Friday, February 11, 2005
A well-intentioned criticism, and my response
A (clearly well-intentioned) reader posted the following comment on my post about Lt. Gen. Mattis. I've edited only slightly to improve legibility; the original post is below.
Here is my response:
I have lifted this comment mainly to emphasize an important oversight common among hawks of all persuasions: The illusion that we can confidently identify bad actors in the heat of battle, or based on skimpy intelligence. Often, reports are mistaken, or the subordinates sent out to grab a suspect in Iraq get the wrong person, etc. We cannot assume that everyone driving up to a checkpoint at speed, or living in a suspected residence or neighborhood, or carrying a weapon is an enemy. Even if battlefield circumstances require combat with such people, we cannot stoop to celebrate it.
That kind of moral certainty leads to a dangerous comfort with killing at a distance that leads to tragedies like the ~100,000 Iraqis we've likely slaughtered.
It's also important to remember that in any war, individual soldiers may have their own reasons for fighting. They may have been drafted. They may be patriotic. They may have been forced at gunpoint to join the militia. We cannot point to every soldier fighting with the Taliban, or Saddam, or Hitler, or Stalin and say "There is an evil psychopath. It is okay to kill him. It is even okay to enjoy killing him."
That is a large part of the difference we have tried to create between "civilized" war, and "genocidal" war. I'm not saying the former is great; as I said, I have pacifistic tendencies. But the latter can be much worse, and can seep into the hearts of a nation.
"It's fun to kill some people..."
The general said that it's fun to kill SOME people -- so which people did he mean? Well, the Taliban, who you wanted to attack before 9/11.
LtGen Mattis didn't say he enjoys taking human life for its own sake. He said he enjoys killing bad guys - the very bad guys you wanted killed. You can't read the state of a man's soul from one comment which the news services offered free of context. What question was he responding to? what else did he say? (hint: something about addressing the conditions that lead people to join terrorist organizations.)
It's also worth noting that Gen Pace commented that LtGen Mattis' leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan showed proper respect for the value of human life.
The LATimes article gives a little more than CNN did:
Here is my response:
I wanted to stop the Taliban. I didn't "want" to kill them. I wouldn't enjoy killing them (I hope). And if I caught them, I would not have them put to death if there was another option.
Before posting, I looked for more quotes from Mattis, as well as more context on his comments. I found nothing, but I also found no attempts to apologize, or restate his remarks in a way that contradicted the wanton spirit of killing they espouse.
Finally, and most importantly, at present, the US military and the Bush administration take very little care in distrnguishing the "bad guys" from innocents. They round up and torture innocent Iraqis on the slightest suspicion of involvement in the insurgency. They choose to bomb homes from a distance, rather than take the risk of personally confronting the residence. As a result, they often kill innocents. No one participating in such slaughter should call it fun.
(If you seek to justify such behavior as acceptable, because it saves soldiers lives, I would point out that Iraqi lives are just as valuable, and that current law requires taking every precaution to protect civilians, even at the risk of soldiers' lives.)
I have lifted this comment mainly to emphasize an important oversight common among hawks of all persuasions: The illusion that we can confidently identify bad actors in the heat of battle, or based on skimpy intelligence. Often, reports are mistaken, or the subordinates sent out to grab a suspect in Iraq get the wrong person, etc. We cannot assume that everyone driving up to a checkpoint at speed, or living in a suspected residence or neighborhood, or carrying a weapon is an enemy. Even if battlefield circumstances require combat with such people, we cannot stoop to celebrate it.
That kind of moral certainty leads to a dangerous comfort with killing at a distance that leads to tragedies like the ~100,000 Iraqis we've likely slaughtered.
It's also important to remember that in any war, individual soldiers may have their own reasons for fighting. They may have been drafted. They may be patriotic. They may have been forced at gunpoint to join the militia. We cannot point to every soldier fighting with the Taliban, or Saddam, or Hitler, or Stalin and say "There is an evil psychopath. It is okay to kill him. It is even okay to enjoy killing him."
That is a large part of the difference we have tried to create between "civilized" war, and "genocidal" war. I'm not saying the former is great; as I said, I have pacifistic tendencies. But the latter can be much worse, and can seep into the hearts of a nation.
