undefined

This may stir some argument:

--------------------------------------------------------------
Unnecessary Concessions November 18, 2004
By Justin Podur

Is there something wrong with using a bomb to destroy a building that might have civilians in it just because there might be an `insurgent' hiding there?

Is there something wrong with an assassination that `succeeds' in killing members of the resistance if, as the US promises, care is taken to minimize harm to civilians?

Is there something wrong with taking all military aged men to be the enemy, sealing them into Fallujah and killing them all, just to try to get at guerrillas who might be hiding among them, even if these guerrillas are only some 1500 to 3000 out of tens of thousands who remained in the city?

Clearly, there is.

But there is a more fundamental issue here as well. Nobody has the right to kill those insurgents and resistance members in the first place. It is odd that even antiwar commentators seem to be forgetting this.

Tom Engelhardt, for example, takes an `even-handed' approach in the most un- even of situations. Discussing, as he frequently does, parallels between the ongoing US-slaughter in Iraq and the mass murder inflicted on the Vietnamese in the 1960s and 1970s, Engelhardt discusses the blowing up of a mosque in
Fallujah:

Last night on the prime-time news, a video was run of an American tank blowing the minaret off a mosque (where, again contravening the Geneva Conventions, one or more snipers were hidden). The only comment or commentary offered was a brief interview with an American soldier on the scene offering the completely understandable ground-level view that this was "no holds barred" warfare and his troops had to be protected. (1)

Was that view really "completely understandable"? To unleash the kind of weaponry that the United States did, to people trying to defend it with rifles and improvised explosives? Did the troops really need to be protected from the defenders – would they need that kind of protection if they were doing what national armies, as opposed to imperial ones, do, which is defend their own borders from attack and not invade other people's countries?

Adam Jones wrote in Counterpunch: "U.S. estimates of the number of active rebels in Falluja range between 1,500 and 3,000. Most observers claim that between 60,000 and 100,000 people remain in the city, overwhelmingly, it seems, "battle-age" men. Let us take the high-end estimate for the rebels, and the low end for the population as a whole: 3,000 rebels, 60,000 people total.

If this is accepted, only about one in twenty -- five percent -- of those in the city are combatants." Jones's point is well-taken. But in arguing that it's wrong to attack 60,000 to get at 3,000 he implicitly concedes the point that it is okay to get at the 3,000, and that point ought not to be conceded.
(2)

It's true that the slogans adopted by a tiny fraction of antiwar people about "supporting the resistance" are often just posturing, since it is not clear how that is to be done, exactly. Send money? Go fight? But I have never understood why folks writing for alternative media outlets felt the need to go to such great lengths to be "even-handed", or to condemn "excesses" in a way that implicitly accepts that occupations and assaults on countries are acceptable, but killing "innocent" people (defined as people who don't resist occupation and assault) in the course of doing so is unacceptable.

Nor have I ever understood why liberal antiwar figures harp on the fact that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction making the Iraq war a pointless one. That argument, too, validates future invasions and occupations, implying that if Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction, the invasion would have been justified. If you start out accepting the premise that the US gets to decide who should have weapons and who not, and invade countries it doesn't like having weapons, then the contortions you will have to perform to be against this war or the next one will be that much more agonizing.

If antiwar activists are adopting these kinds of arguments because they think that unadorned anti-imperialism is too hard for Americans to swallow, maybe they should reconsider. Americans were presented every soft half-hearted watered-down imperialist argument that could be dreamed up, from "we should have invaded Afghanistan because they had bin Laden", to "we should have invaded North Korea instead because they've really got weapons", to "we should invade Saudi Arabia because the hijackers were Saudis", to "we shouldn't have gone to war and we should send 40,000 more troops."

They didn't swallow any of those. While there is no reason to think a simple, clear stand (that the US shouldn't be invading and occupying countries and that the other crimes flow from that crime) based on immediate withdrawal will be more acceptable, the other approaches have, in addition to being inconsistent, failed.

Notes

1)http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6649
2)http://www.counterpunch.org/jones11082004.html

In my opinion, equal attention ought to be payed to the inhumanity of the
Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters who care so little about the citizens
they supposedly represent that they use them as human shields, knowing that
the US soldiers won't be able to tell a citizen from a fighter.

So it's entirely hypocritical of them to express anger at the US for a
situation of violence and chaos that they help to prolong by using ambulences
as truck bombs, etc.

OTOH, we should have never been there in the first place, so I see that side
as well.

But lets not forget that these people have the stomach to VIDEOTAPE
decapitations, let alone perform them! Let's not get so PC-leftist that our
heads are squarely up our asses, and in our anger at Bush, etc. we lose sight
of of how sick these jihadists are.

Just thought I'd balance out the picture.

-Aaron.

On Friday 19 November 2004 12:32 pm, Christopher Bailey wrote:
> This may stir some argument:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Unnecessary Concessions November 18, 2004
> By Justin Podur
>
> Is there something wrong with using a bomb to destroy a building that might
> have civilians in it just because there might be an `insurgent' hiding
> there?
>
> Is there something wrong with an assassination that `succeeds' in killing
> members of the resistance if, as the US promises, care is taken to minimize
> harm to civilians?
>
> Is there something wrong with taking all military aged men to be the enemy,
> sealing them into Fallujah and killing them all, just to try to get at
> guerrillas who might be hiding among them, even if these guerrillas are
> only some 1500 to 3000 out of tens of thousands who remained in the city?
>
> Clearly, there is.
>
> But there is a more fundamental issue here as well. Nobody has the right to
> kill those insurgents and resistance members in the first place. It is odd
> that even antiwar commentators seem to be forgetting this.
>
> Tom Engelhardt, for example, takes an `even-handed' approach in the most
> un- even of situations. Discussing, as he frequently does, parallels
> between the ongoing US-slaughter in Iraq and the mass murder inflicted on
> the Vietnamese in the 1960s and 1970s, Engelhardt discusses the blowing up
> of a mosque in Fallujah:
>
> Last night on the prime-time news, a video was run of an American tank
> blowing the minaret off a mosque (where, again contravening the Geneva
> Conventions, one or more snipers were hidden). The only comment or
> commentary offered was a brief interview with an American soldier on the
> scene offering the completely understandable ground-level view that this
> was "no holds barred" warfare and his troops had to be protected. (1)
>
> Was that view really "completely understandable"? To unleash the kind of
> weaponry that the United States did, to people trying to defend it with
> rifles and improvised explosives? Did the troops really need to be
> protected from the defenders – would they need that kind of protection if
> they were doing what national armies, as opposed to imperial ones, do,
> which is defend their own borders from attack and not invade other people's
> countries?
>
> Adam Jones wrote in Counterpunch: "U.S. estimates of the number of active
> rebels in Falluja range between 1,500 and 3,000. Most observers claim that
> between 60,000 and 100,000 people remain in the city, overwhelmingly, it
> seems, "battle-age" men. Let us take the high-end estimate for the rebels,
> and the low end for the population as a whole: 3,000 rebels, 60,000 people
> total.
>
> If this is accepted, only about one in twenty -- five percent -- of those
> in the city are combatants." Jones's point is well-taken. But in arguing
> that it's wrong to attack 60,000 to get at 3,000 he implicitly concedes the
> point that it is okay to get at the 3,000, and that point ought not to be
> conceded. (2)
>
> It's true that the slogans adopted by a tiny fraction of antiwar people
> about "supporting the resistance" are often just posturing, since it is not
> clear how that is to be done, exactly. Send money? Go fight? But I have
> never understood why folks writing for alternative media outlets felt the
> need to go to such great lengths to be "even-handed", or to condemn
> "excesses" in a way that implicitly accepts that occupations and assaults
> on countries are acceptable, but killing "innocent" people (defined as
> people who don't resist occupation and assault) in the course of doing so
> is unacceptable.
>
> Nor have I ever understood why liberal antiwar figures harp on the fact
> that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction making the Iraq war a
> pointless one. That argument, too, validates future invasions and
> occupations, implying that if Iraq had had weapons of mass destruction, the
> invasion would have been justified. If you start out accepting the premise
> that the US gets to decide who should have weapons and who not, and invade
> countries it doesn't like having weapons, then the contortions you will
> have to perform to be against this war or the next one will be that much
> more agonizing.
>
> If antiwar activists are adopting these kinds of arguments because they
> think that unadorned anti-imperialism is too hard for Americans to swallow,
> maybe they should reconsider. Americans were presented every soft
> half-hearted watered-down imperialist argument that could be dreamed up,
> from "we should have invaded Afghanistan because they had bin Laden", to
> "we should have invaded North Korea instead because they've really got
> weapons", to "we should invade Saudi Arabia because the hijackers were
> Saudis", to "we shouldn't have gone to war and we should send 40,000 more
> troops."
>
> They didn't swallow any of those. While there is no reason to think a
> simple, clear stand (that the US shouldn't be invading and occupying
> countries and that the other crimes flow from that crime) based on
> immediate withdrawal will be more acceptable, the other approaches have, in
> addition to being inconsistent, failed.
>
> Notes
>
> 1)http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6649
> 2)http://www.counterpunch.org/jones11082004.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

Hi Aaron,

> So it's entirely hypocritical of them to express anger at the US for a
> situation of violence and chaos that they help to prolong by using ambulences
> as truck bombs, etc.

There are two different "they"s there. One refers to the ones who
do those acts of violence. The other refers to the ordinary
Iraqis who find them as awful as we do. The ordinary Iraqis
I gather from the news of course, just like you, I don't
know any personally - are quite horrified particularly at the killing
of those two care workers who have done so much to help
their country and were peaceful people who had done nothing
to harm Iraqis at all.

They (the ones who did the executions) may not be motivated by
Iraqi concerns at all and may be deliberately prolonging
the violence in Iraq by their acts for aims of their own.
Might not even be Iraqi or at least certainly seem to
be Iraqi traitors to their own country.

The ones who are so angry and upset are not the ones
who carried out the atrocities. Who knows what
their feelings about the attacks are.
They may well have even left Fallujah - the
ones actually responsible - before the attacks
began.

I found this site recently - which presents an Iraqi
perspective as it is an Iraqi paper:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2004/678/fr1.htm

Robert

I agree Aaron . . . . ., the thing is, the idea of fighting war in a
"fair manner" is really kind of hopeless. . .war is hell, and makes
hellish persons of anyone involved (or most involved). The point is to
avoid war in the first place. . .(and certainly not to court it . . )

I remember hearing a thing on NPR one morning a year ago or so, these
guys were riding around Iraq taking photos. . .one of them told how they
photographed a corpse and talkd about it "This one we nicknamed 'Mr
Crispy'. " I thought about how horrible this was for a moment . .
imagine yourself, being burnt to ashes, turned into some sort of
worthless piece of ash-sculpture. . . then people giving you a nickname
like you were a stuffed bear. . .

At the same time, I couldn't hate the kid really. How is one supposed to
react to that? Especially when one knows that one's job may be to make
more "Mr. Crispy"'s appear in the near future . . . . . . . I'm sure I
would have done/said the same, or worse.

The point is, you've lost all ability to find your way around morally
when you go into an offensive war. you're in a moral no-man's-land.

Christopher Bailey wrote:

>I agree Aaron . . . . ., the thing is, the idea of fighting war in a >"fair manner" is really kind of hopeless. . .war is hell, and makes >hellish persons of anyone involved (or most involved). The point is to >avoid war in the first place. . .(and certainly not to court it . . )
>
I strongly recommend the most recent James Hillman book on this subject
"A terrible love of War"

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

I also agree Robert. . . . when I talk to my Republican friends. . .they
always give the line about "we're not going to make ourselves safer by
appeasing the terrorists."

But nobody's trying to appease terrorists. If anything, we want to
"appease" (if that's the right term), the common person on the street,
because when those people are pissed, then the terrorists live on a base
of implicit public support . . . they can hide and be funded by the
general populace.

For this reason . . we (the USA/UK) are in a no-win situation there now. .
. if we don't knock out the insurgency, it will grow. If we do knock it
out, it will grow. (well. . .we shall see. . .perhaps not. . . )

yes we fall for the ol viet cong trick every time. no one ever considers fighting us in the war we want to fight.
BTW all our cabinet are monsanto stock holders and now by law there farmers are no longer allowed tro save seed for next years crop. They now have to buy seeds guess who from Monsanto

Christopher Bailey wrote:

>I also agree Robert. . . . when I talk to my Republican friends. . .they >always give the line about "we're not going to make ourselves safer by >appeasing the terrorists."
>
>But nobody's trying to appease terrorists. If anything, we want to >"appease" (if that's the right term), the common person on the street, >because when those people are pissed, then the terrorists live on a base >of implicit public support . . . they can hide and be funded by the >general populace.
>
>For this reason . . we (the USA/UK) are in a no-win situation there now. . >. if we don't knock out the insurgency, it will grow. If we do knock it >out, it will grow. (well. . .we shall see. . .perhaps not. . . )
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> the idea of fighting war in a
> "fair manner" is really kind of hopeless. . .war is hell,
> and makes hellish persons of anyone involved (or most
> involved). The point is to avoid war in the first place. . .
> (and certainly not to court it . . )

Agreed somewhat. There are various ways to make it less
damaging, though, and more of a formality. The Geneva
stuff seems like a good idea in that sense. Also, in the
Taoist poets one can get hints of a sort of respect for
the necessity of war, and take some sense nobility from
that. Certainly, though, it all points to abstinence
from frivilous wars, which the war in Iraq certainly is.
It points to restraint from war where possible, and in
the case of Iraq it was. Boiling it down, though, the
jihadists are certainly worse than we.

> The point is, you've lost all ability to find your way around
> morally when you go into an offensive war. you're in a moral
> no-man's-land.

Yup.

-Carl

> BTW all our cabinet are monsanto stock holders and now by
> law there farmers are no longer allowed tro save seed for
> next years crop. They now have to buy seeds guess who from
> Monsanto.

Whose farmers?

I'm aware of this issue, and it's quite sickening. But I
didn't think it had been successful anywhere.

-Carl

> But nobody's trying to appease terrorists. If anything, we
> want to "appease" (if that's the right term), the common
> person on the street, because when those people are pissed,
> then the terrorists live on a base of implicit public
> support. . . they can hide and be funded by the general
> populace.
>
> For this reason . . we (the USA/UK) are in a no-win situation
> there now. . . if we don't knock out the insurgency, it will
> grow. If we do knock it out, it will grow. (well. . .we
> shall see. . . perhaps not. . . )

I don't think the insurgency is as popular on the street as
you fear.

-Carl

Hi Christopher,

Yes I agree, no-one is trying to appease the terrorists.

> For this reason . . we (the USA/UK) are in a no-win situation there now. .
> . if we don't knock out the insurgency, it will grow. If we do knock it
> out, it will grow. (well. . .we shall see. . .perhaps not. . . )

I get the impression there was quitie a bit of good will
initially in Iraq for the Americans for deposing Saddam Hussein and
indeed they would be grateful too for those carrying
out the executions to be brought to justice.

But the goodwill is being dissipated because of their lack
of sufficient regard and consideration towards civilians.

Mainly the soldiers need to be taught to be more considerate
towards ordinary Iraqis, ask first and shoot later whereever
it is possible, take great care not to do things such as to
shoot at innocent demonstrators, or to drop bombs
that could harm civilians, etc.

Also to listen to their own suggestions about ways
to organise the election, from all parties,
rather than insist it all
be done according to a plan made in the US.

IN the case of Fallujah, they should have consulted
more with the Iraqi politicians - and not just
the Iraqi prime minister who belongs to a 5 %
minority very pro American sect and isn't
representative of the ordinary Iraqis,
so I gather.

One Iraqi on the radio here said that just
before the attack they had made a
breaktrhough of some sort in their
discussions about the situation in
Fallujah, and then it had to be
called off because they heard
on the radio that the attack had
already started - that doesn't suggest
a very good raport between the
US military and the politicians striving
for a political non violent solution

I thin th US just needs to listen
more and take more care.

Soldiers don't have to lose their
moral integrity. Yes there is
killing of enemies in a war
- enemies with guns. But there
is a well established morality
of warfare which soldiers
can hold to and should be trained
to do so whatever the level of
provocation. This should be
a very impoftant aspect of their
trainin and the way they are behaving
in Iraq suggests to me that it hasn't
been given quite the level of attention
in the trainin of US soldiers as it
should be.

Also - to put themselves into the position
of the Iraqis too. They seem to have
treated the idea of a forced evacuation
of a city far too lightly. Don't
seem to quite understnad what that
means - imagine if you gave the
Americans in a US city a couple of
days notice to evacuate the city...
What chaos there would be. How everyone
would be conerned about the things they
had left behind in the city. What
should those do in charge of keeping
parts of the city running, or those
with pets, those afraid of looters,
those ill or old with no friends,
or poor without transport and nowhere
to go, etc.

Many wouldn't get away in time etc.
etc. The US did this far too lightly
without what seems very much consideration
for the civilians there, after all they
aren't even at war with the country as
such. So they need also to put themselves
in their place a bit more. That's
more in the way of training for the
generals and those higher in authority
and plannign operations.

Robert

Hi Carl,

Well to start with, one of the things that I'd have thought
would be generally accepted is that an enemy who is helpless
is no longer a target for soldiers, and rather is to be treated
and helped as well as you can.

Those people in the Mosque for instance which was
the scene of that killing - they were left there
for a day the report said with no assistance
to live or die as chance might tell,
after they were wounded - with US soldiers
coming in and out. Surely that should never happen.
They were US captives at that point even if
they had been left in the mosque rather than taken
anywhere else yet.

Even if they weren't paramedics, the soldiers
should administer whatever is appropriate
in the way of emergency first aid as soon as the
enemy is helpless and under their control,
to within their ability. Even in the midst
of battle. Well I'd have thought that would
be how it would be anyway.

I don't know about this from a military point of
view of course, just on the basis of ethics.

But I'm probably not the one to talk about
it really as I'd go to prison myself
rather than become a soldier, as I'm
a pacifist more or less completely.
But feel there is something a bit
amiss somewhere, which surely needs to be
addressed by those who think about
such things.

I'm sure that there can be a morality
that includes possibility of "lawful"
violence to be used for societies that can't
exist on completely pacifist grounds,
and that we have such a system in
place indeed, and the Geneva convention
agreements are probably a good starting
point, plus the things said about this
e.g. by Christians or indeed Muslims
who are also agreed that a helpless
enemy captured in a war
has to be helped and treated rather than
harmed.

Robert

every farmer in Iraq.

Carl Lumma wrote:

> >
>>BTW all our cabinet are monsanto stock holders and now by
>>law there farmers are no longer allowed tro save seed for
>>next years crop. They now have to buy seeds guess who from
>>Monsanto.
>> >>
>
>Whose farmers?
>
>I'm aware of this issue, and it's quite sickening. But I
>didn't think it had been successful anywhere.
>
>-Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> >>BTW all our cabinet are monsanto stock holders and now by
> >>law there farmers are no longer allowed tro save seed for
> >>next years crop. They now have to buy seeds guess who from
> >>Monsanto.
> >
> >Whose farmers?
>
> every farmer in Iraq.

Do you remember where you heard this?

-C.