seek to turn anything relating to the war into domestic political fodder to win elections such a war can be won. Even when we have such a murky environment(Panama anyone?) as exists today a war can be won if we're bold enough to actually try to win instead of playing not to lose. But what do I know? I'm just a loudmouthed grad student who belongs in Castle Purgatory, too blind to carry a rifle, and not someone who should be speaking about such things because of a dearth of hands on experience(so sayeth the Least Weasel when I talked to him this past weekend).
 
By Trias on July 25, 2006 6:31 PM
I wouldn't call myself a pure liberal. A pure liberal would put freedom and peace first but i mix responsibility in which complicates things. I was going to post on something similar to this. I think Alan makes an important point. There is an effort in the conservatives to dissonance themselves into lies about dead civilians. Sure some are complicit but there are those that are not. But what to do hmm? I think that's the thrust of your question. Well be logical. I think in Israel's case there's good cause for action. The real battle in in hearts and minds both there and at home. Slaughtering every last hizbollite won't be much good if another group springs up to replace it. What are we doing about the real battle?
 
By Alan on July 25, 2006 7:13 PM
I find it very odd to accept from otherwise thoughtful people the idea that a good response to an ethical dilemma is fuck ethics. Ethics are hard. That is why they are worth working out. You can do better kat and ry - I mark you each a "D". You may still disagree with me and that is find but those are first efforts. Dropping "collective guilt ok" and "others must be as bad as us when we are bad" should be your starting points. There is an "A" in ethics in you.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 25, 2006 8:56 PM
So, Alan, stripped to the essentials then, your response is "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" (Churchillian!) and the Israelis can build missile defenses, but, at bottom, if they can't guarantee that no one but a tango will get hurt, they should just stand down and take it until Hezbollah grows up?
 
By SangerM on July 25, 2006 9:33 PM
Alan, I pity you, I really I do. But more important, I have heard so much morally-corrupt relativistic drivel out of people like you in the past few years that it makes me just want to scream! You should just be ashamed of yourself. But of course, I know you won't. You are no doubt sincere, but you are just one of a multitude of the soft-life folks who have come to hate even that you are human, that you share a history and genetic traits with all of the other animals on the planet--that as a species, we are not nearly so far from when we climbed down out of the trees as we would so dearly love to believe. In my experience, people who claim to believe what you believe are the biggest phonies on the planet. They use all kinds of energy denying their humanity, denying that they have in themselves anything but love, and kindness, and justice, and tolerance and goodness and empathy--trying so hard to be only half the human they really are. Well, I say tolerance and empathy are important characteristics, but tolerance to the point of self-destruction is stupidity, and empathy to the point of self-loathing is absurd! In fact, in the end, no matter what you claim to believe, the test of your value as a human being--of your most essential humanity--comes down to your answer to this, and nothing else but this: Would you stand still and let another person kill you? Would you allow another person to murder your child? Would you stand by and do nothing while another man raped and mutilated and dismembered your daughter? Or your son? Or your wife? Or your mother? Would you do nothing if you knew who did it? Is there no barbarity, no depravity, no wickedness so great that you would not respond with a righteous and murderous fury so all-consuming that you would destroy anyone and everyone responsible? Would you cling to your precious veneer of morality and ethics if your wife, child, sibling, parent, or best friend were lying rent and bleeding in the street, missing limbs perhaps, eyeballs and eardrums exploded from the concussion of a bomb 15 feet away. Would you still find yourself able to cling to your scorn for us lesser humans if most of your extended family were murdered during a festival dinner, or if it were your child's school bus that was blown to shreds? And what if terrorists took over your child's elementary school and then killed, maimed, or mutilated most of the children in that school!? What then?? And what if it had been YOUR father the world got to watch as he screamed in mortal terror and unimaginable agony while some barbarian sawed his head off?! Would you STILL claim to be so [deleted] morally superior? WOULD YOU? Could you? You know, there's an old joke about a guy who asks a women if she'd screw him for a million dollars. She says yes, so the fellow lowers his offer to ten dollars, at which point the woman indignantly demands to know what kind of woman he thinks she is. He answers that they've already establish that, now they're just haggling over the price.... So, Alan, at what point do *you* prostitute yourself? At what level of pain do your so-called ethics change? How much danger would you be willing to put up with? Where do YOU draw the line? If your answer is nowhere, that nothing could get you murderously angry, then you deserve pity and scorn. On the other hand, if there is a line, then you're a whore just like the rest of us, and the only difference between us is that some of us don't pretend to be something we're not. Ethics? What arrant, specious nonsense. As was your grading Ry and Kat! I have a grade for you. I give you an F. [The remainder was deleted by me. ed]
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 25, 2006 9:38 PM
Rulez people, rulez. Message, not messenger. No matter how tempting. I edited Sanger's rant a bit. Not for substance, but for needlessly personal comments. If we're this angry, it's time to take a break, and come back at it later. This is drifting into Terri Schiavo-style anger 'round here, and I'd just as soon not go there. So, I'm turning the comments off tonight. I'll turn 'em back on tomorrow. Alan deserves a chance to respond.
 
By SangerM on July 25, 2006 9:44 PM
Ok. Delete it if you want, but sometimes the messenger is the message.
 
By fdcol63 on July 26, 2006 9:41 PM
We're in a street fight to the death with a murderous gang of barbaric Islamist terrorists who scoff at "civilized" rules of war, and some people would have us hold our heads high - high, damn it!! - and adhere to our "ethics" and fight while being limited by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules. We should refrain from "resorting to their level" and keep our hands above the belt, no poking or spitting in the eye, or any of that rot - while our enemies use our own strengths against us, exploit our weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and use every weapon and tactic they can to kill us. Holding our heads high, in an effort to remain true to our "ideals" and "ethics", will only make it easier for them to whack our heads off, just as they did to Nick Berg and all the others. We go out of our way - and risk the lives of our own soldiers - to AVOID civilian casualties. Terrorists specifically target civilians, with no regard given for age, sex, or combatant status. There is absolutely NO moral equivalency between us and them, no matter how much some people argue there is. They unrealistically expect perfection from humans and human systems, and thus choose to do nothing in their ensuing paralysis. And as Edmund Burke is credited with saying: "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
 
By Maggie on July 26, 2006 10:46 PM
Sanger - I tried that defense with John before. It doesn't work. I don't know what I'm going to do with you....last time it was sack cloth and ashes and scourging......this time you're getting spanked by the moderator.......when are you coming up here?
 
By ry on July 26, 2006 11:12 PM
First, Al, I haven't said ' 'curse word' ethics'. I've said, 'let's have ethics that actually relate to reality.' I don't live in Disneyland, don’t live by ‘It’s a Small World’ ethics, and neither does anyone else. My ethics reflect the difficult, flawed, and ambiguous world that we live in; mine do not seek to create myths/lies about dead civilians by neither denying them, creating some kind of dissonance, nor making a fetish over them; but instead by placing them in their proper context. My ethics are formed from talking to people who disobeyed orders in Vietnam to protect villages, from guys who walked the battlefields of Panama, and the jokers around here who've walked it and talked it; supplemented by my own readings. My ethics are based on making a better world than the one I woke up in, and yes, sometimes that means innocent people have to die. I've already admitted, many times, that I'm an SOB. So shoot me(hey, put that down! It's only a figure of speech!) I just don't fetishize or romanticize dead civilians. All death is horrific, but not all death is pointless or needless. That’s where we differ. The Calculus of Death: who lives, who dies, and why you choose to act/not act. It’s a tough subject with no easy answers or even 'correct' ones. When I was toying with the idea of trying to work for The Blue Team, I have a couple of connections, I was handed a scenario that called for bombing Three Gorges Dam (or targeting with some other non-nuclear system). Gave me nightmares so bad The Wife forced me to sleep on the couch with the light on at night and, ultimately, to quit the project. And yet, I have to admit that there were scenarios where such an action was not only legal but moral as well. This isn’t just parlor games for me. The 'Last Good War'(ww2) killed, displaced, and disfigured hundreds of thousands of civilians. And I'm not talking about things like Dresden, Strategic Bombing by 'Bomber' Harris and his US counterpart, and the firebombing of Tokyo either. I'm talking about places like Metz, little hamlets all over France and Germany, Burma (mein gott, the war for Burma!) and islands all over the Pacific where people had their homes destroyed for no reason other than they were on a piece of real estate that suddenly became important. Anyone asked the inhabitants of Monte Casino, or much of the Philippines, if it was unjust to have their homes turned into a battlefield? They didn’t deserve that either. Afghanistan has the same types of stories as well, but nobody in their right mind is whining about that. Yes, there are thousands of civilians hurt by the initial fighting in Afghanistan. And to be honest, this current action by Israel is more in tune with Just War Theory than the Afghanistan invasion was. Does that obviate Jus ad bello then, in both cases, because we have people who didn’t deserve the horrors that got dumped on them? Consistency in one's ethics should mean something too, shouldn't it? Whether it is a soldier or a civilian all death from other than old age sucks. BUt to make a world worth living in, a world not ruled by those who operate by 'might makes right’; we must deal in death and use the tools of death. We must accept that all actions, including diplomacy, result in people dying (the sanctions on Iraq. The murder of Hariri in Lebanon occurred while the rest of the world dithered about getting Syria out of Lebanon. Rwandan genocides occurred while we all talked. The Sitzkrieg.). To say that diplomacy has no human cost is to willfully ignore reality. The point is to do things that minimize death and suffering. You can't make it zero. That's not within your power, unless you're some godlike being (anyone going to raise their hand on that one? No?). Acting and not acting leads to suffering and death which might have been reduced if the other road was taken. (your post about it on your site, Al). The Calculus of Death: who lives, who dies, and why you choose to act/not act. Again, it’s a tough subject with no easy answers or even 'correct' ones. And that requires not dealing with civilian death as if it were the only issue of import or romanticizing it. That isn’t callous. That’s dealing with the world as it is and not in some Disneyfied imaginary reality. Lots of good people died in Burma for little reason other than they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Lots of people died in Seoul, Korea who didn’t deserve to die between 1950 and 1953 for no reason other than fate was cruel that day. I would pose that people are taking this "The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.' gotten from here and turning it on its head. It's going into the realm of complete pacifism or overly dovish just war theory (http://www.justwartheory.com/). AS I see it the arguments put forward by Trias and Al do two things (without making either of them odd people. I'd love to have Al as a neighbor, literally. Sorry Trias, OZ is just too far away.): 1) it tosses Just War Theory completely out the window by 2) fetishizing individual suffering. Not that having a healthy interest in personal suffering is a bad thing, but making it the sole basis is tremendously wrong. Yes, history has been remiss in focusing on big picture and important players while ignoring the little guy’s plight. That’s not lost on anyone (glares at Trias and bangs rootbeer stein (look I'm trying to be keep it at the level of loud bar argument amongst friends, okay?)). But the level of preeminence it takes in the argumentation is absurd because it ignores completely the larger picture. If in the killing of 2000 civilians while trying to prosecute a war I end the suffering of 500K while creating 5000 more terrorists/terrorist sympathizers have I done a good thing? According to the logic employed by some it would seem an absolute no and always so because someone who ‘didn’t deserve it’ was the cost of securing real justice in the world. And that's utterly wrongheaded. By focusing on trees in a crisis situation you've ignored the larger pattern. Thereby dooming them, and the forest next door, to the rather deplorable conditions they already lived in(or is having Hezbollah intimidate, murder, and use the populace as human shields while attacking Israel and building cover agencies like the political and public works wings not deplorable)? What happened to TRUE justice? That's why the question John asked, "if they can't guarantee that no one but a tango will get hurt, they should just stand down and take it until Hezbollah grows up?" matters. You're saying, ultimately, is we only care about 1/2 of justice and not the whole megilla because securing it is too messy and makes us feel rotten(because you fetishize on the innocent deaths without even attempting to see how that could be counterbalanced by the furtherance of FULL justice). War is uncivilized. We developed a whole other set of rules to govern not only when it is correct to employ war (Just War Theory (jus ad bellum) amongst other things) and how to conduct it properly (also Just War Theory (jus in bellum) along with other things like Geneva Conventions and Lincoln's brainchild that ultimately became Law of Land Warfare). War, despite your protestations, has its own laws and rules that supersede civilian concerns once legally entered into. It is wholly apart from any civilian analog. That ain’t cruel, callous, or uncaring. That’s dealing with what is, and was derived by some other bright men and women long ago because they saw the need to prosecute wars to secure justice. Yes, civilian deaths matter. But they aren’t the only metric. Pursuit of ‘hearts and minds’ should be done. But it isn’t the sole road to victory and creating a peace superior to the one that came before it. And yes, that will be built on the bones of the dead: both the guilty and the innocent. Unless you’re some comic book godlike character you can’t change that. However superior a moral being you claim to be. (How’s that for a second effort, Al? Have I moved up from a D, yet? No harm no foul, dude. Have a PBR on me.)
 
By Trias on July 27, 2006 3:54 AM
That was a good post actually ry. I even understood most of it. Time to splash a little petrol around. 1) I don't actually know what Just War Theory is. What it entails etc. You make it far too cut and dried sounding. Perhaps I chucked it perhaps not. 2) I don't fetishize individual suffering. Really. Alan and I are out of phase I suspect. We probably don't have full agreement on viewpoints. We'll see in the fullness of time I suppose. Let me go over my post again. Hopefully more clearly. I think Alan has a good point on the conservative dissonance. The truth is some conservatives are labelling all as well deserving of death to evade such ugly things as guilt or responsibility for the proportion of those that just aren't. This is a point of morality. I am saying there are innocents out there (at the very least children although some conservatives are finding ways to demonise them too). I also said indirectly so long as these are not being targeted deliberately go ahead and kill them anyway when the target is worthwhile. Cruel huh? But that's my planet. Then I talk about hearts and minds which i think is a yet more important battle than the Israel-hizbollah one. Sure killing off hizbollah will likely reduce violence towards Israel for a time and that alone is possibly worth it but I want to know how the next Hizbollah is not going to spring up. What efforts are made to stop media from demonising Israel? What efforts are made to reduce ME civilian frustration which helps recruit these terrorists? What efforts are made to stop radical bullshit in Islam? What efforts are made to stop the effectiveness of terrorism's impact on western civilian perceptions and fears? The whole is not a quick and easy war where we're all home in time for supper and can pop the ethics in a "Just War Theory" bottle. This is not a war solely defined by weapons. This is a war where the enemy is fully hidden and ethically defined by hate. It's a war devoid of epic battles worthy of the history books. It's war where Israel vs hisbollah is really just a battle. It's a war where a few words can kill enemies and allies alike. It's a war where enemies and allies live on top of each other. I think I'm waffling.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 27, 2006 1:57 PM
Castle Argghhh! - possibly the only place in the Internet where you'll find "mein gott, the war for Burma!"
 
By ry on July 27, 2006 2:43 PM
Trias, follow some of the links I put in there. The Mount Holyoke link(http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm) is actually a very short summation. Agreement with Al's first para is essentially making far more of individual suffering than it deserves. It's making mistakes in a complex battlefield into war crimes. It is taking jus in bello and redefining it to mean a war is not fought justly if ANY civilian is killed. As John amoung others have told me, quite pointedly in some cases, that's an impossibility. A war is fought justly, in terms of civ casualties, if and only if the level of civilian suffering is offset by the gains made in the prosecution. Here's a good example from recent events: the shelling of a UN outpost(easy Al, I'm not gong to say that they 'deserved it' because they didn't. But it was still moral and legal.). Obviously, the UN personel were innocent thrid parties(soldiers, but still neutral thrid parties for whom intentional killing is wrong). So why would the shelling of the position be acceptable? First: what's the threat, what's it doing, what is it costing you not to deal with it? Second: what's the potential cost(in lives, various sort: civ, neutrals, own soldiers, enemy soldiers) of taking out the threat? Well, apparently the threat was accute, serious enough to require artillery fire, and complex: "UPDATE 1: More evidence. Retired Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie says he recently received emails from the Canadian peacekeeper killed at the UN post who’d told him that Hezbollah was using his post as cover. We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it. " From here You use that Calculus of Death I'v been talking about. Out pops the answer: shell Hezbollah and live with the risk of killing innocent bystanders because the attacks from the area in question are an acute threat. (as evidenced by this: "According to the BBC's Crispin Thorold in Jerusalem, the village has a strategic value, overlooking several other sites said to have been used as launch pads for Hezbollah rockets." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5206966.stm so there's good, moral, and legal reason to be firing in the area. ANd just the same to fire in the region of the UN OP.) You've got a situation where innocent people, much less your soldiers, will die with a probability of unity where the downside is a probability of killing UN personell that's equivalent to your cepx error in aiming. Dozens, if not hundreds, of dead(innocent and soldiers) vs. less than 20. Proper context. All moral. All legal. All tragic and sad. All in the pursuit of a real peace that serves everyone. And this is an example of what I mean by fetishization of innocent deaths. Nothing could be worth this, the killing of innocent bystanders while attempting to get blackhats, right? Wrong. A real peace is worth this and more. A real peace leads to a state lower in 'entropy' and conflict. Not pursuing it leaves things in a high state of 'entropy' and misery. Which would be injust and immoral. The family that got an anti-tank missile fired at their car is an accident. Those people didn't deserve to die and be maimed. It's tragic. But the greater tragedy is to leave the situation in a state whereby this came about. That's why total surrender was demanded in the Potsdam resolution. Japan and Germany were soundly beaten but leaving them as they were would simply lead to the same thing later on. So many civilians were killed to achieve a real peace with both countries. It's hard to get your head wrapped around at first, but it is correct. There are instances where this killing goes beyond even the rules of war. My Lai, for instance. Possibly the Pendleton 8 and the rape/murder case. 'NO quarter' that's being called for by Col. Peters. That's immoral and wrong. The other things Trias? That's why John blew his top the other week---which got Cassie all shook up. How soon have we forgotten the aid given during the Pakistan earth quake. The Christmas Tsunami? The humanitarian missions like TFHOA and others in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's why Katherine Harris and Condi Rice travel the globe. There are good acts being done to offset, or should offset, the hands off policy we're taking with Isreal. It's just that nobody wants to show that stuff since it's not part of a conspiracy, a disaster, or a controversy. Nothing can be done about media focus and demonization really. Not unless we're talking about killing freedom of the press by taking them over. That's not going to happen. All we can do is talk about it and hope that reasonable people use their brain instead of their heart strings. The next Hezbollah will be prevented from forming by the Lebanese who don't want to live thru another civil war or another war with Isreal and so will rat those bast-turds out to a gov't who will actually do something about it until Syria and Iran quit trying to install such groups there. "It's a war where a few words can kill enemies and allies alike." This exemplifies the use of civil analogs in an attempt to govern the situation. Community policing and dialogue between community leaders and authorities doesn't fix this(that comes after Hezbo has been dealt a serious blow. Jus post bello essentially). THe time for talk is over(in the Isreal situation, one can argue whether the time for talk was over for Afghanistan and Iraq). The time for words to destroy enemies(via pr victories I'm assuming) is long past. They were tried(pulled out of Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, stopped assasinating Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, etc). They didn't work(that's why Hizbo did the political and public works wing---just like the IRA made Sinn Fein(we ourselves) did to prettify their image with the general populace). More focused attempts have been tried(the assasination of the Munich plotters and other terrorist masterminds), and those were PR disasters as well with almost nothing in terms of peace being gained. It's past that time. It's beyond civil methods to repair. Those bound to hate are by their binding themselves to hate not going to be civil and reasonable. jaw-jaw at that juncture is Nevil Chamberlan-esque. It's Sitzkrieg. It's moral cowardice as it's hiding behind a facade of niceness and denying that nastiness, extreme nastiness, continues to happen while you satisfy your desire to be nice. Bad analogy, but sometimes to raise good kids a parent has to do what they think is mean. I'm reading a primer on anciet warfare, and it states that Alexandros Megalos understood that, "Vindictieveness may stuffen resistance, but persistant attempts at concilliation are easily taken for weakness." That's why fighting for hearts and minds isn't the sole strategy to overall victory. Be too concerned with suffering and you're shown to be a weakling that can be waited out or intimidated(something that's been said of Americans as far back as WW1, Hitler sure counted on Americans not being able to take casualties as did Gen Giap.) You aren't waffling, Trias. You're just a decent person dealing with a very complicated and troubling situation, and arguing with yourself what can trully be eliminated from consideration in choosing a moral path. Tought subject. I think I've reduced the problem down to the essentials. I could be wrong. You tell me what you think I should've not 86'd and what I should've 86'd instead.
 
By Trias on July 27, 2006 7:52 PM
You think I'm saying military action is unjustified but i'm *not* saying that. I am in support of the Israelis in this case. That's well known. You need to read what I said again I think. I'm not going to rephrase it a third time. Thanks for the info on Just War theory. Ok 'jus in bello' I have the meaning of now. I disagree about what you say on Alan's first paragraph. The deaths of these people is not exactly a mistake (they are unfortunate collateral damage of deliberate targeting) nor is it a war crime. You are still missing the point Alan made because you leap right over it into a completely different argument, one which you favor, on why civilians deaths are acceptable in this situation. I am not defining war as unjust "if ANY civilian is killed". I'm not even saying the war is unjust. Try not to put words into my mouth. I did not show the UN thing on TV. I didn't even discuss it. You may be able to say some fetishise it esp media wise but you can't make that stick to me personally. You even make up dialogue. I don't recall the event of John loosing it with Cassie. Who is Cassie? Was this on this website? I agree with much of the rest of it. I now understand why you're evangelising a position I already hold. I realise now I'm used as an icon for the greater liberal movement and everything I say can be ignored and reworded to be whatever you fear a typical liberal might say. Feel free to argue against liberal's words but don't insist I hold the same position just because I'm a liberal when I am telling you I don't hold that position. What is 86ed?
 
By ry on July 27, 2006 10:12 PM
Trias, this is why one of the rules of discussion here is 'message not the messenger'. There's a shift out in and out of stuff directly adressed to you. That's got your handle on it. The rest is general argumentation against a general argument. Nobody is attacking you or morphing you or sticking words in your mouth. (shift from personal to non-personal directed commentary---just so you get a feel for how I work). John did lose it last week, and Cassandra(scan the right side bar for link to her site) linked to it, and if she hadn't I wouldn't have seen it as I was on the road. That's about as mad as I've ever seen The Big Guy. Usually when I f'up there's at least a 'twinkle in his eye' in his emails/comments telling me to knock it off. There's no twinkle here. There's no funny. There's no lovable fuzzballness in this. There's only frustration and dejection. ANd why? Because the media and war naysayers(this ain't about you personally Trias, okay?) fetishize personal suffering and make soldiers into baby eating thugs with blood dripping from their cannines. John doesn't like to toot his own horn(hiya pg-17! how ya doin' boy?), much, but he has done much to change this image. The blog for one. His extensive charity work for another. His never ending big armed support for us lost souls(me being one of the strays he's net-adopted, thanks Big Bro') being yet another. His reading to school children being yet another. And.... All of it up in smoke becuase of the lies and myths that war naysayers instinctively use in their arguments(like fetishizing individual suffering). Al put it out there in good faith, and since I talk to him away from argghhh! I have a good idea of why he made those remarks, but the argument itself flows from the negative myths about soldiers, the Martial Profession, and war. Also because there's a MAJOR misunderstanding between what is moral and legal and what isn't in the general culture. The 'doves' have a near puritanism about civilian life taking, and they're controlling the debate. Even a little bit is verbotten. There's not an ounce of pragmatism in their arguments. Mostly, that's because they've never had to walk the walk. They get to stay in cushy academe and places of metropolitan living, and so they don't see the actual starkness that marks war conditions and morality from metropolitanism. Neither have I, not personally, but I have seen the eyes of those who have as they talk about it. It's like watching a rape victim talk about her ordeal. The contrast in conditions must be extreme to create the look in their eyes. Only something so divorced from civility to exist in a wholly seperate reality could do that. And so I do treat it like that. It's the only way I can find to have it all make sense. (even though I'm quoting this isn't a dart thrown at you Trias. It's answering a larger question. One that you helped raise, along with Alan, but the response shouldn't be taken as me leveling a charge at you. I'm answering the broad question raised in all arguments that use this same point. As is often said around here, 'It ain't always about you.' Remember, Argghhh!'s supposed to be a friendly pub type of place. We typically don't call each other nasty names or go out of our way to make each other uncomfortable. Although my verbosity may do so for some. Sorry Cheif.). "I think Alan has a good point on the conservative dissonance. The truth is some conservatives are labelling all as well deserving of death to evade such ugly things as guilt or responsibility for the proportion of those that just aren't." The truth is nitwits hurl this back and forth at each other in chatrooms and on sites famous for extreme partisanship and they'd excoriate another country saying it in a hearbeat. Reasonable people, honest people, not caricatures of 'conservatism', actually make a principled argument for why the death of one innocent life is acceptable(like the professional warriors of the PRC who say, 'If you can attack from there we can attack you there.'). In some part that's because if not all war is evil, all war, and to be avoided onto the point of death(we'd ultimately become the most evil thing in the world if we did fight); and we can't in good faith ever send anyone out to fight blackhats, ever, because there will always be some innocent who gets it in the neck undeservedly. So we need some ethic that allows for the problem to be dealt with. That ethic in large part is JWT which is about restraining warfare to the minimum of suffering while pursuing a just war thru just means. That does not mean ensuring that any and all civilians who didn't deserve it don't get killed(because barring fights in totally unpopulated areas, which is pretty dang rare, it will always happen), just the minimum necessary to achieve the broader goal of a better and more liveable peace. The fetish comes in when you have people using arguments similar to Al's(I've talked to Al, I know where he's comming from. He isn't saying this, but arguments similar to his ARE.) that civilian dead as reasons for why the broader policy cannot be pursued. Defacto true pacifism essentially(just packaged a bit differently). The mere fact of innocents suffering is enough to render any and all warlike actions unjust. It's so narrowly focused in on the poor civilians that they've completely overlooked whatever merit was originally there. They've forgotten the need for justice from the original injured party(while we do need to be careful to ensure that we don't overly deprive the innocent of justice, but we accept that we have to deprive them of some in war). Its rapidly bestowing legitimacy on whoever can claim victim in the current news cycle. That's not very consistent and it definitely is not a course I think leads to real Justice since it leads to one making a game of what exagerations one can get away with to attain victim status(as we've seen Hizbollah do in how it treats with reporters on carefully guided tours thru Hizbos media arm). The question should be was it worth it instead of whether they deserved it, IMHO. The answer wrt civilians almost always is no. But asking the question locks the argument in terms of individual suffering and disallows bigger picture thinking. (shift to personal again) Don't get huffy Trias. Nobody intentionally attacked you or tried to rough you up. Like me, you can be a sensitive guy(with better reasons for being sensitive than I ever will have) but it isn't always about you. Nobody is attacking you. when they do there'll be no question about it(compare and contrast my writing with Sanger's on this issue, and this issue only. Usually Sanger kicks my butt in logic and on-topic-ness, severely.) Cheif, sorry if this played out under the 'lecturing while saying 'you don't get it'' rhubric. I don't play well with others, haven't done much playing with others, and so if you'd be willing to forgive my prickliness would you mind sending some 'lectrons to smack me in the back o' the head like you would a kid who slurps his soup in front of company emberassing you? (yeah, I kinda pay attention sometimes.)
 
By Trias on July 27, 2006 11:13 PM
Ry I need to know who you're talking about. Switching targets from one to another without any heads up is really confusing for me. Oh I see. John emailed me about that and it would seem his anger at MSM kinda bubbled over to me due to my sloppy explaining. Maybe I can claim an old war injury now? I'm not huffy so much as trying not to let certain argments stick to me. Well I'm sure Alan can speak for himself but then I suppose a lot of bullets flew maybe he won't. We'll see.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.