The innocents of war

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

I just saw this on another site and I wanted to put it up for comment. I'll hold off on my own opinion for now.

First person:

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Second person:

This is what the thugs are counting on. Their primary targets are civilians, and then they use their civilians as human shields, knowing that we will be paralyzed.

The dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of civilians (I don't know the exact numbers), but it allowed the United States to secure surrender from the aggressors in WWII without the need to expend perhaps millions of American combatants. That's a trade-off I'll take every day of the week. The civilians in nations that act as aggressors against other nations need to know that their lives are in danger as a result of the aggressive actions of their rulers. That gives them the incentive to find a way to get their rulers out of power.

Besides, what really is the difference between the guy on the front line with a gun, the guy in the ammunition manufacturing plant, and the guy raising chickens that both of the other guys have to eat to keep doing what they are doing? In an aggressor nation, all of those individuals are supporting the aggression of their government, and thus they are all fair game.

Certainly, as a tactical matter, it is often wise to avoid indiscriminately killing civilians. If they are unhappy with their government, they may ultimately be in a position to help you. Clearly, in Afghanistan, their civilian population opposes the Taliban. We should consider air-dropping rifles to those folks, if they are not too weak from starvation to raise them.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 26, 2001

Answers

Besides, what really is the difference between the guy on the front line with a gun, the guy in the ammunition manufacturing plant, and the guy raising chickens that both of the other guys have to eat to keep doing what they are doing? In an aggressor nation, all of those individuals are supporting the aggression of their government, and thus they are all fair game.

That's a dangerously broad generalization, if ever there was one, I'd say.

And; The Japanese (women and children) most definitely were genuine combatants (not "innocent" civilians) since they were very actively engaged in all the defense preparations to repel a direct assault on their homeland, in a fully military capacity. Just for the record.

Also; I believe we probably are about to throw in with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, aren't we?

From the perspective of the common grunt (the infantryman on the ground) the rule has always been "You don't shoot anybody that's not a direct and deadly threat to your own person, mission, position, or to others." Being capable of making that distinction is, of course, much less feasible for a distant artillery battery or a pilot high above, or even to that same infantryman under "less than ideal" circumstances. The responsibility for errors on their part are usually laid upon their commanders shoulders, or even higher. No soldier I've ever met really had any desire to go after non-combatants, not at all. But, we do have cases of those that chose otherwise, here and there, like at My Lai. Should we be repeating that?

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 27, 2001.


Zzzzz,

Nice post. Take a look at my comments on the other "innocents" thread and let me know what you think.

While I think the farmer is definitely not innocent (he may be evading the essence of what he's doing, but that doesn't preclude guilt), I think the idea that there can be no innocents in an aggressor nation is complete nonsense. There will always be those who were born into captivity who have opposed their aggressor nation's policies as best they could while minimizing risk to their lives and the lives of their families. There's no way they would necessarily be guilty of anything regarding the aggression or support.

The My Lai's we'll always have, because there will always be freaks (Lt. Calley, the New York terrorists, indirectly the Taliban, etc.) who target innocents. We'll just have to minimize them and maximize punishment as best we can.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 27, 2001.


I see the word "voluntarily" in your post on the other thread, Eve, and I have to wonder: just how many of those farmers are actually bustin' their humps to grow veggies and goats just to have to give up the fruits of their labors to some filthy nomadic "freedom fighter" (to most farmers over there I don't think it much matters anymore who's taking it today, and for what) and just for the dubious reward of being bombed next week for it, by somebody else - unless somebody is holding a gun to their heads (or soon will be). So, I'm a little leary of buying into the guilt by association argument too heavily.

I may be a bit hypersensitive to this entire issue. In another war I got to see non-combatants used as expendable pawns, by both the politicians and the military, of both sides. I could never possibly expess to you, or anyone else, how very deeply it effected me. Words just cannot describe the injustice of some things. And that's one...

If you really doubt me, I'd be [grudgingly] willing to share a photograph that I have with you, sometime. It's not for the faint of heart. A quick 'one second' glance is about all people I've shown it to can seem to take, and they report they wish to God they'd never seen it and that they know that they will never, ever be able to forget it. Maybe you'd like a look at why this whole subject makes me so incredibly uncomfortable? Or...would you just prefer to take me at my word...?

Killing innocents is not good. It is never good. It will never be good. We should avoid it in whatever possible ways we can.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 27, 2001.


The book is "A Place Called Hiroshima" by Betty Jean Lifton. This is an exerpt. There are photographs. Awful photographs.

"She was seven months pregnant and opening a window in the entrance of her house. The next thing she knew her body felt like it was on fire, and she was running with her bleeding three year old son to a clinic in the neighborhood school. She was blind, severely burned and unconscious when relatives took her and the child to their country home where her husband, who had been injured by shattered glass while having his hair cut, was waiting. Her baby was born twelve days later. It cried once, and died. Her son died three weeks after that.

...If she had a message for the world, what would it be? you ask her.

'Don't test nuclear bombs, ban them,' she says.

And then she sits there in silence, as if there is nothing more to say."

-- helen (we@need.to.think), September 27, 2001.


helen-

I've seen that book, and I've seen the pictures. Believe me; my photo has that beat hands down. I know that may be hard to believe, but it's true. I don't know what else to say, except that I hope for all I'm worth I never have to look upon another "slaughter of innocents", any innocents, again as long as I live; and aside from "Two wrongs don't make a Right" that's about all I really can say, I guess.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 27, 2001.



I'm sorry you have to carry that memory, Zzzz. Maybe there will be a way to avoid hurting the wrong people in this war, but I don't know how that can happen.

-- helen (feed@the.refugees), September 27, 2001.

Zzzz, I'll trust you on the photo; I don't know if I can take looking at it. I too am so sorry that this happened.

helen and Zzzzz, just yesterday I spent about an hour looking at photos from Nagasaki after it was hit and reading up on our role in dropping the bomb. Those photos are now with me -- in my mind -- forever. And you know what, though? Although I can't take much more of it right now, I wouldn't have it any other way. We should never, ever forget.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 27, 2001.


Agreed.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 27, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ