The bombings in London are considered barbaric while our bombings in the Middle East are considered heroic.

They are not comparable. For good reason.

Posted by RW on July 10, 2005 05:14 PM Link to comment

RW, since Buck is out of town, and I am struggling to figure out some things related to what you say here, I figure I'll speak up and ask: what is the good reason that makes our bombings (in Iraq) and their bombings incomparable? Why are the ones barbaric and the others heroic?

I ask honestly - I am really very sympathetic to the view that, even though I perceive our war on Iraq to be an unjust one, our bombings of "military" targets (with subsequent "collateral" killings of civilians) are more justifiable than their bombins of civilian targets. Unfortunately, that sympathy is more an emotional response on my part than a rational one. On a rational level, it is difficult for me to see past what the two have in common: that both "we" and "they" see it as acceptable to kill people who are no threat to us, including civilians, if doing so furthers goals that are very important to each of us.

The only factor that I see that really distinguishes the two is that, if the Pentagon is to be believed, "our" bombers strive to avoid injury to "non-combatants", to the extent that is consistent with achieving our goals - though not to the extent that are willing to increase risk to our military forces by foregoing bombing operations, while "they" actively target civilians. We have not (yet) come to the point where we believe that actively targeting civilians is justifiable. That's a meaningful distinction, but in the light of our mutual commitments to aggression and violence that affects the innocent as much as the suspected, as means of achieving goals we perceive to be important, I don't see how the two are "incomparable" on a rational level.

I would have an easier time of it if we were fighting a defensive war, or fighting in support of allies who were defending against aggression. That would create a much more meaningful and rational distinction. I just can't square my gut with my reason on the issue of whether our bombs in Fallujah or Mosul are "incomparable" to their bombs in London.

Would you share what, to your mind, separates the two to the point that they are incomparable?

Posted by smijer on July 10, 2005 10:32 PM Link to comment

"We have not (yet) come to the point where we believe that actively targeting civilians is justifiable."

That loaded sentence is akin to my saying "Democrats have not come to the point where thy believe complete coficsation of private property is justifiable".

We're going after terrorists and those who harbor them and we're literally sacrificing our own soldiers because we're going out of our way to avoid collateral damage (even though it still, sadly, occurs). If they don't kill innocent civilians, they consider it a failed venture. I'm amazed that I had to point that out.

Seriously, reading again you seemingly wouldn't be suprised if we were really actively targeting innocent civilians. My first question is: do you really think that? My second is: Why would we do that?

Posted by RW on July 10, 2005 11:25 PM Link to comment

Well, my tongue was lightly touching my cheek when I said "yet". I don't see it as a likelihood that the U.S. will begin specifically targeting civilians any time soon. On the other hand, I didn't think it a likelihood that the U.S. would begin torturing prisoners of war, either. I didn't expect, torture having happened, that the American public would tolerate or even support such actions, either. So, while I don't expect us to start specifically targeting civilians, I wouldn't be shocked beyond belief it happened.

If they don't kill innocent civilians, they consider it a failed venture. I'm amazed that I had to point that out.

You didn't have to point it out. I was careful to point it out myself, just above:

(I said...) The only factor that I see that really distinguishes the two is that, if the Pentagon is to be believed, "our" bombers strive to avoid injury to "non-combatants", to the extent that is consistent with achieving our goals - though not to the extent that are willing to increase risk to our military forces by foregoing bombing operations, while "they" actively target civilians.

Of course, they also consider it a failed venture if their bombings fail to achieve their end goal. While a few individuals on their side, and on ours, kill for the sheer thrill of it, overall their goal is not dead civilians, but weakened political support for their enemies - just as our overall goal is not dead civilians, but "defeating terrorism".

Going back to Iraq... you said "we are fighting terrorists". Well that's only partly true, and it isn't a very useful statement, in that it doesn't adequately describe what we are doing. For one thing, what "we are doing" is too complicated to be summed up with a single statement. On the ground in Iraq, we are still fighting a handful of actual terrorists - those who bomb a cafe in Baghdad. But if we allow ourselves to let "terrorist" become synonomous with "guerilla fighter" or "insurgent", then we have defined everything from our Revolutionary War patriots to the French Resistance in WWII, and any "foreign fighters" that joined them as terrorists. A more meaningful definition of terrorism has less to do with guerilla tactics, and more to do with the tactics of achieving political goals by undermining support for the "enemy"; by targeting their civilian population, with the goal of causing terror among them. When you keep to a rigorous definition of terrorism, the majority of the people we are fighting in Iraq are not terrorists - as they mainly target American and American-supported Iraqi military and security forces. The use of improvised weapons isn't sufficient to make one a terrorists. Don't you think our soldiers are trained to improvise weapons when needed?

As a policy goal, we are "fighting terrorism", in the sense that we are attempting to fight (actual) terrorists, and in the sense that we are attempting to secure our borders, transportation systems, etc., and enlisting foreign help in tracking down terrorists. But that isn't really the policy goal that we are talking about in Iraq - that policy goal was regime change, pure and simple. People will always have goals that seem very important to them, and will seem necessary to continuing their way of life. Resisting the American and (in this case British) occupation of Iraq surely seems as necessary a policy goal to those people who bombed London (and to the insurgents who are operating in Iraq, for that matter) as bringing about regime change in Iraq seemed to our political leadership. What is questionable is whether it is ok to deliberately kill civilians to support an important-seeming policy goal. Yes, you can point out the difference between targeting civilians, and deliberately killing them along with military targets. My question is whether such a small difference is the only reason why the London bombs and our bombs in Iraq are "incomparable", or is there some more compelling reason?

Posted by smijer on July 11, 2005 12:40 PM Link to comment

If we're going to delve into the actual definitions of words, then I must bring up the notion that we're really not bombing anyone in Iraq any more (caveat: if we are, it's a rare occasion, as we're usually using ground forces to carry out specific missions, so it's not like it *never happens*, but that we're no longer carrying out an air campaign of assault).

Finally, targeting civilians versus collateral damage is much more than a "small difference". That's all the difference in the world, my friend.

Posted by RW on July 11, 2005 01:21 PM Link to comment

Finally, targeting civilians versus collateral damage is much more than a "small difference". That's all the difference in the world, my friend.

I bet it doesn't make that much difference to the dead civilians. I ask again - if it is acceptable to deliberately kill civilians to further some important policy (i.e. not in defense or assistance against aggressors), is it so big a jump to the point where it is acceptable to target them? I have a hard time seeing where that is so large a difference a difference.

Posted by smijer on July 11, 2005 02:34 PM Link to comment

I bet it doesn't make that much difference to the dead civilians.

Moral equivalance? If so, then it could be said that a dead Ted Bundy is no different than a dead Martin Luther King, Jr. They're both dead. That's not a path that I travel, though, for the world lost a great man in one instance and the world became a better place after the Bun-dy-Que in Florida, IMO.

I ask again - if it is acceptable to deliberately kill civilians to further some important policy (i.e. not in defense or assistance against aggressors), is it so big a jump to the point where it is acceptable to target them?

1. Yes, it is a big jump. 2. I reject the notion that "we" are deliberately killing civilians, outright. Unless, that is, you're defining the the folks trying to kill our soldiers and their fellow Iraqis (Saddam sympathizers, Al Qaeda wannabes and other murderers known in the press as "insurgents") as civilians.

Posted by RW on July 11, 2005 06:59 PM Link to comment

Moral equivalance? If so, then it could be said that a dead Ted Bundy is no different than a dead Martin Luther King, Jr. They're both dead.

I'd say the difference between Ted Bundy and MLK is quite a bit more significance than the difference between London civilians and Iraqi civilians.

1. Yes, it is a big jump.

I guess we have a difference of perspective. To me, deciding to kill them because you want to kill others (who you deem more worthy of death) in hopes of achieving a goal that seems important to you, is by no means "incomparable" to deciding to kill them in hopes of achieving a goal that seems important to you.

On the other hand, if Hitler, for instance is trying to kill you and other innocents (actively - not just according to vague suspicions), and you cannot stop his aggressing armies without killing innocent civilians, then I see a distinction that merits the term "incomparable" between that decision and the decision to target civilians in pursuit of a policy goal. As a matter of fact, I see the decision to kill civilians because you must to protect the innocents being "incomparable" even to killing civilians because you can't avoid doing so while still destroying the military that you must destroy in pursuit of a policy goal. The Iraq war and the London bombings are more similar to each other, from my perspective, than either is to American involvement in WWII.

I reject the notion that "we" are deliberately killing civilians, outright. Unless, that is, you're defining the the folks trying to kill our soldiers and their fellow Iraqis (Saddam sympathizers, Al Qaeda wannabes and other murderers known in the press as "insurgents") as civilians.

Did you think that the decision to start a war was not a decision to kill civilians? Did you think that the Pentagon and the Bush administration were so confident in the "smartness" of our bombs that we could lay Saddam low without killing civilians? No, I'm not talking about the variety of insurgents that exist in Iraq. I'm talking about the civilians that we chose to kill in order to attack the former regime, and to continue our occupation of Iraq - "we" being the governments of the U.S. and the "coalition of the willing".

It's interesting, by the way, to imagine how you would categorize me if I were among the insurgents resisting a foreign occupation of the U.S. I certainly would be no Bush loyalist. That goes without saying. Liberal that I am, I would not align myself with any group, foreign or domestic, of terrorists who supported the resistance - though I can imagine a few die hard conservatives that would fault me for being too "weak" and "too much of an "appeaser" on account of my abstention from involvement with means I found immoral and indefensible. Nevertheless, in whatever way I could morally do it, I would fight the occupation forces. So, would that leave me in the third category - "other murderers"?

Posted by smijer on July 11, 2005 07:53 PM Link to comment

One of Michael Moore's 'minutemen'? :)

Posted by RW on July 11, 2005 10:22 PM Link to comment

That was a joke, btw, playing off of Moore's comments about the "insurgents", not some sort of slam. Just making sure.

Posted by RW on July 11, 2005 10:41 PM Link to comment

I'm glad you can have a discussion like this and keep a sense of humor. :)

The fact is, I'd probably be captured before I even joined the insurgency. I'd go out to check my mail, and the next thing you know, I'd be rendered to the Syrians for "interrogation".

Posted by smijer on July 11, 2005 11:08 PM Link to comment