Even a blind squirrel (Howard Zinn on Afghanistan)

[marcus]

finds a nut. Howard Zinn and I will never play Tiddlywinks on a blanket in the park, but I found myself nodding along with 90% of what I read in this article dated four months after the 9/11 attacks.

I can almost promise that this will be the most interesting thing you read today:

www.forusa.org/nonviolence/unjustwar_zinn.html

[Josh]

Good article. Very thought provoking- difficult to argue against, especially as a Christian. Encourages the growing pacifist in me.

It also made me think of the lyrics to a Terry Taylor (Daniel Amos/ Lost Dogs) song:

Father Explains

from the album "Kalhöun"
Words and music by Terry Taylor
©1991 Twitchen Vibes/ Brainstorm Artists Int'l.. ASCAP/BMI

His bare feet are calloused, he hikes up his pants
His mother says "Son you're too young for the ranks"
We need food for our family not airplanes and tanks
And that's where the moneys all gone

Eight brothers and sisters, but three of them died
Caught out in the marketplace with nowhere to hide
The boy thinks God may be over on the devil's side
Where the line in the sand has been drawn

Father's screaming now "Somebody put out the light
If God wills it now we'll be in heaven tonight"
(Oh yeah) The bombs came down like steel rain
(Oh yeah) Hit the ground like steel rain
(Oh yeah) Nothing sounds like steel rain
"It's our lot in life, son" his father explains

When the total of life has been suffering and hate
Death on the doorsteps and endless debate
Then God only knows how much blood it will take
Before someone makes right all the wrong

So bitter and hardened, too old for his age
The boy screams his madness, succumbs to his rage
Now he's just another death on the bottom of the page
And that's how the story goes on

Father's screaming now "Somebody put out the light
If God wills it now we'll be in heaven tonight"
(Oh yeah) The bombs came down like steel rain
(Oh yeah) Scarred the ground like steel rain
(Oh yeah) Nothing sounds like steel rain
"It's our lot in life, daughter" her father explains

[robin]

I certainly have some thoughts on this subject, and I would love to have this conversation in person with anyone who is interested in the discussion (Marcus, Josh, Nate). Perhaps we can go out of beers after mens group some night.

There was a thread I started a few months back having to do with the just war theory, and some of my thoughts can be seen there. I have a quick question though. In your mind, can there be any justification for a war, or any military strike that would result in the death of civilians regardless of whether it is 1 civilian, or 10,000?

Robin

[Josh]

That reminds me that I had intended to keep that thread going, but lost track of it.

Here's the link to the Just War Thread (just so we can have some cross-pollination)

www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=ironsharpens&action=display&thread=1558

[Josh]

In your mind, can there be any justification for a war, or any military strike that would result in the death of civilians regardless of whether it is 1 civilian, or 10,000?

Yes, I think there could be, as we discussed on the other thread.

However, the above article has me thinking specifically about the morality of bombing when civillians targets may be hit.

I'm questioning the ethics of going into a military situation deciding ahead of time that a certain amount of civillian casualties are acceptable. That could be different than civillians dying as a completely unintended result in warfare in my mind.

Marcus, when (if ever) do you think war is justified? (I want to hear the latest developments in your thinking)

[robin]

However, the above article has me thinking specifically about the morality of bombing when civilians targets may be hit.

The problem we have is that the enemy we fight is not a traditional army, and strategically places itself among the general population. They keep their munitions near schools, or hospitals and the launch attacks from their "Holy Places" or mosques, and so on. Of course this helps them in two ways. One, it may keep us from striking them out of fear that innocent civilians may die. Two, if we do strike it allows for a good amount of propaganda to show how evil we are for attacking civilians (see the article cited by Marcus), when in fact the fault lies at the feet of the cowards who hide behind women and children.

I'm questioning the ethics of going into a military situation deciding ahead of time that a certain amount of civilian casualties are acceptable.

First of all it would be irresponsible to go into any military situation without determining what is acceptable collateral damage. You yourself just said that you can accept certain levels of civilian deaths, so wouldn't you determine in advance how much you are willing to accept?

That could be different than civilians dying as a completely unintended result in warfare in my mind

Well now you bring up another subject, that perhaps deserves its own thread, and that is the emphasis on intentions rather than results. Either way the people end up dead. Do you think it will make their loved ones feel any better if you tell them, "I didn't intend for them to die", or"I accidentally dropped a bomb on their head"? Perhaps the only one who feel better is the one did the killing. Though I doubt that.

Robin

[robin]

Well now you bring up another subject, that perhaps deserves its own thread, and that is the emphasis on intentions rather than results.

I started another thread along these lines. Here is the link:

www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=ponderings&action=display&thread=1680&page=1

Robin

[Josh]

The problem we have is that the enemy we fight is not a traditional army, and strategically places itself among the general population. They keep their munitions near schools, or hospitals and the launch attacks from their "Holy Places" or mosques, and so on. Of course this helps them in two ways. One, it may keep us from striking them out of fear that innocent civilians may die. Two, if we do strike it allows for a good amount of propaganda to show how evil we are for attacking civilians (see the article cited by Marcus), when in fact the fault lies at the feet of the cowards who hide behind women and children.

I'm not convinced that this strategy of the enemy changes in any way the ethics of our accepting (and justifying) a certain amount of collateral damage.

First of all it would be irresponsible to go into any military situation without determining what is acceptable collateral damage. You yourself just said that you can accept certain levels of civilian deaths, so wouldn't you determine in advance how much you are willing to accept?

I hear you, but it seems like a double bind because it also seem unacceptable to decide what is acceptable collateral damage.

I'm trying to say that there's a difference between accidental unintended deaths and purposeful acceptance of collateral damage/ civillian casualties.

In other words, if a military target is bombed based on good intel that only military personnell are there, then that may be more justified.

But bombing a military target when we know there's a school right next to it- how can that be justified by simply deciding on a level of collateral damage that we're "comfortable" with?

Well now you bring up another subject, that perhaps deserves its own thread, and that is the emphasis on intentions rather than results. Either way the people end up dead. Do you think it will make their loved ones feel any better if you tell them, "I didn't intend for them to die", or"I accidentally dropped a bomb on their head"? Perhaps the only one who feel better is the one did the killing. Though I doubt that.

It might. But I'll join you on the other thread for that part.

[robin]

I'm not convinced that this strategy of the enemy changes in any way the ethics of our accepting (and justifying) a certain amount of collateral damage.

You already said that you could accept a certain amount of collateral damage, so that wasn't really what I was addressing. My point was that in this case, I would place the blood on the hands of those that hide behind children and women, not our forces. However even in those cases, we still have a responsibility to do all we can to minimize civilian deaths, while still achieving the mission. for example, the US forces in Iraq would often drop leaflets in a populated area warning the population that a military strike was forthcoming. This is exactly what we (us military) did in Fallujah . They surrounded the city so that anyone leaving and coming would pass through military check points. They informed the people that they should leave if at all possible. After a fair amount of time the US troops completed their mission and cleaned out the city.This type of action may not always be possibly, but when it is we should employ it.

I hear you, but it seems like a double bind because it also seem unacceptable to decide what is acceptable collateral damage.

Why?

I'm trying to say that there's a difference between accidental unintended deaths and purposeful acceptance of collateral damage/ civilian casualties.

If we go to war, is it not a given that civilians will die? I'm not aware of a war ever fought where this was not the case. So by the simple fact that we decide to go to war we purposefully accept collateral damage/ civilian casualties. Its implied in your decision to go to war.

But bombing a military target when we know there's a school right next to it how can that be justified by simply deciding on a level of collateral damage that we're "comfortable" with?

Well, I highly doubt that we are bombing military targets next to schools while children are present. If we do attack these targets its when children are not likely to be present. But if your targets are within a populated area, including near a school, you have to accept that innocent people may die, but every thing should be done to minimize the possibility.

Robin

[Josh]

I just have a little time, but I was wondering about this:

You already said that you could accept a certain amount of collateral damage

where did I say that?

[robin]

I just have a little time, but I was wondering about this:

You already said that you could accept a certain amount of collateral damage

where did I say that?

Perhaps I'm drawing conclusions that I shouldn't but I asked:

"In your mind, can there be any justification for a war, or any military strike that would result in the death of civilians regardless of whether it is 1 civilian, or 10,000?"

To which you responded:

"Yes, I think there could be, as we discussed on the other thread."

So, if you can "justify" the killing of civilians in a war, would that not lead one to believe that you also "accept" the killing of civilians?

If I miss understood you, please help me clear it up. I certainly would not want to miss represent what you said.


God bless,
Robin

[Josh]

The point I'm trying to make is about premeditation.

To me, it's different to acknowledge that there will be innocent people accidentally killed in a just war than to go into a military situation deciding to on a certain quota of innocents that are acceptable to kill.