An important distinction
Comments(3)
It’s amazing that two people can read the same article and come away with such different impressions. Such is the case with a WaPo story posted on by Jeff Achen last week. Where he saw an America that thinks cluster munitions is “good policy” I saw a country that is doing a great many things on its own to limit usage while at the same time protecting its sovereign right to decide how best to protect its own soldiers.
But I respect his opinion that cluster munitions are a scourge and agree to a large degree. Where I take issue with Jeff is in this statement:
The only thing that makes our killing of innocent civilians different from the terrorists’ is our excuses.
There is certainly far more to the issue than excuses.
On one hand is an enemy that intentionally sets up shop among civilians knowing that if any are killed in the process of fighting the U.S. can be made a scapegoat. It is also an enemy that intentionally targets civilians rather than military targets for the greatest shock effect.
On the other hand is the U.S. which I firmly believe makes every effort to avoid civilian casualties in so far as it can against such a cowardly enemy, while at the same time keeping its own soldiers safety the top priority. Were the enemy willing to come out and fight, rather than shielding itself with the flesh of innocents, there would be no civilian casualties.
There is an important distinction, not an excuse. And I think it is one that we can, and should make, while at the time holding a universal loathing for the loss of innocent life.
UPDATE: In comments, Jeff Achen responds.
That is a very good distinction. Not to mention that the U.S. is fighting an untraditional “army” – one that does not wear a uniform, does not abide by the “rules of war” and one where, as it has been pointed out, human life is not considered sacred.
The U.S. has also been hampered by self-imposed rules partly due to public opinion and those rules are relatively new since the Vietnam “Conflict.” It isn’t an all out barrage of force which, in my opinion, could have possibly ended this war awhile ago. The U.S. has been more selective in its application of force which has been good for the most part but may have also resulted in more American casualties. That of course is just speculation on my part.
War brings out the opinions in all of us and those opinions bring out debate. The question is whether *all* of those opinions and debate are respected or not. The choice is ours.
Pat, I’m glad to see you have a universal loathing for the loss of innocent life, but our country’s use of cluster bombs does not demonstrate “EVERY effort to avoid civilian casualties.” (my emphasis)
“EVERY effort” should have included attending the conference and participation in the dialogue. Our country does make great efforts to protect innocent life. It does go above and beyond the efforts of most any nation. However, these “distinctions” still don’t hide the fact that Government policy “excuses” the deaths of innocents as mere casualties of war in a number of cases. Here’s one example:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010300524.html)
These excuses do nothing to reduce the number of radical recruits, nor do they demonstrate “every effort” to protect avoid civilian casualties. I’d like to see our country do more to avoid the loss of innocent life. I’d like to see them less willing to dismiss collaborative efforts to do so too.
As we go back in history and the wars in which the U.S. has participated, how many civilians were “casualties of war?” I’m not trying to be combative as I ask this, I just didn’t know until I looked it up. In looking up WWII (mind you on Wikipedia and other online sources), the estimate of civilian casualties is estimated at 47 MILLION. WWI is listed at about 10 MILLION civilian casualties. According to one website, “Iraq Body Count,” (http://www.iraqbodycount.org) the total to date of civilian casualties in Iraq is 92 THOUSAND for roughly the same time period. I’ll leave the conclusions, extrapolations and validity of sources to the readers.
One thing to remember is that the casualty totals from the World Wars are not just from bombs and other munitions: famine, disease and wounds were also prevalent during those times of war. This is true today. As a result, our troops are not only fighters, they are also taking on humanitarian and health duties as well.
On a different note, here is a question that I haven’t heard being asked: which other country/ies get attacked as vigorously as the U.S. when they refuse to participate in the old playground game of “everyone else is doing it” peer pressure? Yes, the U.S. is a central player and has a lot of political pull but, it is also the one so many want to take out of the picture. At the highest level, it may be good to question the political motives of those putting on this pressure.
I for one believe that a world government as dictated by the U.N. and others will be the ultimate downfall of the U.S. as we know it. Where is this coming from in a discussion about cluster bombs and civilian casualties? Well, if the U.S. jumps every time a get together produces a resolution that we should stop one thing (no more cluster bombs) or start another (cap and trade for global climate change), we can’t just make that jump. Even President Clinton didn’t want to sign the Kyoto Accord when everyone else wanted us to do it, but I digress.
Another question: are other countries vilified as much as the U.S. when it comes to the question of “government policies”