A series of (unattributed) attacks in Tehran over the past 2½ years have killed four Iranians reportedly engaged in nuclear weapons research/development. Fingers point at Israel. We say nothing.
On 18 July a suicide bomber attacked a Bulgarian bus, killing inter alia four Israeli tourists. Israel blames Hezbollah and contends Iran is behind the attack. Washington excoriated the attacker. Iranians imply this and other thwarted attacks against Israeli targets are “tit” for the “tat” of the killings in Tehran.
On 18 July, a bomb kills the Syrian defense minister and other senior Syrian officials. No comment beyond the standard statement that Syrian leader Bashar Assad should leave power.
U.S. Predator drones kill al-Qaeda officials (occasionally civilians are also killed). A U.S. infiltration team locates al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, assaults the compound in which he is living, kills him and assorted defenders. The United States vigorously presents legal justifications for these actions; critics contend the action violate international law.
The conclusion? Be sure you win and write the history to gloss over what are de facto murders even if de jure rationales are available. One can endorse them and appreciate fully that killing those that we killed is justified either as retribution or pre-emptive action to fend off, for example, the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon. But we should also have the courage intellectually and nationally to admit that our actions are murders.
Concurrently, we should not fail to appreciate that the Iranian scientists had families whose pain and suffering is emotionally equivalent to the anguish felt by the families of the Israelis killed by the terrorist attack on the Bulgarian bus.
Nor should we deny that our attack on bin Laden’s compound was unquestionably an invasion of Pakistani sovereignty. The Pakistanis were not amused and have arrested a citizen who assisted U.S. agents in seeking information on the bin Laden compound. Washington regards him as a hero; Pakistanis consider him a traitor. Why should we be surprised? One recalls that on Sept. 21, 1976, Chilean dissident Orlando Letelier and his wife Ronni were murdered in Washington by a car bomb set by Pinochet agents. Although Pinochet was an ally, the U.S. government was outraged. We should keep our previous attitudes in mind when contemplating Pakistani reactions (and lack of action against various Afghan terrorist groups in Pakistani hinterlands).
Cynics say that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
We all suffer from hypocrisy—pretending to be/do one thing while being/doing something quite different.
Nations are no less culpable than individuals. It is hard to find a nation where the existing government regards itself as acting from other than principled virtue. Indeed, perhaps they even believe their self descriptions.
Occasionally nations will declare bluntly that their objective interests are more important than those of other nations. There was scarcely a scintilla of veneer over Nazi Germany’s aggression. The lives of neighbouring citizens were valueless; if “innocent civilians” died, well it was their tough luck. The ultimate manifestation of this attitude was the Holocaust’s annihilation of most of Europe’s Jewish population.
Unsurprisingly, those attacked fought back with equal savagery. Although there continue to be whinges by historians regarding Allied bombing of cities such as Dresden, most regard them as payback for German efforts to destroy English cities. British/American/Canadian raids were just more effective in killing Germans than vice versa. “Strategic bombing?”—a hoot. Vengeance first; strategy (if possible) second. Likewise, the attacks on Japan—the firebombing of Tokyo killed more Japanese than the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. My blunt response to critics has been, “No Pearl Harbor; no Hiroshima.” And friends with acute sensitivities to violence have said after reading about Japanese torture of POWs (Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand), “The Japanese deserved Hiroshima.”
Perhaps, indeed, all should adhere (regardless of religion or lack thereof) to the Biblical injunction that vengeance is the Lord’s responsibility. However, the reality is that we consider ourselves the Lord’s agents in these matters.
Although historically invading armies attempted to avoid killing civilians (after all dead farmers can’t pay taxes to new rulers), the 20th century has moved to total war by and against total populations. All opponents target the morale of the other, seeking to win politically what they cannot win militarily. Thus the Vietnam War was lost in the streets of the United States—and terrorist attacks in Spain drove Madrid out of its Afghan commitment. In this total war, no civilians are “innocent”—they are simply alternative targets.
David Jones is a former U.S. political counsellor who worked at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa from 1992-96.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: DAVID JONES
On 18 July a suicide bomber attacked a Bulgarian bus, killing inter alia four Israeli tourists. Israel blames Hezbollah and contends Iran is behind the attack. Washington excoriated the attacker. Iranians imply this and other thwarted attacks against Israeli targets are “tit” for the “tat” of the killings in Tehran.
On 18 July, a bomb kills the Syrian defense minister and other senior Syrian officials. No comment beyond the standard statement that Syrian leader Bashar Assad should leave power.
U.S. Predator drones kill al-Qaeda officials (occasionally civilians are also killed). A U.S. infiltration team locates al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, assaults the compound in which he is living, kills him and assorted defenders. The United States vigorously presents legal justifications for these actions; critics contend the action violate international law.
The conclusion? Be sure you win and write the history to gloss over what are de facto murders even if de jure rationales are available. One can endorse them and appreciate fully that killing those that we killed is justified either as retribution or pre-emptive action to fend off, for example, the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon. But we should also have the courage intellectually and nationally to admit that our actions are murders.
Concurrently, we should not fail to appreciate that the Iranian scientists had families whose pain and suffering is emotionally equivalent to the anguish felt by the families of the Israelis killed by the terrorist attack on the Bulgarian bus.
Nor should we deny that our attack on bin Laden’s compound was unquestionably an invasion of Pakistani sovereignty. The Pakistanis were not amused and have arrested a citizen who assisted U.S. agents in seeking information on the bin Laden compound. Washington regards him as a hero; Pakistanis consider him a traitor. Why should we be surprised? One recalls that on Sept. 21, 1976, Chilean dissident Orlando Letelier and his wife Ronni were murdered in Washington by a car bomb set by Pinochet agents. Although Pinochet was an ally, the U.S. government was outraged. We should keep our previous attitudes in mind when contemplating Pakistani reactions (and lack of action against various Afghan terrorist groups in Pakistani hinterlands).
Cynics say that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.
We all suffer from hypocrisy—pretending to be/do one thing while being/doing something quite different.
Nations are no less culpable than individuals. It is hard to find a nation where the existing government regards itself as acting from other than principled virtue. Indeed, perhaps they even believe their self descriptions.
Occasionally nations will declare bluntly that their objective interests are more important than those of other nations. There was scarcely a scintilla of veneer over Nazi Germany’s aggression. The lives of neighbouring citizens were valueless; if “innocent civilians” died, well it was their tough luck. The ultimate manifestation of this attitude was the Holocaust’s annihilation of most of Europe’s Jewish population.
Unsurprisingly, those attacked fought back with equal savagery. Although there continue to be whinges by historians regarding Allied bombing of cities such as Dresden, most regard them as payback for German efforts to destroy English cities. British/American/Canadian raids were just more effective in killing Germans than vice versa. “Strategic bombing?”—a hoot. Vengeance first; strategy (if possible) second. Likewise, the attacks on Japan—the firebombing of Tokyo killed more Japanese than the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. My blunt response to critics has been, “No Pearl Harbor; no Hiroshima.” And friends with acute sensitivities to violence have said after reading about Japanese torture of POWs (Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand), “The Japanese deserved Hiroshima.”
Perhaps, indeed, all should adhere (regardless of religion or lack thereof) to the Biblical injunction that vengeance is the Lord’s responsibility. However, the reality is that we consider ourselves the Lord’s agents in these matters.
Although historically invading armies attempted to avoid killing civilians (after all dead farmers can’t pay taxes to new rulers), the 20th century has moved to total war by and against total populations. All opponents target the morale of the other, seeking to win politically what they cannot win militarily. Thus the Vietnam War was lost in the streets of the United States—and terrorist attacks in Spain drove Madrid out of its Afghan commitment. In this total war, no civilians are “innocent”—they are simply alternative targets.
David Jones is a former U.S. political counsellor who worked at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa from 1992-96.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: DAVID JONES
No comments:
Post a Comment