02-21-2003, 05:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2003, 05:56 AM by Rhydderch Hael.)
There are reportedly 150 citizens of Western Civ nations who have voluntarily made their way to Iraq for the express purpose of becoming human shields, adding their political implications into the potential of collateral damage from a U.S. offensive against the Iraqi.
Two points that sparked across my mind are the true scope of the "fog of war" concerning civilian vs military objectives, and the validity of volunteering to become a 'hostage' of sorts.
I have heard the statement of at least one of these persons that they are willing to become human shields in the defense of Iraqi civilians, but would refuse to participate in placing themselves in harm's way of the Iraqi military components. A reasonably noble purpose, one can easily admit, but I feel one made with a naivete to both the credo of the U.S. military in action as well as the Iraqi government's willingness to apply those standards to the human shields.
The United States has not within recent memory, nor in the cultured mindset of the American people, go hell-bent on striking civilian targets. The trend in recent times is to shirk from total war and engage only the war machine of an enemy nation, sparing the civilian populace the full brunt of American ordanance. Such a mindset stems from both the aversion to the full savagery of wars (burning babies and shooting women are as morally objectionable to the American fighting person as it would be to the American civilian) and the tacit belief the purpose of the American force in war is to liberate the civilian populace from a corrupt government/military rule (extermination of a people? Not since the 19th century!).
So, the professed intent of these human shields to guard only the Iraqi civilians is a noble design, but in the larger scope of things, not a very pressing or paramount objective given the United States' own intentions. Then again, once the shooting war starts, how easy or difficult would it be for the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to detain these civilians are press them to purposes these human shields did not want in the first place?
As to the second point that came across my mind, how far goes the moral responsibility these human shields are trying to impress when they willingly step into the line of fire? Are they honestly believing that they present themselves as wholly innocent bystanders whose death/injury would constitute a grievous human tragedy and a grave injustice? The weight of such tragedy must be offset by the acknowledgement that if any harm befalls them, not all of the responsibility can be borne by the ones doing the shooting! These human shields made their choice, a free decision that cannot exempt themselves from the responsibility of their own fates. How powerful is a hostage when they willingly attach themselves to the front of a shooting gunman?
Two points that sparked across my mind are the true scope of the "fog of war" concerning civilian vs military objectives, and the validity of volunteering to become a 'hostage' of sorts.
I have heard the statement of at least one of these persons that they are willing to become human shields in the defense of Iraqi civilians, but would refuse to participate in placing themselves in harm's way of the Iraqi military components. A reasonably noble purpose, one can easily admit, but I feel one made with a naivete to both the credo of the U.S. military in action as well as the Iraqi government's willingness to apply those standards to the human shields.
The United States has not within recent memory, nor in the cultured mindset of the American people, go hell-bent on striking civilian targets. The trend in recent times is to shirk from total war and engage only the war machine of an enemy nation, sparing the civilian populace the full brunt of American ordanance. Such a mindset stems from both the aversion to the full savagery of wars (burning babies and shooting women are as morally objectionable to the American fighting person as it would be to the American civilian) and the tacit belief the purpose of the American force in war is to liberate the civilian populace from a corrupt government/military rule (extermination of a people? Not since the 19th century!).
So, the professed intent of these human shields to guard only the Iraqi civilians is a noble design, but in the larger scope of things, not a very pressing or paramount objective given the United States' own intentions. Then again, once the shooting war starts, how easy or difficult would it be for the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to detain these civilians are press them to purposes these human shields did not want in the first place?
As to the second point that came across my mind, how far goes the moral responsibility these human shields are trying to impress when they willingly step into the line of fire? Are they honestly believing that they present themselves as wholly innocent bystanders whose death/injury would constitute a grievous human tragedy and a grave injustice? The weight of such tragedy must be offset by the acknowledgement that if any harm befalls them, not all of the responsibility can be borne by the ones doing the shooting! These human shields made their choice, a free decision that cannot exempt themselves from the responsibility of their own fates. How powerful is a hostage when they willingly attach themselves to the front of a shooting gunman?
Political Correctness is the idea that you can foster tolerance in a diverse world through the intolerance of anything that strays from a clinical standard.