Human Shields and Choice

[kandrathe]

I don't think the military is being callous. I'm showing you what the people who DO think so are seeing. And notably, there aren't any of them in this thread.

Well, with the possible exception of Warblade. :) I think my views are very divergent from his on so many levels.

Sorry, I didn't think I was being defensive. We can just call this a friendly discussion. I wrestle myself with the philosophical dichotomy of a 'war' that is 'non-callous'. The very nature of war are that its aims are to achieve a military/political objective at the expense of whatever enemy stands in the way of that objective, including lives and property of the enemy. Compassion usually takes a back seat when B52's are involved.

Is war neccesary? Ever? I think from the responses on this board one could see that even pacifists were qualifying thier non-aggression. Then, is it acceptable to defend yourself from an aggressor? So, the next question in an age of WMD is; do you preempt the obvious plans of an aggressor? Most of us would think it acceptable that police officer's would fire the first shot if you pointed a gun at them. If you can get him to set aside all his weapons, and surrender so be it. In this case, I don't think Saddam is willing to submit to the justice of nations.

Is there some criteria of acceptable behavior amongst nations, whereby beyond which war is the only natural consequence?

If might makes right, then there is no room for love in this world.

If you do need to engage in a war, what level of compassion is neccesary, or desired. Finally, understanding that no human endeavor is without flaw, our police officer might accidentally injure an innocent bystander. In the case of the 'volunteer' human shields, they are choosing to stand between the police and the criminal. I would say they are aiding the criminal, and interfering with international justice.

Warblades point is that no police officer should fire his gun when there is any chance of unintended injury. Unfortunatly, in the case of Iraq, I feel it would only reinforce Saddam's practice of placing his military installations in close proximity to sensitive sites (hospitals, child care facilites, air raid shelters, old age homes, etc.) Much as would the criminal, shielding their bodies with an innocent bystander while firing at the police. When your adversary has no ethics, your ethics become a liability and a weakness which they will exploit. We cannot abandon our ethics, or we devolve into what we despise.

You asked how people could possibly see the military as callous. I answered. That is all.

Yes, I see. So, in our police officer analogy, some people find the police and their tactics brutal. Sometimes they are, and the police officers are held accountable. So I would say that if any inquiry of a US military 'callous' incident reveals criminal negligence, then those responsible should be held accountable. The international court at Den Hague should investigate and absolve or convict those responsible. Acceptable?