Sadly, some don't see it this way. They make vague comparisons to the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima, alluding to the idea that by displaying immense firepower and coincidentally killing thousands of civilians, we broke the enemy's will to live. But during those conflicts, we were opposing an identifiable nation with locatable citizens. Some suggest that because terrorists don't follow the Geneva convention, we shouldn't be required to either. But if we fail to do so, aren't we putting ourselves on the same level as the terrorists we oppose?
All that said, we must return to the idea of the genesis of the war in Iraq. There is no morally consistent way to fight a "war on terror"--if we're going to keep arguing that's what this really is--and be at peace with the idea that civilian deaths, while regrettable, are a necessary evil on the path to victory. Keeping civilians in fear is exactly what a terrorist does, and by engaging in simlilar behavior we lose any remaining sympathy from the rest of the world for what happened on 9/11. The Nation summarizes this thought:
Even in this context there remains a distinctly sickening horror in close-up systematic killing of civilians that's at odds with the declared US mission in Iraq and is repugnant to our national ideals.If our stated objective is the fighting of terror, this type of incident is entirely counter-productive. If the objective is otherwise--control of oil, dominance of the Middle East, etc.--it's even more abhorrent.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Michael J. West
If we are guilty of killing civilians ourselves, in effect terrorizing civilians, then how can we possibly call this a "War on Terror"?
It's unpopular to say so, but it might even be different if we were in a declared war. But since we're not, some migth argue fairly that we are merely sending our military over to Iraq and allowing them to terrorize civilians. Especially if the "support the troops, even if they commit heinous crimes" crowd gets their way.
2 - JP
That's my point, I think in a conventional war it would be a little different. Not entirely, but it would be easier to justify.
3 - Dave Nalle
I have to point out that JP's contention that 'conservatives' are defending the murder of civilians here on BC or elsewhere is innacurate and a politicization of what is not an inherently partisan position. The division here is not between conservative and liberal, but between those who believe that the troops are always right and always justified no matter what they do and those who believe in the rule of law, which is basically a conservative position.
Dave
4 - Michael J. West
That's true, Dave and JP. There are plenty of conservatives who want investigations and to hold the soliders of Haditha accountable and bring them to justice.
5 - Q Bit
...those who believe in the rule of law, which is basically a conservative position.
As far as I know, the Bush administration is not quite willing to work within the laws, and am just being polite.
6 - Clavos
..."As far as I know, the Bush administration is not quite willing to work within the laws, and am just being polite."
The Bush administration is not conservative.
And BTW, Q Bit, how do you do that italic thing when quoting? Also; "What's a Q Bit?" (with apologies to Cosby--couldn't resist).
7 - Q Bit
Clavos:
For italics use the tags < i > Text < /i > without the space around i.
Bit as in bit of information -- element of information. Q stands for quantum.
8 - Clavos
Thank you,sir/ma'am!
9 - Clavos
Q Bit, Whoops! Should have looked at your blog before writing that last; sorry Sir.
10 - Q Bit
Clavos: Apology accepted ! You made me wondering too, but I knew you would realize it yourself from my blog before I claim my correct gender status.
11 - Dave Nalle
MJW: That's true, Dave and JP. There are plenty of conservatives who want investigations and to hold the soliders of Haditha accountable and bring them to justice.
Which only makes sense, because you cannot carry on something like our efforts in Iraq unless you're scrupulous about maintaining the legitimacy and impartiality of our forces there.
QB: As far as I know, the Bush administration is not quite willing to work within the laws, and am just being polite.
Indeed. It's become quite clear exactly how little you know. You basically spout pre-programmed pap from the left-wing talking points and accompany it with a bundle of emotional rhetoric and not a spot of reason or logic.
Dave
12 - Q Bit
Dave:
Indeed. It's become quite clear exactly how little you know. You basically spout pre-programmed pap from the left-wing talking points and accompany it with a bundle of emotional rhetoric and not a spot of reason or logic.
You show the same dismissive attitude like your right-wing friends, of course with the tone of I-know-it-all.
You can throw it at me but it doesn't make you right, nor does it change the facts.
Like it or not, (obviously you don't) the current administration is particularly competent in flouting laws and constitutional rights.
13 - Dave Nalle
You clearly subscribe to the philosophy that if you say something enough people will begin to think it's true. The administration is certainly pragmatic and does things for expediency which make some people nervous, but your 'flouting laws and constitutional rights' charge just doesn't hold up. It's something which gets said a lot, but which doesn't stand close examination at all.
Dave
14 - Ray Ellis
Indeed, saying something often enough to make people believe it's true is a tactic that doesn't work. That may explain why Bush's popularity continues it downward spiral.
15 - Dave Nalle
Actually, Ray, I think the tactic DOES work. And that explains some of Bush's decline in the polls.
Dave
16 - Ray Ellis
Well played, Dave. But I was referring to Bush's insitence that we're winning that nebulous war on terror. It's a click your heels three times and wish it were so mentality that has no basis in reality.
17 - Dave Nalle
I'll almost give you that one. We're fighting the war on terror, which is more than was ever done before, but there's no way to tell who's winning it at this point. There have certainly been some victories along the way. Seems like a mistake to claim victory prematurely, but a politician's got to spin his work positive when it's ambiguous. It's the nature of the beast.
dave
18 - Michael J. West
Maybe this will just categorize me as "one of THOSE people," but I don't think we can win a war against a concept, just as we can't really win the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. We cannot obliterate the concept of terrorism, nor can we really obliterate the threat of terrorism against the United States. Something less nebulous, like a war on Al Qaeda, is winnable.
And as J.P. points out--if the allegations at Haditha turn out to be true--we certainly cannot obliterate terror by becoming the terrorizers.
19 - Clavos
Michael, you certainly paint a grim, defeatist picture of the future when you say that we cannot win a war against terrorism.
If we accept your premise, it seems to me our alternatives are either to resign ourselves to a never-ending stream of young Americans going off somewhere to be killed for a lost cause, or withdraw our troops and brace ourselves to be attacked as we were on 9/11, until eventually, if we don't fight back, we are subjugated by the forces aligned against us; forces which have sworn publicly and repeatedly to defeat us.
Neither scenario is tolerable, in my opinion. We MUST fight back.
20 - JP
Michael, I have to vote with you on that one somewhat, war on a concept is a tough one to pull off. I'd be more at home with "Al Qaeda" or any.
The problem in this specific case (terrorism) is that--and please jump in with corrections if appropriate here, folks, this is my conjecture--it seems to me the Middle East perceives America as "provoking" by its involving itself to such a large degree in Mideast politics. As an example, Palestineans do not recognize the creation of Israel, and resent our involvement in and support of that state's creation and continued existence.
So it seems to me there's a view--valid or not--among many Islamists, not necessarily all, in which we're the instigators and they are fighting back. In America, we turn a blind eye to that viewpoint--particularly when our leaders tell us "9/11 changed everything."
If and only if we don't acknowledge the other side's viewpoint in some way, we're going to end up with the 2 options you listed: "resign ourselves to a never-ending stream of young Americans going off somewhere to be killed for a lost cause, or withdraw our troops and brace ourselves to be attacked as we were on 9/11..."
Regardless, by perpetrating acts that could be classified objectively as terroristic, we are not going to win the battle of ideas or the war on terror. (any instance, not just this specific allegation)
21 - Clavos
So it seems to me there's a view--valid or not--among many Islamists, not necessarily all, in which we're the instigators and they are fighting back.
Agreed.
In America, we turn a blind eye to that viewpoint--particularly when our leaders tell us "9/11 changed everything."
I disagree, we don't so much turn a blind eye to it as focus on responding to their agression toward us, whatever their perceived reasons.
Regardless, by perpetrating acts that could be classified objectively as terroristic, we are not going to win the battle of ideas or the war on terror. (any instance, not just this specific allegation)
Absolutely agree.
22 - Q Bit
@Dave:
Ok.. certainly we disagree here and I realize it's a matter of having different perspectives. By the way, I liked your judicious (or should I say clever?) use of "expediency" .
@Mike, JP and Clavos:
I think the problem that we are addressing here is barely defined with no solution in sight.
So what do we do?
Stay the course? The situation is only getting worse everyday.
We perhaps cannot disown either. Although sometimes I think we should get out of there and cut the losses.
Can we win the war against terrorism? Yes.
But that cannot be achieved just by killing the terrorists. How many would you kill?
See-this approach has already turned out to be meaningless in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Thousands of Hamas have been killed over the years. Have you ever seen Hamas shortage of volunteers who are willing to blow themselves up? Never.
We are fighting against an ideology that hates everything we stand for. And in the middle east, there are no shortage of folks who will swear by their life that everything about America is evil.
How do we get them to believe there is a better world to live?
We have to make inroads with the values of democracy, economic and social freedom. That should be the KEY to our fight and not an afterthought.
23 - Dave Nalle
Can we win the war against terrorism? Yes.
No. No. No. It is impossible to have an actual military victory in the war on terrorism. We can defeat certain terrorist groups, but so long as there's some group which wants to seize political power by force there's going to be terrorism. The war on terror will last forever and its real objective is to minimize the impact of terrorism on the daily lives of reasonable people.
Dave
24 - Q Bit
Dave:
My point was exactly so: you cannot win by sword.
The phrase "war against terror" was meant to capture "war" from a larger perspective. And as I said, there's no way you can win this war by killing terrorists, because that's a never ending war.
The war has to go on in other fronts: democracy, social and economic freedom, lack of which causes the so called ideology of hate.
I am not a pessimist and am sure the "war" is winnable, will take time, perhaps decades and I am willing to wait (I don't have a choice but am not throwing the all-is-lost towel either).
25 - Bliffle
Dave: "I have to point out that JP's contention that 'conservatives' are defending the murder of civilians here on BC or elsewhere is innacurate and a politicization of what is not an inherently partisan position. ..."
It is to laugh. The pirates who have (temporarily) commandeered the republican party have relentlessly politicized issues along party lines that they alone define. To the pirates, everything is partisan.