Suicide Bombers and Collateral Damage
When reasonable people who disagree have a sincere discussion of their differences, they often come to realize they differ only by a "matter of degree" or on "where to draw the line".
The Baltimore Catechism taught me there were venial sins and mortal sins [in addition to the original sin of Eve eating the apple, for which we are all still paying the price- but that is another story for discussion another day]. Law School taught about misdemeanors and felonies. Law school also taught that the law basically is the lines we draw as a society to regulate our own behavior. God wrote the laws about sin in stone, but we write our human laws on paper.
Our interpretations of both the stone and paper laws varies with time and by person. Number 5 in stone says don't kill. Interpreters have argued exceptions for self-defense and for just wars. Capital punishment seems to be considered by some retroactive self-defense, but by others unjust vengeance. Bush calls the Iraq War pre-emptive self-defense, but some others term it unjustified aggression . Bush calls the Iraq War just, but some, like the Pope, told him before Bush started it that it was unjust. At least one American Catholic Bishop said John Kerry should be denied the sacraments for not working as a politician to change the laws to outlaw abortions as against stone 5, even though Kerry personally agrees with the Church position that abortion is wrong. But no American Catholic Bishop has said sacraments should be denied to American Catholic soldiers who fight in the Iraq War, even though the Pope said the war is unjust.
WWII started out as a just war, but questions are still debated as to the justification for the firebombing of Dresden and the atom bombs dropped on Japan. As an example of how only a few years can change matters, consider how few people would have argued that firebombing a major German city or atom bombing two Japanese cities would have been justified in 1942 rather than 1945 [assuming for purposes of illustration we had the A bomb in 1942]. For many Americans, the experience of those three additional years of war changed the matter of degree and crossed the line to justification.
Suicide may violate stone number 5. But what about suicide missions in wartime? The Japanese Kamikaze knew he would die for sure when he embarked on his dive bombing mission, but the death rate among Allied bomb crews in WWII was so astoundlingly high, as to make their flights arguably suicidal by matter of degree. What about suicide bombers in the middle east? They know they are going to die, but is there justification for their actions? Obviously there is from their point of view and from the point of view of those who make compensatory payments of "appreciation" to their families - as Saddam Hussein did. Innocent civilians and children are killed by suicide bombers, but so were they in Dresden and in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Has the US targeted innocent civilians and children in Iraq? The answer may be a matter of degree and where the line is drawn. For example, early in the war, when there was a report Saddam was dining in a restaurant, it was bombed. Saddam was not there, but what about retaurant employees and patrons, including perhaps children, who may have been killed? They may be what is euphemistically called "collateral damage", innocent victims who were not intended targets, even though the possibility of their becoming victims was known. Precision bombs used in Iraq supposedly limit collateral damage, whereas attempting to destroy whatever war factories existed by firebombing the entire civilian population of Dresden resulting in 35,000 deaths in one night sixty years ago was significantly more extensive. Battling insurgents in Iraq seems to be done on a shoot first and ask later self-defense justification basis reminiscent of the free fire zones in Vietnam -innocent victims should have known to avoid potential combat areas (even if the area is their own home) lest they become another variety of collateral damage.
Motive and purpose in targeting are often factored into determining degree and where the line is. Purposeful targeting of a school of children or a church service as a statement to the other side seems as bad as it can get, different in degree say from blowing up a guardpost and guards with civilians present. The atom bombs were intended to send a message to the Japanese Emperor and people, but the argument for justification seems to be a calculated variation of self-defense - sending the message was the only way to save the many more lives, Japanese civilians and military personnel on both sides. Could not a middle eastern bomber believe the same way - by killing these few civilians I am hoping to send a message that may actually save more civilians and military on both sides in the future?
Hate and patriotism can be used to recruit suicide bombers, but religion seems to work best. Without getting embroiled in the mystical aspects of the story, we can recall Jesus as the most celebrated person on a suicidal religious misson. Islamic bombers apparently believe they are dying the death of a religious martyr. What religion has not had its martyrs - they seem to be a vital part of the story, as if a religion could not be worthwile if no member was willing to die rather than renounce belief and no villain was so opposed to the religion as to be willing to create its martyrs? But I don't see Islamic bombers as religious martyrs, since no one is asking them to renounce their religion. I understand they think their religion is under attack, and I may agree with that in some ways, but no one is asking them to renounce Islam. They may be martyrs in the secondary sense of dying in a fight for princilples, but by that definition most people who voluntarily risk their lives are martyrs if they die from the risk.
But what about those who send these usually young bomber martyrs to their deaths and then make payments to their families? Isn't there something questionable about using money as an inducement to engage martyrs? We said it was when Saddam did it, but now Congress is arguably doing the same by raising the death benefits substantially for families of those killed in combat, at a time when the war is turning out to be longer lasting and more deadly than the administration expected and when enlistment quotas are not being met.
I raised more issues here than I intended. I wrote this more as food for thought than to stir up debate. Determining matters of degree, where lines should be drawn and how to interpret such degrees and lines is usually difficult, but especially so in time of war and more so as a war continues over time. Unfortunately, the degrees, lines and interpretations always seem to move during war in directions that we later wish they had not, which is another valid argument for ending a war as soon as possible. It is also a valid argument for disagreeing that there is any such thing as a "neverending war against terror".
The Baltimore Catechism taught me there were venial sins and mortal sins [in addition to the original sin of Eve eating the apple, for which we are all still paying the price- but that is another story for discussion another day]. Law School taught about misdemeanors and felonies. Law school also taught that the law basically is the lines we draw as a society to regulate our own behavior. God wrote the laws about sin in stone, but we write our human laws on paper.
Our interpretations of both the stone and paper laws varies with time and by person. Number 5 in stone says don't kill. Interpreters have argued exceptions for self-defense and for just wars. Capital punishment seems to be considered by some retroactive self-defense, but by others unjust vengeance. Bush calls the Iraq War pre-emptive self-defense, but some others term it unjustified aggression . Bush calls the Iraq War just, but some, like the Pope, told him before Bush started it that it was unjust. At least one American Catholic Bishop said John Kerry should be denied the sacraments for not working as a politician to change the laws to outlaw abortions as against stone 5, even though Kerry personally agrees with the Church position that abortion is wrong. But no American Catholic Bishop has said sacraments should be denied to American Catholic soldiers who fight in the Iraq War, even though the Pope said the war is unjust.
WWII started out as a just war, but questions are still debated as to the justification for the firebombing of Dresden and the atom bombs dropped on Japan. As an example of how only a few years can change matters, consider how few people would have argued that firebombing a major German city or atom bombing two Japanese cities would have been justified in 1942 rather than 1945 [assuming for purposes of illustration we had the A bomb in 1942]. For many Americans, the experience of those three additional years of war changed the matter of degree and crossed the line to justification.
Suicide may violate stone number 5. But what about suicide missions in wartime? The Japanese Kamikaze knew he would die for sure when he embarked on his dive bombing mission, but the death rate among Allied bomb crews in WWII was so astoundlingly high, as to make their flights arguably suicidal by matter of degree. What about suicide bombers in the middle east? They know they are going to die, but is there justification for their actions? Obviously there is from their point of view and from the point of view of those who make compensatory payments of "appreciation" to their families - as Saddam Hussein did. Innocent civilians and children are killed by suicide bombers, but so were they in Dresden and in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Has the US targeted innocent civilians and children in Iraq? The answer may be a matter of degree and where the line is drawn. For example, early in the war, when there was a report Saddam was dining in a restaurant, it was bombed. Saddam was not there, but what about retaurant employees and patrons, including perhaps children, who may have been killed? They may be what is euphemistically called "collateral damage", innocent victims who were not intended targets, even though the possibility of their becoming victims was known. Precision bombs used in Iraq supposedly limit collateral damage, whereas attempting to destroy whatever war factories existed by firebombing the entire civilian population of Dresden resulting in 35,000 deaths in one night sixty years ago was significantly more extensive. Battling insurgents in Iraq seems to be done on a shoot first and ask later self-defense justification basis reminiscent of the free fire zones in Vietnam -innocent victims should have known to avoid potential combat areas (even if the area is their own home) lest they become another variety of collateral damage.
Motive and purpose in targeting are often factored into determining degree and where the line is. Purposeful targeting of a school of children or a church service as a statement to the other side seems as bad as it can get, different in degree say from blowing up a guardpost and guards with civilians present. The atom bombs were intended to send a message to the Japanese Emperor and people, but the argument for justification seems to be a calculated variation of self-defense - sending the message was the only way to save the many more lives, Japanese civilians and military personnel on both sides. Could not a middle eastern bomber believe the same way - by killing these few civilians I am hoping to send a message that may actually save more civilians and military on both sides in the future?
Hate and patriotism can be used to recruit suicide bombers, but religion seems to work best. Without getting embroiled in the mystical aspects of the story, we can recall Jesus as the most celebrated person on a suicidal religious misson. Islamic bombers apparently believe they are dying the death of a religious martyr. What religion has not had its martyrs - they seem to be a vital part of the story, as if a religion could not be worthwile if no member was willing to die rather than renounce belief and no villain was so opposed to the religion as to be willing to create its martyrs? But I don't see Islamic bombers as religious martyrs, since no one is asking them to renounce their religion. I understand they think their religion is under attack, and I may agree with that in some ways, but no one is asking them to renounce Islam. They may be martyrs in the secondary sense of dying in a fight for princilples, but by that definition most people who voluntarily risk their lives are martyrs if they die from the risk.
But what about those who send these usually young bomber martyrs to their deaths and then make payments to their families? Isn't there something questionable about using money as an inducement to engage martyrs? We said it was when Saddam did it, but now Congress is arguably doing the same by raising the death benefits substantially for families of those killed in combat, at a time when the war is turning out to be longer lasting and more deadly than the administration expected and when enlistment quotas are not being met.
I raised more issues here than I intended. I wrote this more as food for thought than to stir up debate. Determining matters of degree, where lines should be drawn and how to interpret such degrees and lines is usually difficult, but especially so in time of war and more so as a war continues over time. Unfortunately, the degrees, lines and interpretations always seem to move during war in directions that we later wish they had not, which is another valid argument for ending a war as soon as possible. It is also a valid argument for disagreeing that there is any such thing as a "neverending war against terror".
posted by Tom Blake | 1:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home