Friday, February 04, 2005
Honor, Murder, and War
Via Brad DeLong comes this parallel from Billmon:
I have a few observations, ranging from the visceral to the contemplatative:
1. Lt. Gen. Mattis is apparently a high ranking officer of our country's military who enjoys killing. He likes shooting people. He finds it fun.
Some would say there's a fine line between murder and war. Others would say there is no line, that all war is killing, and we should renounce it except under immediate threat of destruction. I don't know which view is right, only that we have to strive to make and keep a distinction between these activities so long as we are going to engage in war at all.
In war, killing is necessary to achieve urgent ends---protecting civilians, ending the conflict, defeating the forces of oppression and conquest. Soldiers kill because they have to. Sadistic, inhuman murderers kill because they want to. When a soldier must kill, either to obey orders or protect himself, he must guard against taking any pleasure in it---both to protect himself from becoming a monster, and to protect our military from becoming a instrument of cruelty.
Lt. Gen. Mattis, by his own colorful admission, takes great pleasure in killing his enemy. In my book, that makes Mattis a murderer, a psychopath, and a threat to the safety of our armed forces. He must be removed from command at once, or he will continue to commit murder in our nation's name, continue to set an evil example for our nation's soldiers, and continue to endanger the safety of our troops by allowing war to descend into butchery.
2. Marine Commandant Hagee, Mattis's superior officer, has defended Mattis. That is frightening, and I worry about whether Hagee is himself fit for command. (Though in politics, and especially the Bush administration, refusing to admit that your organization ever makes mistakes is a favored strategy, and so perhaps Hagee is merely hiding his own disgust.)
Hagee also says Mattis "intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war". I read Mattis in the opposite fashion: he appears to revel in the harsh realities of war.
3. Hagee describes Mattis as "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders". I know nothing about Mattis beyond the quote above. But a man who takes pleasure in killing a far weaker enemy strikes me as the opposite of brave. Bravery requires adhering to a high standard of conduct even under fire.
I hazard to guess that a brave man would consider the necessity of killing a weaker enemy to be an unpleasant necessity, and would consider anyone who took pleasure in the "mopping up" to be a disgrace.
4. One of the features that distinguishes the practice of many wars from unfettered killing is the rules by which combatants abide. In the midst of battle, two enemies may seek any means of killing each other, lest they be killed themselves. But let a soldier surrender, and everything may change. The victor often is bound by social or legal conventions to cease fire, to offer humane conditions of captivity to the vanquished, even to accept the desire of the prisoner to escape as legitimate.
It is easy to imagine a war fought by two countries in which each side accepts to surrender from enemy soldiers. Every battle is a fight to the death. Prisoners may be slaughtered, to save the trouble and expense of guarding and feeding them. Or prisoners may be worked to death.
In past centuries, the conventions of humane war---admitted, not very humane, but better than simple killing---rested in large part on social conventions of honor. Men on opposite sides of a war might be ordered to kill each other, but still respected the "honor" of the other side, accepted surrender graciously, treated prisoners decently, etc. Wherever the idea of honor in war came from, it proved a useful device for soldiers, who could be somewhat confident that if they were captured, they would not be simply slaughtered. If you treated a captured enemy honorably, you upheld a convention that could protect you in the event of role reversal.
Today, we rely on international treaties like the Geneva Conventions to make war more humane. War is always harsh and bloody, but civilized nations try to limit the brutality to actual combat. (We left the company of civilized nations over a year ago, through our torture of prisoners, and confirmed our barbarian status by accepting Albert Gonzalez, a war criminal and torturer, as head of the Department of Justice). More important, civilized nations also avoid war except as a last resort to defend themselves or prevent crimes against humanity. (In contrast, America now makes war for sport, apparently.)
I tend to think of honor or laws of war as institutions that make an awful activity a bit less awful. Soldiers may think of honor as something more; something so worth gaining as to make honorable participation in combat desirable. That attitude scares me, but not nearly so much as a thirst for killing itself. Someone, like Lt. Gen. Mattis, who thinks that killing the enemy is a hoot; who thinks "it's fun to shoot some people", has no honor.
And when you consider that Mattis's forces are vastly superior to his enemy, so that his shooting games are like shooting fish in a barrel, and when you consider that as a general, Mattis life is in little danger, while his own troops risk death for Mattis' blood sport, then you can only conclude that this dishonorable man has no place in the armed forces of this republic.
5. I supported US intervention in Afghanistan long before it became fashionable in conservative circles. I wanted the US to back the Northern Alliance long before 9/11, because I thought the Taliban's oppression of women was a crime that justified an armed struggle. I am mostly pacifistic, but I have my limits, and the Taliban walked over them.
But I didn't want to send Col. Kurtz over to Afghanistan to do the job. I wanted to send real soldiers, like the brave men and women who went to Bosnia to rebuild that divided nation. People who believed in making the world a better place, even at the risk of their own lives; volunteers whose professionalism, selflessness, and composure under fire would make us proud. Not sadistic killers looking for permission to endulge in bloodsports.
It's time to find Captain Willard, and send him up-river. Our methods are unsound, and our own commanders and their political chiefs are the real enemy of the republic.
From Apocalypse Now:
Col. Walter E. Kurtz: "What did they tell you?"
Capt. Willard: "They told me that you had gone totally insane, and, uh, that your methods were... unsound."
Col. Walter E. Kurtz: "And are my methods unsound?"
Capt. Willard: "Uh, I don't see any method at all, Sir."
Whiskey Bar: Unsound Methods:
"Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling . . . You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, USMC
Speech on Strategies for the War on Terrorism
February 1, 2005
"While I understand that some people may take issue with the comments made by him, I also know he intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war," [Marine Corp Commandant Mike] Hagee said. "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor." Hagee also praised Mattis, calling him "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders."
Associated Press
Marine General Counseled for Comments
February 3, 2005
I have a few observations, ranging from the visceral to the contemplatative:
1. Lt. Gen. Mattis is apparently a high ranking officer of our country's military who enjoys killing. He likes shooting people. He finds it fun.
Some would say there's a fine line between murder and war. Others would say there is no line, that all war is killing, and we should renounce it except under immediate threat of destruction. I don't know which view is right, only that we have to strive to make and keep a distinction between these activities so long as we are going to engage in war at all.
In war, killing is necessary to achieve urgent ends---protecting civilians, ending the conflict, defeating the forces of oppression and conquest. Soldiers kill because they have to. Sadistic, inhuman murderers kill because they want to. When a soldier must kill, either to obey orders or protect himself, he must guard against taking any pleasure in it---both to protect himself from becoming a monster, and to protect our military from becoming a instrument of cruelty.
Lt. Gen. Mattis, by his own colorful admission, takes great pleasure in killing his enemy. In my book, that makes Mattis a murderer, a psychopath, and a threat to the safety of our armed forces. He must be removed from command at once, or he will continue to commit murder in our nation's name, continue to set an evil example for our nation's soldiers, and continue to endanger the safety of our troops by allowing war to descend into butchery.
2. Marine Commandant Hagee, Mattis's superior officer, has defended Mattis. That is frightening, and I worry about whether Hagee is himself fit for command. (Though in politics, and especially the Bush administration, refusing to admit that your organization ever makes mistakes is a favored strategy, and so perhaps Hagee is merely hiding his own disgust.)
Hagee also says Mattis "intended to reflect the unfortunate and harsh realities of war". I read Mattis in the opposite fashion: he appears to revel in the harsh realities of war.
3. Hagee describes Mattis as "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders". I know nothing about Mattis beyond the quote above. But a man who takes pleasure in killing a far weaker enemy strikes me as the opposite of brave. Bravery requires adhering to a high standard of conduct even under fire.
I hazard to guess that a brave man would consider the necessity of killing a weaker enemy to be an unpleasant necessity, and would consider anyone who took pleasure in the "mopping up" to be a disgrace.
4. One of the features that distinguishes the practice of many wars from unfettered killing is the rules by which combatants abide. In the midst of battle, two enemies may seek any means of killing each other, lest they be killed themselves. But let a soldier surrender, and everything may change. The victor often is bound by social or legal conventions to cease fire, to offer humane conditions of captivity to the vanquished, even to accept the desire of the prisoner to escape as legitimate.
It is easy to imagine a war fought by two countries in which each side accepts to surrender from enemy soldiers. Every battle is a fight to the death. Prisoners may be slaughtered, to save the trouble and expense of guarding and feeding them. Or prisoners may be worked to death.
In past centuries, the conventions of humane war---admitted, not very humane, but better than simple killing---rested in large part on social conventions of honor. Men on opposite sides of a war might be ordered to kill each other, but still respected the "honor" of the other side, accepted surrender graciously, treated prisoners decently, etc. Wherever the idea of honor in war came from, it proved a useful device for soldiers, who could be somewhat confident that if they were captured, they would not be simply slaughtered. If you treated a captured enemy honorably, you upheld a convention that could protect you in the event of role reversal.
Today, we rely on international treaties like the Geneva Conventions to make war more humane. War is always harsh and bloody, but civilized nations try to limit the brutality to actual combat. (We left the company of civilized nations over a year ago, through our torture of prisoners, and confirmed our barbarian status by accepting Albert Gonzalez, a war criminal and torturer, as head of the Department of Justice). More important, civilized nations also avoid war except as a last resort to defend themselves or prevent crimes against humanity. (In contrast, America now makes war for sport, apparently.)
I tend to think of honor or laws of war as institutions that make an awful activity a bit less awful. Soldiers may think of honor as something more; something so worth gaining as to make honorable participation in combat desirable. That attitude scares me, but not nearly so much as a thirst for killing itself. Someone, like Lt. Gen. Mattis, who thinks that killing the enemy is a hoot; who thinks "it's fun to shoot some people", has no honor.
And when you consider that Mattis's forces are vastly superior to his enemy, so that his shooting games are like shooting fish in a barrel, and when you consider that as a general, Mattis life is in little danger, while his own troops risk death for Mattis' blood sport, then you can only conclude that this dishonorable man has no place in the armed forces of this republic.
5. I supported US intervention in Afghanistan long before it became fashionable in conservative circles. I wanted the US to back the Northern Alliance long before 9/11, because I thought the Taliban's oppression of women was a crime that justified an armed struggle. I am mostly pacifistic, but I have my limits, and the Taliban walked over them.
But I didn't want to send Col. Kurtz over to Afghanistan to do the job. I wanted to send real soldiers, like the brave men and women who went to Bosnia to rebuild that divided nation. People who believed in making the world a better place, even at the risk of their own lives; volunteers whose professionalism, selflessness, and composure under fire would make us proud. Not sadistic killers looking for permission to endulge in bloodsports.
It's time to find Captain Willard, and send him up-river. Our methods are unsound, and our own commanders and their political chiefs are the real enemy of the republic.
