We are coming up to hearing about the 2,000th US soldier killed in Iraq. People have different plans for what to do about it. I know the pals over at Today in Iraq have some special posts planned, so y’all should check over there. Here is another interesting suggestion.
Time was, in our weekly peace demonstrations here in Charlottesville, I had a sign with spaces for the digits, then it said “- – – – US dead in Iraq.” We had separate foamcore digits to snap onto velcro fasteners in those spaces there. (The idea was that someone would stand next to that one with a sign saying “We mourn ALL the dead.”) But the whole thing got lost someplace while I was in Europe. Darn.
Anyway, our peace vigils here in Charlottesville have been great for the past 4-5 months, without exception… Trolleys clanging in response to our “Honk 4 peace” sign, Vespa-riders giving a squirty little beep-beep, a logging truck once with a humungous great horn that would blast your ears off; bus-drivers, rusty old pickups, soccer moms, LOTS of female African-American drivers honking, cyclists going ching-ching-ching, grandmas and grandpas, Maseratis, good ol’ boys, Hispanics in rusty old jalopies, joggers running by saying “Honk, honk!”; once, I kid you not, a police officer honking for us from his cruiser…
I’ve been reading the George Packer book, Assassins’ Gate. It is an excellent account of the US war in/on Iraq, starting with a detailed intellectual history of the war’s architects, and passing through Packer’s initial enchantment with Kenaan Makiya’s case for the necessity– on human rights grounds– to back the war effort… Then, soon after the war, both Packer and Makiya go to Iraq; and almost immediately Packer sees that nearly everything he has been told about the country by the Iraqi exiles who fomented the war, including Makiya, doesn’t stand up to the light of day, at all.
So where I am in the book is at the point where Packer is starting to feel disillusioned with the whole war effort, and a little bit with Makiya too, for having gotten it all so hideously wrong– that is, basically, for not having understood Iraqi society as it had become, at all…
Packer comes across as an excellent, clear-eyed observer with a great knack for getting people to talk.
As for me, I want to write something slightly big– possibly for a dead-tree medium– about how everyone who backed the war on “human rights” grounds really, fundamentally did not understand the nature of war. War itself is, by definition, a massive assault on the human rights of members of society in which the war is waged… All the generals’ talk about their ability to use bombs with “pinpoint accuracy” is so much nonsense. Plus, it is NOT just the bombings and other directly lethal assaults that kill, maim, and radically restrict the “rights” of residents of the war-zone… It is also the massive degradation of the infrastructure, and the sequelae of self-sustaining, continuing civil strife.
Look at Kosovo six years after the so-called “humanitarian war” there.
So many western liberals got sort of lulled by the events of the 1990s– Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo– into thinking that the “robust” use of military power could actually serve humanitarian ends… So they were quite primed to see this as a possibility in Iraq, too. (Where of course, the human-rights case against the Saddam Hussein regime was an extremely strong one, indeed.)
George Packer was one of those liberals, in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. He writes with great apparent honesty about how, when he got to Baghdad, he was expecting it to be “like Prague in 1989” — a newly “free” country, experimenting with all sorts of new forms of social organization and artistic expression… So he got to Baghdad, just a few weeks after the invasion, and headed for one of the city’s few remaining art galleries, and asked, “So where’s the action? Where are the mushrooming new film clubs, the trendy nightspots, the newly formed civic groups” etc etc… And the people there– who had only recently lived through the shock of the invasion, and the possibly even greater shock of the post-invasion looting and the complete collapse of public security throughout their whole city– just looked at him in amazement… And pretty soon, he realized it wasn’t going to be like Prague 1989 at
…Anyway, this piece I plan to write will take on a lot of that 1990s-era fuzzy thinking by comfortable, salon-based western liberals… the kind of people who by the end of the 1990s came to talk quite glibly about the need, here or there around the world, for a “humanitarian war”; or even more glibly, for a “humanitarian intervention” (meaning, war). I think that what those of us who have experienced warfare “at ground zero” need to do is to address all those fuzzy-headed liberals and say: Iraq, Kosovo– that is the nature of war! Get real! It is time for us all to find ways to deal with our political differences using ways other than war.
I mean, look at where the biggest improvements in the human-rights situation took place over the past 25 years: East Asia, East and central Europe, South America, South Africa… In none of those places did that improvement come about as the result of external military intervention…
So anyway, that’s what I want to write about; and I think now is a good time. I want to try to take the “lessons” of what’s been happening in Iraq and broaden them out a lot.
(I aslo have a bunch of other writing to do. And I’m going to NYC this week. Should be fun.)
15 thoughts on “Approaching 2K (US dead, only)”
Comments are closed.
The Human Security Report has been published by Oxford University Press. its intersteing reading
“War itself is, by definition, a massive assault on the human rights of members of society in which the war is waged…”
Peace is the essential right of the common people. Without it all other rights are useless. Peace is always the first demand.
The human and material costs of the war, American and certainly the Iraqi, would have been considered dispensible by the architects of this mayhem if the end goal was to be achieved. That every trick in the book was used to justify the war, including human rights, illicit weapons of mass destruction, fighting terroism, building a better Midlle East (what a tragicomic claim!) was deemed acceptable in the interest of strategic hegemony abroad and monopoly of power at home (the connection between the two is an under-explroed area of investigation) . Journalist and opinion shapers were copted (the NYT belated disavowl of Judy Miller is the proverbial too little to late; it is another case of real human blood on the NYT hands).
Native agents like Mr. Makiyaa and Fouad Ajami, to name just two, were used to provide legitimate cultural cover. What dysfunctinoal society, what sick democracy could have allowed this to happen? Personally what particularly grieves me is that the entire thing was transparent AT THE TIME for what it has always been: a big shining lie. Hence claims of not knowing or being misled can only be met with derisive skepticism.
Sadly, the stakes placed in the outcome of this war have been so great that it is unlikely withdrawal would take place anytime soon. Things have to get much worse before a turn away from this sordid affair would take place. I do not expect that to happen anytime soon. I suspect we will be revisiting this issue when the number of American dead hits 3k or higher.
What dysfunctinoal society, what sick democracy could have allowed this to happen? I think it is time for those of us who are honest with ourselves in the US to ask whether a society, so wealthy and powerful but so completely alienated from its own humanity, should be called a “democracy.” Have we allowed wealth and power to make us inhuman? Or have clever manipulators of our greed and complaisance made “democracy” a hollow shell? One can almost hope it is the latter.
“how everyone who backed the war on “human rights” grounds really, fundamentally did not understand the nature of war’
I am delighted to hear about your plans to address this issue in an upcoming article. This really is a fundamental problem with American society. Since no major war has been fought on American soil in 150 years, and the American media carefully and collectively screens out, or at least disguises, all of the important facts about wars being fought elsewhere, the American people really have no idea what war means, and neither do most of their elected representatives in government. I look forward to reading your article.
John C.
the American people really have no idea what war means, and neither do most of their elected representatives in government.
This is very true JC, and more over those elected representatives in government are business driven people or bodies used to serve the greediness of those big giants business… as we saw from Vietnam war and others when London Johnson as soon as he get elected singed for the war to be continued for 15 years
While war is indeed a violation of human rights, can it not be the case that a short term violation of human rights represented by a war will be preferable to a long term violation of human rights that would occur if the status quo were allowed to continue? I submit that it can, though I would agree that recently, most notably in Iraq, war has been resorted to unjustifiably.
Also, not to quibble, and I understand your point above, John C, but there actually has been a war fought on US soil in the last 150 years. During WWII, the Japanese invaded and occupied the western Aleutian islands of Attu and Kiska, deporting their few residents to prison camps in Japan.
“can it not be the case that a short term violation of human rights represented by a war will be preferable to a long term violation of human rights that would occur if the status quo were allowed to continue?”
It is not impossible, but who is qualified to make this judgment on behalf of others? Especially in advance, and without knowing what the costs or the ultimate outcome will be? Once we go beyond clear circumstances of self defense in the intentional killing of other humans, we become murderers. There is no other objective way to classify such acts. We might think our murders are justified, but so did Saddam Hussein.
Well, John, if we have the capability to assemble a group of experts in relevant fields, which we do, and come up with a reasonably good idea of the likely outcomes from military action versus inaction and if our best estimates indicate that inaction is likely to have a much higher body count, do we not have blood on our hands by failing to act?
Shochu John and john C., this is a really important discussion, so thanks for pursuing it here.
I’d point out that the kind of analysis Shochu urges is the kind urged by supporters of the “Just War” doctrine. In fact, one of the specific questions asked by JW practicioners has precisely to do with “whether the predictable harms caused by launching the war– however otherwise ‘just’– might actually outweigh the harms that the war is supposed to prevent.” But that is only ONE of the “Just War” questions… Another key one is that of “legitimate authority”; i.e., whether the power proposing to launch the war is indeed a legitimate belligerent.
In that regard, the “we” that you talk of, Shochu, is woefully imprecise and slippery as a designator. If you mean “we, the whole of humanity”, then I suppose the UN’s imprimatur would be key. But if you mean “we, the USA”, then huge questions loom. Why on earth should the USA suppose itself to be the guardian of world order?
Actually, I am not an adherent of the theory of Just War, which was a 4th-century accretion onto the basic teachings of Christianity, proposed by Augustine and later further concretized by Thomas Aquinas… but certainly not until AFTER the Christians had had a first stab at running a worldly empire… and in contradiction of the pacifist teaching of the Gospels.
However, even the Just Warriors start from a base-point that recognizes that war will always be harmful; and that is therefore why they place such strict constraints on its admissibility.
My thinking on war derived not only from my personal experience of it, but also from an appreciation of the psychological insights that Buddhists bring to the issue. The Dalai Lama says that if you practice any form of violence against another being, then that violence will cascade unpredictably down into the future; and that you therefore bear some responsibility for all that cascading violence. He also says that whereas you may get what you think you want faster by using violence than by using nonviolence, but that such gains would only be partial and temporary… Whereas if you use only nonviolent means, your gains may be slower but they are more deeply rooted. All those propositions mesh with my personal experience.
From our more “modern” perspactive– though his is also perfectly modern– we know that a climate of war unleashes demons in individuals who in peacetime might be the least violent, kindest kinds of people, and that that violence then comes back to haunt them in the form of what modern psychology calls “PTSD”… There is indeed a reason why nearly all atrocities in recent times have been committed in the context of warfare or other forms of grave inter-group violence. Modern atrocities law indirectly recognizes this fact, since it is all derived from what were historically called the “laws of war”…
Anyway, this is all just to suggest that the kind of “technocratic”, expert-based consultation you urge, Shochu, is not nearly sufficient to ensure that the “net result” of a war of choice is on the plus side of the ledger… The sheer unpredictably of any act of war is a huge factor, that defies all such attempts at prior, “rational” analysis of the kind you suggest.
“if we have the capability to assemble a group of experts in relevant fields, which we do,”
Shochu, with all due respect, it is hard to see how you can make this argument in light of recent history – or indeed, all of history. May we some day be saved from these all-knowing “experts” whose scientific studies conclude that mass murder will yield the greatest good for the greatest number. This was the delusion that plagued the U.S. in Vietnam. Robert McNamara epitomized this “expert” approach. He eventually realized his mistake, but far too late.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Helena. Let me begin with an analogy. Let’s say there’s a prison camp in a town. Inside the prison camp, there are untold horrors going on. People are being abused, tortured, killed, etc. One day, some of the townspeople come up with a plan to storm the camp and free the prisoners. Guards and maybe even priosoners will most assuredly die in the course of the operation, and furthermore success is not assured, but it’s a good plan and the planners think it will likely succeed. If it does succeed, the prisoners will be able to escape to safety. If they are willing to take the risk, are the townspeople right in undertaking the operation? By my thinking, they are indeed. Now, the townspeople are not a “legitimate belligerent.” They have no stake in storming the camp. They are not in there and they don’t know anybody in there. They are simply motivated by concern for the poor saps inside. Furthmore, as I said, success is not assured. It is possible that they will make the situation worse for everyone. As you say, they cannot “ensure that the “net result” of a war of choice is on the plus side of the ledger” Would you, based on this, suggest that they allow the horrors inside the camp to continue rather than to take this action?
Now, extrapolate this to the modern world. While it would be ideal to have a “legitimate” authority that would stop all atrocities, this is not the world in which we live. Thus, either a non-“legitimate” actor puts a stop to them or they simply continue. I do not think it is an American responsibility to police the world, but if nobody else is acting when action is needed, why not be the one to step in? Furthermore, even though success is not assured and war is, indeed, unpredictable, what sense does it make to decide that ANY amount of risk of making matters worse is unacceptable? I simply cannot see how it is moral, if one is in a poistion to take action that has a high probability of improving a terrible situation, to NOT take that action because one is either not a “legitimate” actor or there is a possibility of failure.
I would agree that nonviolence tends to produce more deeply rooted gains in human rights, but in the certain cases of massive human rights violations, notably genocides/mass murders, slow progress toward improvement is simply not sufficient.
War assumes the deaths of innocents. This is the foundation of the accepted morality that war (deaths of innocents) is justified only when militarily necessary for defense against attack or imminent attack.
War, as in Iraq, for a reason other than military defense is (necessarily) war for political or economic advantage. Thus, the attacker accepts and acts upon the principle that political or economic advantage justifies the deaths of innocents. The US certainly forsaw that its attack on Iraq would cause the deaths of many innocents.
The attacker should not then to be heard to complain when the defending party adopts the same principle, i.e. causing the deaths of innocents for political or economic advantage.
And, there are no rules about the identities or nationalities of the innocents who die – all that discussion is subsumed in the fact that all innocents have equal human rights, whoever they are and whoever kills them.
So, the US has no moral complaint that the other side – as is the US – is causing the deaths of innocents for its political advantage – the case in Iraq.
By the way, the same principle applies to Israel, the instant when after much debate it decided in 1967 to change the basis of its military-only occupation of the lands of Palestinans to the political/economic goal of territorial acquisition. To advance the politics of territorial acquisition it acts on the premise that the lives and fates of innocent Palestinians are expendable for Israeli’s political/economic advantage. Again, all innocents are equal. Israel cannot righteously complain, when Palestinians advance their cause (retention of their lands) by the same operative principle – the lives of innocents are expendable.
The sad result is that the party who initiates war for political gain sets in motion the causative chain for the subsequent criminal deaths, by human rights standards, of all innocents, whoever they are and wherever they may be. All innocents are equal.
I am pleased and not surprised to see Helena being one of the first to come back to the fundamental point of the immorality of war. For several years now, I have been fighting the sense of being sickened and uncomprehending in listening to the “liberal hawks” who supported the war on “moral grounds.”
When you fight a war people die. Even the “bad” guys are largely composed of conscripted or cult-following soldiers who actually believe in the righteousness of their side.
Innocent people die. Lots of them. Children and non-combatants, too. There’s no way around it.
Torture, rape and horrific human abuse occur precipitated by both sides. Even the “good guys” are 100k foreign strangers armed with guns and a sense of power over all the people they see. Check crime statistics on towns with 100k people. It’s unavoidable. I challenge anyone to name a war with an occupying force of ground troops in which the occupiers were blameless in their treatment of the occupied people.
And none of this is news. Anybody with even a cursory knowledge of what happens during war should be deeply and intimately aware of all of this. It’s a national tragedy that the true costs of war still aren’t considered properly at this point when we know so much about history. Rank destructive stupidity has dominated the political class and media from the very beginning. Acknowledging that it was a badly planned war barely scratches the surface.
The theoretical position described above, in which enlightened minds carefully weigh costs, benefits, and risks to rationally engage in an “enlightened war” could occur in theory. Of course, it requires precise information on the costs, benefits and risks, or exceptional ability to reason under uncertainty. And consider who is making the decision. Given the evidence that our “enlightened” government is so atrocious at this decision making, my gut reaction is to instead call for the disbanding/dismantling of the U.S. army as the politicians cannot be trusted with it.
Extreme? Perhaps. But the depths of mendacity and stupidity revealed in Iraq are staggering. I did not see a single pro-war voice that appeared to seriously consider the costs & risks of what they proposed to undertake. And very few of us called them out on it. This point should be hammered home until it properly becomes a source of national shame and embarassment.
In my humble opinion,
Paul J. Reber
Shochu John, let me try another analogy. Let’s assume that Osama bin Laden has escaped from Afghanistan/Pakistan and is now believed to be hiding in a suburb of Fallujah in Iraq. Intelligence sources in the area have pinpointed a house where he is believed (with a probability of 50%) to be taking shelter. Intelligence also notes that he will only be there for a very short time. The window of opportunity is small and shrinking, therefore a decision must be made immediately. The US air force launches a decapitation strike using 500lb bombs. There is nothing left of the targeted house or any of its estimated 6 inhabitants. Confirmation of whether Bin Laden was even there will have to wait on DNA testing, which could take a while. Apart from the target house, collateral damage in the neighbourhood is 5 dead, 10 wounded and major damage to surrounding houses.
The question is would you support such a decapitation strike and collateral damage in order to rid the world (potentially) of this terrorist mastermind?
Now assume that Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in your neighbourhood. You are not home but your family is. Would you support such a decapitation strike? If not, what if the probability was actually 90%. Would you support it then?
The problem is most people are all too willing to sacrifice others for what they believe to be the “greater good”, but very few are willing to even risk their own safety or that of their family.
By the way, your analogy of a prison camp bears an uncanny resemblance to Guantanamo Bay. I don’t believe Guantanamo Bay should be stormed or bombed or otherwise liberated. It should be dismantled by its caretakers with all prisoners being transferred to a legal jurisdiction under either US Law or International Law.