Civilian Casualties in War: a moral dilemma!

[Asher Kelman]

Photography has major social consequences. It records stuff that we normally don't see.

Assume, for now, that a war is morally justified and even a moral imperitive; such that it is valid to risk the lives of one's own troops.

What should we think of the civilian casualties in carrying this out?

I have presented a set of assumptions as de facto truths just so one can discuss the consequences to our moral assertiveness and need for "self defense".

Examples:

Bombing of Dresden in WW2, to cripple the morale of Germany that was slaughtering all over Europe.

Bombing of Hiroshima (forget the nature of the bomb here) in order to save the lives of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops per island on the way to Japan.

Bombing of Iraq (assuming Iraq was guilty of gassing Kurds, Iranians and trying to exterminate the marshland Arabs depending on canals (which were dried up by massive diverion of water for no other purpose), and were likely to continue to do so at the whim of the govenment.

Bombing of S. Lebanon(assuming the State of Israel faced an existential threat from implaccable Heszbolah fighters)

How can one conduct a war and keep a moral highground.

In the old days, we just had paintings of glory. Now we have video and photos (albeit some falsified) thrusting horrors of war on civilians to our living rooms.

Do we just say, morality has to be suspended to get the job done, likelife we photograph in Nature or what?

Asher

 

[ChrisDauer]

I've read the OP's post several times and I am still not sure if he is talking about the civilians native to the country, or cilivian contractors working in the country. The current gulf war has shown us many horrors of war thrust upon both. So with this thought in mind...


Who's morals? And at what point in time?

History is written by the victor. I make no claims about the morality of it all. Were I in a position of power, I would not fight fair or likely even morally, in order to win. IMO, morality can be dealt with when the job is done and things need to be set right.

In terms of morals in war, the Geneva Convention (in this case specifically the 4th Geneva Convention) would define what is morally acceptable.

But how does a soldier determine a civilian from a soldier?
In Vietnam, civilians were simply soldiers that hadn't yet thrown a grenade. This is obviously a gross overgeneralization of the matter, but there were plenty of times when the grenade was revealed at the last second and there was no time to do anything about it. From the eyes of the soldier, do you shoot first and pray they are not innocent? Or to you let them close, possibly to your own death?

And what are you to do when the other side doesn't play by the same rules (morally or otherwise?) What if they don't care about the Geneva Convention and do use civilians to cripple morale? Is the other side allowed to respond in kind? I'm sure the civilians on either side aren't happy with this solution.

I once worked with a man from central Europe. He's probably one of the smartest men I've ever met. I asked him why he came over. He said, "I came to America because where I lived, half the people wanted to kill me because I have the wrong first name. The other half wanted to kill me because I have the wrong last name. It seemed like a very good idea to not live there anymore."

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Assume, for now, that a war is morally justified and even a moral imperitive; such that it is valid to risk the lives of one's own troops.

What should we think of the civilian casualties in carrying this out?

I have presented a set of assumptions as de facto truths just so one can discuss the consequences to our moral assertiveness and need for "self defense".

How can one conduct a war and keep a moral highgrund.

Asher

I don't think you can. First, those standing on the moral high ground in some third country, far from the battlefield, will question each of your assumptions, and perhaps not accept any of them:

Dresden, probably not necessary, the "Will of the Volk" was broken already

Hiroshima, maybe, although your numbers need to be increased for the cost of the mainland invasion that was probably to be required. My modest reading of Japanese diaries of that time suggests that civilians thought that their army and they would indeed fight to the last.

Iraq -- why was this our problem?

Lebanon -- Was Hezbollah planning to invade Israel at this time, or simply to annoy the Hell out of them?

So maybe it is all PR, in which only a clear victor (in the first two cases) can hope to control the writing of history, and thus the moral high ground.

scott

 

[Roger Lambert]

Bombing of Iraq (assuming Iraq was guilty of gassing Kurds, Iranians...
Asher

Just wanted to let you know that the C.I.A. has determined that Saddam Hussein was NOT responsible for the gassing of the Kurds - it was actually Iran. Don't know about the events contained in the rest of your sentence.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Just wanted to let you know that the C.I.A. has determined that Saddam Hussein was NOT responsible for the gassing of the Kurds - it was actually Iran. Don't know about the events contained in the rest of your sentence.

Well Roger,

I thought that was at least a pretty safe assumption! Hmm! Do you have any reference to that? I am surpised. However, I'm open to learning always.

If you are correct, thanks for informing me. If not, we can have a chuckle! We do not dispute that the Kurds were gassed?

Asher

 

[Roger Lambert]

It is late and I am tired, but I will respond anyway.

I have real difficulty conflating your first two examples with the latter pair. In the first two instances, we are talking about two countries actually and officially at war with one another.

Germany was invading and occupying any country it could, and was obviously bent on world domination. They had no qualms about bombing nonmilitary targets a la The Blitz.

Japan attacked American soil under a veil of political deception, and officially then declared war on the U.S.

On the other hand...

Iraq was invaded by the U.S. without an official declaration of war on either side. Ostensibly an act of self-preservation because of Saddam's alleged ownership of nuclear weapons, we now know this was all a pack of lies. The "war" as it was called, was over when Bush gave his "Mission Accomplished" speech. Since that point, the U.S. has been occupying Iraq, not at "war" with it.

Israel invaded a very hostile nation without declaring war. Its tactics were almost without military objective, IMO. There was not a plan for decapitation of the existing government, nor a clear objective or even a possibility of success in their destruction of neighborhoods. This was, it seems, more of a political statement, as Hezbollah have been heaving mortars for decades, with little real effect.

It seems to me that official war between nations is a very different situation from simple unilateral attacks. Theoretically, it is much easier to justify civilian casualties during actual war, I would argue. Horrible, but arguable.

But the actions in Iraq and Lebanon are. to my mind simply reprehensible and a tremendous tragedy, and I say this as a as a staunch supporter of Israel.

At least I can understand Israel's motivations There is a point reached when continued attacks upon one's populace cannot be abided without a response. Theirs was a really terrible choice of response, IMO.

As for Iraq - there is no explanation for what was perpetrated there except for global positioning and obscene profit-taking as far as I can gather. Watching the initial bombardment - the "Shock and Awe" was heartbreaking, as sure enough, civilians we were supposedly there to liberate were, indeed, slaughtered en masse. And now we discover that 2/3 of a million Iraqi civilians now lie dead.

In the cases of Iraq and Lebanon, I find it impossible to accept the concept of defensive need to justify the aggression used upon the populace.

Israel lost its temper - and Bush et al completely lost their minds.

 

[Don Lashier]

I thought that was at least a pretty safe assumption! Hmm! Do you have any reference to that? I am surpised. However, I'm open to learning always.

It's up for debate, but the DIA preliminary conclusion was that it was Iran, and this was the CIA's view also for many years. More recent evidence points to Iraq, but in todays climate of lies and more lies, who do you believe? The analysis seemed to change when Sadam fell out of favor in Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

- DL

 

[Asher Kelman]

Roger,

Thanks for the good start of a reply. Some good points. Some questions each time you write LOL!

Gassing Kurds, who did it? Obscene profit taking: you meen the Haliburtons riping of the U.S. Treasury or do you see some other cash flow i'm not aware of? Global positioning I guess you mena around Iran and next to Syria. I'm not sure that the Bush administration really knows? Do you think they do?

2/3 of a million dead? We have a high guesstimate of 650,000 but we don't know. Except it is likely somewhere between 100,000 and that 650,000.

Iraq already had a very high birth rate and high infant mortality rate and I don't know how they dealt with that. The state of hospitals, recording information and sources of data seem rather shabby. However, there is a horrible loss of life.

How many million died in the Iran Iraq war? How many Kurds were killed before the US/UK no fly zone protected the Kurds?

How many people will die if/when the Turks invade a federated borken up Iraq to take over Kirkuk and suppress the threatening Kurdish geographical movement?

I am astonished that the religious authorities can get together to stop the sectarian violence. They seem to want civil war.

Daddy bush was to scared to take Baghdad because he knew he's own it. Boy Bush, unfortunately has no grounding in history or the CIA to know the difference between reality and wishful thinking. One wiff of the science textbooks in certain Southern U.S. States (reporting that Evolution is a theory that merely competes with the equally valid science of "creationism") is enough to show how much handicap some people have.

I don't think bush lost his mind! I just think he is educationally unprepared, even if he does have the right number of brain cells. Prayer and eating Texas beed is no substitute for decisive policies and a prudent chess game, with a loaded gun ready.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

It seems to me that official war between nations is a very different situation from simple unilateral attacks. Theoretically, it is much easier to justify civilian casualties during actual war, I would argue. Horrible, but arguable.

This is the tough thing to look at ouselves this way and have to deal with our own ideas of what 's moral, what's needed and what is justified. Essentially it means that when there is declared war, we become barbaric (or we wouldn't have a war) and that civilians casualties are just part of "what happens".

However, with powerful national military groups having missiles, (not being an actual "State"), we're saying this is different. Why? Because they are not giving orders from the government offices? Why should that make a difference. If the host government can't or wont control armies of their own national within their borders, then who will? It seems that there has already been a revolutionary transfer of power. So this "rule" of looking to some inter-state declaration of war seems a difference in nomenclature but not a difference in reality.

How many civilians on one side have to be killed before the opposing side can say, drop a huge bomb to end the missiles? How many need to be killed. Does it have to be a certain threshold for one to be "right" to respond? If two is not enough, how about 20 or 200?

Also if there is a response, can assymetric force be used?

Asher

 

[Roger Lambert]

a detailed explanation re gassing of the Kurds:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ECD352BE-6B8F-449F-8F97-C7AB0DC08A94.htm

 

[Roger Lambert]

re U.S. profitmaking in Iraq:


http://democracyrising.us/content/view/60/72/

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/17.html

Billions unaccounted for.....


But the second reference is even more chilling, if you can believe it!..

It outlines how U.S. corporations have been given the "rights" to ALL of Iraq's resources, and they will be selling them back to Iraqi's from now on.

Things like WATER.

 

[Asher Kelman]

a detailed explanation re gassing of the Kurds:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ECD352BE-6B8F-449F-8F97-C7AB0DC08A94.htm

The gentleman that wrote that op ed in that renowned News Service Aljazira, was none other than Professor Mohammed al-Obaidi the spokesman for the People's Struggle Movement (Al-Kifah al-Shabi) in Iraq which is a Baathist supporting organization promoting failure of the democratic elected process and positioning itself to "prove" that chemical Ali was not responsible for gassing Kurds with nitrogen mustard and nerve gas.

The CIA, in fact does not appear to support this spin on the claim of Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

The Aljazira claim of the manipulation of news by the "CIA and Israeli Mossad" is merely to take away blame from the Baathists, just the usual scapegoates!

What we know for certain is that Kurds didn't tie their own hands behind their backs and shoot themselves by the thousands into shallow graves all over Iraq.

The masacres of Kurdish civilians is I believe unchallenged. We can't blame the Iranians for that, can we?

The really certainty is that these civilians were the trash of the 20th century along with millions of other civilians.

Asher

 

[Don Lashier]

The CIA, in fact does not appear to support this spin on the claim of Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

They apparantly did for 10 years before changing their mind when it became politically convenient. I'm not saying this is the truth, just that the CIA is not credible.

- DL

 

[KrisCarnmarker]

Quite an interesting concept, morality is. The problem with discussing morality and war is that there is obviously no set of universal principles that define what is moral and what is not. OK, yes, the Geneva Convention has attempted to define some of them but they are, at the end of the day, just as biased as any other person's personal principles. What is immoral to one person can be totally acceptable to somebody else. This applies to the small things in life as well as the big, important issues.

The fact is that in almost all conflicts, both parties believe they have the moral high ground. When I say parties, I do not necessarily mean the ruling bodies, but the general population. Sometimes the rulers know they are in the wrong and therefore fabricate the moral high ground (e.g. Iraq), sometimes the rulers really do believe they have the moral high ground (e.g. Vietnam). But don't for a second think that the N.Vietnamese or the Iraqi people did not believe they had the moral high ground. So who really does have it? Well, that depends on your moral values, so we are back to the beginning.

I think maybe a better approach is to not think directly of the moral implications of what is done, but more in regards to proportionality. As Robert McNamara said in the excellent documentary The Fog of War, "Proportionality should be a guideline in war". Of course, what is proportionate is partly defined by our morals.

So, to comment on some of the OP's examples (and these are just my opinions, of course).

Israel's invasion of Lebanon was grossly disproportionate. Hezbollah is almost as toothless as the UN. Their rockets are laughable, and just a tad more effective than the stones the Palestinians throw. I think both parties in this conflict have to take a long look at themselves. The Lebanese people are partly to blame. You cannot vote into parliament representatives of a militant group hell bent on your enemies destruction and then sit there act all surprised when the enemy attacks you. This does not excuse the disproportionate attack by Israel though.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were also grossly disproportionate. As bad as they where, the fire-bombings of several Japanese cities where maybe even worse. From my moral principles, there is absolutely no excuse for such actions. It is only because the US won the war that it has been accepted as "necessary". I know that many (if not all) Americans (and some others) believe these acts saved more people than they killed. IMO, that is absolutely absurd. McNamara, who was there at the time, claimed that these acts where disproportionate and clear "crimes of war".

 

[Dierk Haasis]

South Park, season 10, episode 9 took care of the conspiracy theories around 9/11. And Mel Gibson did it DUI.

I have no trouble with the assumption that violence can be justified, good examples are WW1/2 [I've come to consider them as one war with two chapters] and the never happened war against Stalin's Russia. The latter one made it quite complicated for Great Britain to decide with whom they should side.

But why should we distinguish between troops and civilians? Violence is always an ultimate solution, and it should be. There's life at risk! Many seem to forget that; and it is not only those not officially wearing a uniform or a gun - every single soldier of any army has a family and a life outside of fighting. The moment we forget that we dehumanise the soldiers and eventually ourselves.

While Europeans whine and discuss other people's [sic] wars on an intellectual basis - like discussing the newest dreck from Andrew Lloyd Webber - US citizens take a very practical approach: It is our sons left to die in the desert. It is this realisation underlying the current negative stance on the war in Iraq, not some abstract political notion about lying [could anybody envision large scale rallies against Junior or any other politician proclaiming he lied; only a young democracy like Hungary's brings that about].

I was born and raised in a city that was struck much harder than Dresden during the war, it's just that our PR isn't as good, having had not much architecturally speaking like Dresden's mock-Baroque inner city [which, BTW, is younger than the Neustadt although it's called Altstadt]. Know what, I am one of the very few people in the world thinking General Harris's plan did work and was good. Not even Britons share this sentiment.

One should not fall into the trap opened by some putting soldiers aside. The point of the better war movies and books has always been to praise the individual soldier that he can live a moral life in a world of turmoil and immorality. Yes, Junior, you can be against [the] war while at the same time honour and help the soldiers. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

The problem is not that civilians die in war. The problem is that everything dies - Civilians, Soldiers, Morals, Truth, Love, Freedom, Life.

 

[Mary Bull]

Thoughts from a native Texan

Beautifully said, Dierk. And complete, profound, believable truth.

Quote of your concluding paragraph:

The problem is not that civilians die in war. The problem is that everything dies - Civilians, Soldiers, Morals, Truth, Love, Freedom, Life.

Having grown up in the Texas which a generation later "educated/raised" George W. Bush, I note that a formative time of life spent immersed in the culture of Texas, eating Texas beef, being taught that the theory of evolution was produced by people deceived by the devil, does not always result in a Bush-type mindset or diminished ability to accept facts, or to put aside wishful thinking in favor of realistic reasoning.

I would hope that a couple of my Texas sisters and myself might be cases in point.

And meanwhile, left-over from my fundamentalist white anglo-saxon upbringing, I have only the word Amen to add to your conclusion.

The problem is that everything dies - Civilians, Soldiers, Morals, Truth, Love, Freedom, Life.

AMEN.

Mary

 

[Asher Kelman]

AMEN.

Mary

Actually, "ar-Maine", the real word hebrew or aramaic!

Yes Dierk pur it well, by putting soldiers in a separate category and doing some tricks

1. Say they fight for our survival.

2. Crush their free will and indoctrinate them

2. Glorify their training.

3. Give them ranks uniforms and medals as honors and rewards.

4. Pray for them when they go to battle and bless their bombers.

5. Say they died for their country and made the ultimate sacrifice, as if it was voluntary.

6. Give the family a folded flag with great ceremony and access to noble cemeteries.

and that's about it!

Then we call civilians, innocents!

Now if in addition we accept the analysis that

The problem is not that civilians die in war. The problem is that everything dies - Civilians, Soldiers, Morals, Truth, Love, Freedom, Life.

then assymetric response is not inappropriate. After all one wants to crush the enemy so the existential threat is removed.

I really believe that when humans reach this point, we have, in fact, shed pretty well, many pretences to being "above animals".

The latter conceprt is a rather conceited way of expresses a convenient and limited agreement of the type that "I won't defile your wife during a battle is you wont ravish my daughter!"

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

One of the side effects of universal photography, (Life magazine) is that it unmasks mythologies (war is noble, policemen serve, priests are moral) of society by which we trick ourselves and each other. Unfortunately it also supports others (Vogue, Playboy).

I'm hoping it might in balance help to protect us and the planet from destruction. At least we might get to see reality and our fragility. That is, for me at least, one of the driving forces behind OPF.

A secret motivation, escaped!

Asher

 

[Mary Bull]

Actually, "ar-Maine", the real word hebrew or aramaic!

Isn't it interesting how the ancient culture which the Hebrew and Aramaic languages are part of has come down to me. Hebrew scriptures preserved in Latin translation by Catholic monks (I saw some of this when I was in Dublin in 2003) and actual Greek fragments, early copies of Christian texts on parchment preserved in various museums.

Then along came Gutenberg, and vernacular translations by German and English protestants and reformers--and also such translations in other countries, of course.

And the rest is history. And I'm born in the late 1920s and taught that the Protestant Old and New Testaments given to me to read are the unerring literal Word of God.

And all the Hebrew stories and language, filtered into English, that I heard at home and in church services--Sun. a.m, Sun. p.m. , Wed. p.m.--are so ingrained into my psyche and the language resources of my own brain that I cannot even think except in the language and metaphors and expressions which I inherited, very greatly filtered, from the Hebrew people.

Yes Dierk pur it well, by putting soldiers in a separate category and doing some tricks

1. Say they fight for our survival.

2. Crush their free will and indoctrinate them

2. Glorify their training.

3. Give them ranks uniforms and medals as honors and rewards.

4. Pray for them when they go to battle and bless their bombers.

5. Say they died for their country and made the ultimate sacrifice, as if it was voluntary.

6. Give the family a folded flag with great ceremony and access to noble cemeteries.

and that's about it!

Then we call civilians, innocents!

Now if in addition we accept the analysis that

The problem is not that civilians die in war. The problem is that everything dies - Civilians, Soldiers, Morals, Truth, Love, Freedom, Life.

then assymetric response is not inappropriate. After all one wants to crush the enemy so the existential threat is removed.

I put the exact opposite turn on it, Asher.

My take on it is: All war is immoral, just because it causes everything to die: Civilians, Soldiers, Morals, Truth, Love, Freedom, Life.

Whatever became of that post which I sent in connection with the Darfur thread?

The one in which I told you that I could not post anywhere for two months after Bush began bombing Baghdad?

Couldn't eat, couldn't sleep, went around with tears in my throat?

Somehow it got lost in the move to the provocative forum.

Anyway, I'm putting that little piece of personal history back in here.

War is immoral.

Probably war photographs, including those of both civilians and soldiers, should be taken. To document the immorality.

I really believe that when humans reach this point, we have, in fact, shed pretty well, many pretences to being "above animals".

In my view we are not "above animals." We are simply one more family/genus/species of animal.

The latter conceprt is a rather conceited way of expresses a convenient and limited agreement of the type that "I won't defile your wife during a battle is you wont ravish my daughter!"

Tit for Tat. Logically the very best gaming strategy.

This is a good thread, Asher. I am glad that you began it.

Mary

 

[Asher Kelman]

"War is immoral"?

That in itself is a debate, Mary!

What ruler did you take out of your drawer to measure war by which war does not measure up to being "moral"?

Asher


BTW, we do not delete any professional posts ever! Certain words which might attract porno-seekers or child predators are edited out or blocked, but content isn't unless threatening, illegal or smelling of pediphile promotion. This is a balance to allow an open forum, shield the sensitive (in having this room to enter, or not) and keep the prurient guests out!

So you might do a further search. No way I removed a sentence you wrote With kind thoughts, A.K.

 

[Dierk Haasis]

Mary, it was actually Asher getting it right. I explicitly wrote that I have no problem with violence as a means in principle, and my line of reasoning will eventually lead to the odd war in order to prevent more wars, bigger wars.

Surely, as somone well in the field of Critical Rationalism I'd prefer any kind of violence being foregone - it is one of those phenomena deeply ingrained into our genetic make-up. But that does not mean we should not or could not fight it.

We had the historical example already in this thread: Chamberlain's appeasement policy of the late 1930s lead to Hitler invading Poland and Belgium with the result that several European nations - foremost Chamberlain's fatherland - had to go to the bloodiest war ever. It also lead to a prolonged Communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe and large parts of Asia.

 

[Mary Bull]

I think I did know this about your views, Dierk. And a part of me does want to fight.

But, emotionally, I'm no longer inclined to do so. And so I turned your concluding sentence on its head.

If I may use an imperfect analogy: Until the last 10 years of his life, my late husband shot a deer on our farm every fall for our table use.

But one day, he cleaned his hunting rifle and put it away.

He said they were just too pretty to kill.

At this point, having lived through Vietnam and Iraq in the U.S. series of misguided foreign policy events, I am tired of fighting. If I were making the decisions, I guess I would be doomed to be conquered and oppressed.

Probably lucky for the world that I'm not in a position of power the way Chamberlain was.

Mary

 

[Mary Bull]

"War is immoral"?

That in itself is a debate, Mary!

What ruler did you take out of your drawer to measure war by which war does not measure up to being "moral"?

The emotional ruler in my emotionally weary head. < she said with an affectionate smile>

BTW, we do not delete any professional posts ever! Certain words which might attract porno-seekers or child predators are edited out or blocked, but content isn't unless threatening, illegal or smelling of pediphile promotion. This is a balance to allow an open forum, shield the sensitive (in having this room to enter, or not) and keep the prurient guests out!

Asher, you know that I am not a professional.

In my recollection, you split that thread. Part remained behind in the Layback Cafe (was that the forum it originated in?). The listing showed my post and an answer you made to it. I kept getting an "Invalid" error whenever I tried to open that thread. I sent several messages through the automatic mechanism to the list moderator.

And I asked you in a PM about it.

But, you seemed to think it was taken care of, and I didn't follow up further, because the photography part of OPF was claiming all my interest and time.

Then one day, that thread just disappeared. So I'll never know what you replied to me in it.

I looked down in the provocative forum, and my earlier post was there, but the one with the personal reminiscence was gone.

It's no big deal. I've rephrased and reposted those sentiments here, now.

So you might do a further search. No way I removed a sentence you wrote With kind thoughts, A.K.

Would a specific word from my post find it, do you think?
I know you've had a lot on your plate, Asher. But what I had said came to mind again, with war and the horrors of war in the forefront of it once more.
Also with kind thoughts,
Mary

 

[Asher Kelman]

If you can think of some unusual words you included we could find it. I assure you nothing has been removed unless the CIA or some electron monster gobbled it up!

 

[Mary Bull]

Found It

If you can think of some unusual words you included we could find it. I assure you nothing has been removed unless the CIA or some electron monster gobbled it up!

And your assurance is proved totally valid.

No keywords I tried brought it up. So I searched for threads that Mary Bull had posted to.

And here is a screen capture of the threads listing page, cropped at the point the thread with my post appears:

Clicking on the thread in the listing again brought up "Invalid Post."

So, something went awry with the software in connection with this thread.

And when I couldn't locate it any more to see if the inability to open it had been fixed, I thought perhaps you had moved it somewhere that I couldn't locate it, or else--for good and valid reasons of your own--completely removed it. Since your post and mine are the only two left in the thread. And I'm not a professional, and you are the moderator, and it was your own post besides mine.

Anyway, now that you see what the problem is, can it be fixed?

Mary
< waiting with anticipation and affection >

 

[Roger Lambert]

The best analysis of the gassing of the Kurds I have read yet.

Looks like Iraq after all?

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00034.html

 

[Roger Lambert]

But why should we distinguish between troops and civilians? Violence is always an ultimate solution, and it should be. .

Remind me not to send you to the store to shop for civilians!

But seriously, it is easy to distinguish between troops and civilians.

The troops are the adult men (almost always men) who accepted the risks of war and get paid to fight it. They work for the government.

The civilians are the women and children ( usually) who share none of the soldiers characteristics but get slaughtered anyway. They may or may not support their governments position on war.

And violence is never really the ultimate solution - peace and negotiation are. War is NOT always necessary, nor should it necessarily include any civilian deaths. War is pretty much the ultimate problem, not the ultimate solution.

This is not to say that violence is not needed in some circumstances. Violence is necessary sometimes.

But we should not, I think, accept civilian casualties as a necessary byproduct of war, nor as a necessary inhibitor of war.

I believe that wartime killing should be minimalized, and should be relegated to the willing participants and the absolutely guilty. Surgical assasination or armies meeting on a plain should be the goal.

 

[Dierk Haasis]

Roger, you are aware that many countries - like Germany and Israel - have a draft army?

As to surgical warfare: It's non-existent. It has always been a myth, never ever was a war fought without non-fighting casualities - and it never will be. They are, if we like it or not, strategic. My original reply, and this one, particularly targets the myth that war can be fought surgically, without civilians being victimised. We have to face reality to change it, not the other way round [and this, BTW, is a very open criticism of Junior's world view]. From this follows that violence is a last resort, not peace and negotiations.

Appeasement lead to WW2, Israel negotiates since before 1948, they still try to go the peaceful road [to spell it out: with the result that some religious brainwashed losers use themselves as weapons against Israeli women and children]. North Korea, a real threat for a change, doesn't care at all if the other 191 (or 202 or 242 depending on what nations/countries you recognise) find their attitude a bit ... lacking.

And violence is never really the ultimate solution

This may be a misunderstanding initiated by my ambigous use of 'ultimate'. I meant 'last' with the undertone of 'it should then not be done half-heartedly'. My mistake.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Roger, you are aware that many countries - like Germany and Israel - have a draft army?

As to surgical warfare: It's non-existent. It has always been a myth, never ever was a war fought without non-fighting casualities - and it never will be. They are, if we like it or not, strategic. My original reply, and this one, particularly targets the myth that war can be fought surgically, without civilians being victimised. We have to face reality to change it, not the other way round [and this, BTW, is a very open criticism of Junior's world view]. From this follows that violence is a last resort[(/i], not peace and negotiations.

Appeasement lead to WW2, Israel negotiates since before 1948, they still try to go the peaceful road [to spell it out: with the result that some religious brainwashed losers use themselves as weapons against Israeli women and children]. North Korea, a real threat for a change, doesn't care at all if the other 191 (or 202 or 242 depending on what nations/countries you recognise) find their attitude a bit ... lacking.



This may be a misunderstanding initiated by my ambigous use of 'ultimate'. I meant 'last' with the undertone of 'it should then not be done half-heartedly'. My mistake.

Dierk,

I feel differences in some approaches in photography, but little in the measure of humanity, evil and morality. I was going to edit what you wrote, but I feel it better stands as a total albeit limited body of thought.

Your few words still say a lot. The root of our problems in understanding the dichotomy of violence and kindness is based in human evolutionary development and the infectious ideas in mythology.

Man is not a replica of the gods brought down by evil, but a beast with compassion and generosity to it's kind. Still man is also cunning a deceitful hoarder. He’s easily taken to believing in tribe-based mythology and or self-deception. This infectious thought control, while cement for intra-tribal cohesiveness and discipline, is nevertheless potentially destructive to outsiders.

When seemingly provoked, or else exposed to knowledge of imagined or real resources, we are, as a species, naturally provoked to ruthless destruction against whatever or who ever is weaker, exploitable or ranked as evil. The latter is the logical key to suppression of the parts of the human nature dealing with compassion by our nature and/or by the overlay of mythology and cultural delusions to justify the former.

Part of civilization is the relegation of mythology to scaffolding for stengthening nurturing of all our kind and our world.

Photographs help destroy the mythology of differences in the humanity in all of us, and that wars are clean and noble ventures of bravery and self sacrifice, when mostly the are not.

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I would say to remember that although the 'enlightened' west may abhor war, they have to remember that their enemies glorify it and preach it as a holy duty. If you are not willing to fight for your beliefs including defence then you have already lost and those who will be killed by that enemy will have been killed due to the weakness of that culture and philosophy.

As someone said above, the concept of surgical warfare somewhat misleadingly propagated by modern technology, is a lie. A bomb will never be a snipers bullet not can it difrentiate between victims. The fact that the non western world expoits the weakness of the west to the fullest possible extent as we see in Iraq or in Lebanon, is making a laughing stock of that western world. The Hezbollah strategy of ensuring civilian casualties then using those deaths to vilify Israel was utterly evil. The world which happily spent the entire war pandering to the Hezbollah propoganda in only looking one way with its criticism was setting an extremely dangerous precendent for the future. The west has shown that it totally manipulateable by those who have no qualms whatsoever in making sure that there are plenty civilian deaths to be squeamish about.

In conclusion the modern western world is not mature or strong enough for any warfare period in these times. Any enemy with half a brain would be able to make the west far too sqeamish to persue warfare however justified to the point where the result of any war would automatically default to a victory for the enemy. If there were to be another world war the western world would be its own worst enemy and ensure a catastrophic defeat because no one would have the guts to realise that war just isn't 'nice' and 'surgical'.