Interesting reading. Sounds like there were human rights issues with both. I agree, that in this example it seems that U.S. policy was influenced heavily by oil and ecomomic concern, as well as Cold War concerns.
So you’re telling me you think the family’s thoughts on whether their family member’s should be killed are really relevant? The dead=dead equation contains no moral reasoning at all. If a kidnapper’s mother doesn’t think he should be in jail, does that mean the “kidnapping” required to bring him to jail is the same as his kidnapping his victim? I understand that not all those who lost their lives in Afghanistan were criminals, but the point remains that bringing this rabid emotionalism into the discussion ruins the reasoning process necessary to achieve the right conclusion. How I personally would feel about explaining the death of civilians in Afghanistan to their family members has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the war in Afghanistan.
Well you don’t see very clearly then. Do you think murder in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, and homicide in self-defense should all be treated the same way?
Hello?!? Are you listening? I am not talking realpolitik; I could just as well say we’re bigger and stronger and screw the Afghans, but that’s not my argument because it’s a poor way to debate the justice of a war. And as I explain above, the “fundamental injustice” is not the same in both cases. How intentional the death of the victims is is an essential factor in determining the justice of a particular action (incidentally, so is whether the action is taken in self-defense). Until you can honestly say you consider murder 1, manslaughter 2, and self-defensive homicide the same crime, your whole thesis falls apart.
What Fang said.
The basis for US foreign policy is enlightened self-interest. Lots of other countries do the same. With the PA, Iraq, Cuba, and others, they don’t bother with the “enlightened” part.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t forget the School of the Americas, the contras, terrorist training camps in Honduras.
Exactly, and the School of the Americas is still around, funded by your taxes to train Central and South American militaries in such noble arts as torture and organizing efficient death squads. It’s now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, a clear euphemism.
And people who say US covert action in Central and South America is all in the past need to look at Bush’s administration. Most of the people who carried out covert action in Nicaragua are still around, such as Otto Reich.
UnuMondo
msmith, Let’s say Al-Qaeda memebers were living in a mountainous difficult terrain in the US where everyone knows civilians also live, would you be willing to fully support a bombing campaign that you know will cause the death of innocents? May be even your family members? In general, I see your point and I do see the fundamental difference, but I still do not see the morality (of either actions, of course… ). May be “enlightened self-interest” is the right phrase, I don’t know.
** Tristan **, I never mentioned anything to the effect that US is bad. I don’t see why so often any comment made against the US is automatically construed to stem from an Anti-American bias. I am trying to be a humanist here. And, please, there is nothing accidental about civilian deaths. The campaign is carried out fully knowing that there WILL be civilian deaths and hence it is not accidental, in the sense of the word. The issue of US aid etc are irrelevant as I am talking ONLY about the morality of the bombing campaign. Could you also avoid trumpeting US aid as a card to rationalize other actions around the globe? I mean, humanitarian aid is a truly noble thing, why bring in politics into it? Going by your argument, I presume you would support carpet bombing any area within the US too where terrorists are operating in bulk. If we kill 300 terrorists along with 50 civilians, fair enough?
Fang, There is a difference between eye-for-eye and eye-for-someone else’s-eye. That’s why I don’t see homicide in self-defense, and murder in the first degree to be similar. As for manslaughter, murder etc, they are expedient tools to differentiate punishment for acts. By the same argument, can we jail the bomber who killed 40 civilians without intent on manslaughter charges? The point is we are operating without a legal framework, and I don’t see the analogy applying here.
The US force will try to minimize casualties but their priority is to minimize their casualties first. That is why bombing a suspected attack is “optimal” for them. What’s particularly worse in this situation is that this is not an open war which accentuates the possibility of collateral damage. Besides, I doubt if a guerilla group can really be thwarted by a military campaign.
Originally posted by litost
Fang, Shall we discuss the level of intent with the families that lost their loved ones as part of the collateral damage? Why is their loss of lives any less wrong than ones who died in the WTC?
Fang’s Reply
So you’re telling me you think the family’s thoughts on whether their family member’s should be killed are really relevant? The dead=dead equation contains no moral reasoning at all. If a kidnapper’s mother doesn’t think he should be in jail, does that mean the “kidnapping” required to bring him to jail is the same as his kidnapping his victim? I understand that not all those who lost their lives in Afghanistan were criminals, but the point remains that bringing this rabid emotionalism into the discussion ruins the reasoning process necessary to achieve the right conclusion. How I personally would feel about explaining the death of civilians in Afghanistan to their family members has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the war in Afghanistan.
litost responds
The kidnapping analogy is false. I was talking about family members of those innocents who died, and not of those who committed the crime. I am beginning to see why we differ. Your claim is that since US doesn’t intentionally target civilians, their actions have a moral superiority. And, you buttress that argument saying that legal systems differentiate based on intent.
As for the latter, I have already made my argument. Shall we charge some US soldiers on involuntary manslaughter? From the legal viewpoint, neither action is condonable. We are clearly operating outside of any legal framework. We only have ourselves to guide us. I see the US position as attacking Al-Qaeda and Taliban fully aware that innocents will die. What reason apart from pure self-interest can be attributed to this position? Now, if we have to compare ourselves with the terrorists to partially morally justify our actions, then, there is nothing left to discuss. As much of a let-down the argument is, any sane individual recognizes the difference. But, IMO, to the relative of the dead in Afghanistan, no amount of moral justification can suffice as it is the same fundamental injustice, i.e., an innocent’s death.
So, fine, like some posters wrote, let’s call it “enlightened self-interest”. That does mean that there is no moral imperative which is what the OP asks. Let us be clear about the answer:** No! **
When powerful countries have moral imperatives, the world will be a better place. The US has such a great opportunity to be a leader on the lines of Gandhi or Dr. King… is all I am saying.
Cite?
That’s not too far off from what we did.
Didn’t Bush do something like that?
Helping clean up a mess doesn’t excuse you from culpability for having created the mess in the first place.
I’m very happy to learn that:
- There’s little left alive in Afghanistan because we all but carpet-bombed the place (this may come as a surprise to the people still alive there, although I concede that it seems as if we’ve been far less discriminate than we could and should be), and
- Uncle Sam is responsible for causing all those hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes and famines and droughts and AIDS and all the rest of things for which we provide foreign aid. Truly, a startling revelation, but one which brings me great pride in my country’s power. Not every country controls Mother Nature, and it’s comforting to know that I live in one that does.
(And while I’m not Tristan, I think he was pointing out that in addition to the 3000 killed in the WTC attacks, many more were put in danger of being killed, and that destroying the building in which many more than 3000 people work by crashing a plane into it fits any rational definition of “trying to kill” more than 3000 people.)
There aren’t any statistics readily available showing where US foreign aid goes, but I don’t think relief for natural disasters makes up a significant part. Anyway, “natural” disasters are never really natural. For example, droughts in Africa wouldn’t result in widespread famine if it were not for other factors like violent conflict and excessive foreign debt. US humanitarian aid generally does go to things like keeping Afgan refugees who fled the US bombing campaign alive. Working at a major humanitarian agency, I’ve been giving some thought to the argument that humanitarian agencies actually contribute to the problem by diverting attention from the causes of the problems and allowing governments to shirk their responsibility for preventing them. Again, the US government’s support for refugees does not excuse its actions that directly or indirectly force those people to run for their lives in the first place.
So we should engage in civil disobedience against Osama bin Laden?
I’ll get to the rest of your argument in a later post (it’s late now), but this statement stood out as patently ridiculous.
Chula -
Working at a major humanitarian agency, I’ve been giving some thought to the argument that humanitarian agencies actually contribute to the problem by diverting attention from the causes of the problems and allowing governments to shirk their responsibility for preventing them.
Trade and all of the issues around trade, specifically, agricultural subsidies, are imo, detrimental to these economies. I agree that humanitarian aid is necessary. Wouldn’t it make sense to look at these countries that need aid year after year and find better ways of speeding their progress?
Does the U.S. encourage real competition or, are our policies implemented with the idea that we must protect jobs in the U.S. first and foremost?
Over the long term, it would seem prudent to invest more time and energy in creating truly successful economies around the globe. More markets with real consumer power would boost our economy.
The entrepreneurial spirit is quickly lost in communities where people have such pressing concerns as safety, food, water, health, etc.
Do you suppose that the hijackers intended for Flight 93 to be flown into the ground in Pennsylvania, or do you suppose that maybe they intended to hit some other building with it?
“Cite,” indeed.
I know this is a whole can of worms, but… despite the US government’s assertions, I have yet to see any evidence that al Qaeda was involved in the hijacking. I’m not saying they weren’t, just that I have no information either way.
**Posted by Fang
So we should engage in civil disobedience against Osama bin Laden? **
That is not what I meant. I was just speaking of leaders in general who posessed moral imperatives. There is a prevalent tension between the US and the rest of the world. This compels US to behave in its apparent self interest (out of mistrust), and the gap between the most powerful country and the rest increases even further. It is a vicious cycle for which both parties are to blame. To those who think: “Who cares?” , then you evidently believe in “Might is Right”, i.e., the more powerful can have their way and that’s Life… We just have a fundamentally differing philosophy, and there is no point arguing. Besides, I think you should start caring, as the resentment in the multitude of countries, perceived or real, will one day have repercussions a la Al-Qaeda. Anyway, my point is there are reasons why certain leaders in the world were loved and followed across the board. Just pointing out the obvious that the world will be a better place under leaders such as them.
Getting back to Afghanistan, I am not entirely convinced the only option the US had was to bomb suspected Al-Qaeda caves and areas in Afghanistan fully aware of the possible civilian casualties. This is what I was referring to as having a moral imperative. I believe they did this as more of a symbolic move only the hope that it also produces real results. The proof is in the pudding, and that makes me believe even more in the idea that the military response was more intended to send a message than anything else and it is a costly message. Is it because we don’t see images of the civilian dead, conspicuous by its absence in the media, that has made us de-sensitized? May be, if the country wasn’t something called Afghanistan, this whole campaign would lack the complete credibility it currently has. There are other areas of murkiness. The lack of an independent press on the ground, the loose handling of civilian deaths, the unwarranted controversy over handling of the detainees, where is the moral imperative and clarity?
Yes, I tried looking and I’ll readily concede that such relief isn’t a large part (although certainly it must exist). Most of the statistics I was able to find before I gave up in frustration last night seemed to say vague generic things like “economic aid” or the like, which could be anything, although there was a document at the state department’s site (I’ll see if I can find it again if you wish) that mentioned $400 million for AIDS prevention.
My point, though, was that the US surely can’t be rationally blamed for all the problems it tries to help solve with its foreign aid, and that a blanket statement to the contrary is in my opinion silly. And while I do buy the argument that in some sense our foreign aid perpetuates problems by allowing other governments to shirk their responsibilities, isn’t it better to help even knowing that than to not help at all? Or would not helping somehow be the morally correct thing to do? Somehow, I suspect that if we said “look, I know you’re having a famine, but we’re not going to help feed you because then you’ll become reliant on us and won’t be forced to solve your own problems,” we’d be rightfully excoriated in the world community for having an immoral foreign policy. It is, of course, blatantly obvious that it’s not morally praiseworthy to help clean up a mess that you’re responsible for, but it is not as blatantly obvious to me that we’re responsible for all the world’s problems in the first place. Certainly, I don’t see why we would be unique in this regard.
The United States is in a unique position because it is by far the world’s most powerful nation. “With great power comes great responsibility.” When a corporation goes bankrupt, isn’t it more likely that the CEO has some responsibility than the guy who shines his shoes? Everyone in the world is affected by the decisions made by the United States, be they made through trade agreements (the WTO), investment, aid (and the World Bank), military actions, diplomatic means, or monetary policy (IMF).
I’m not suggesting the US do nothing, I’m saying it should do things like forgive the foreign debt of very poor countries so that they can spend their meager revenues supporting their people. And we should refuse to do business with governments that are causing the suffering. Even if they have supplies of oil.
Yes, yes, with great power comes great responsibility, and the US should do what it can to help. Nevertheless, I would contend that:
a) helping in cases where we have not caused the problem is still morally praiseworthy, even if some feel it’s an obligation, and more importantly,
b) while we are currently the world’s sole superpower, we have not been so for a great length of time in the grander scheme of things; not all the problems plaguing the world have developed since we reached the pinacle. Nor, for that matter, does the mere fact that we are at the pinacle now imply that any problems that have developed since we reached it can be laid squarely at our feet. Everyone in the world is also affected by decisions made by Japan, or Britain, or South Africa, and all the rest; that our decisions usually have far larger impact does nothing to negate this.
Here, however, we are in complete agreement.
A NYT report on Afghan civilian casualties:
From the article:
“Also, the Americans’ preference for airstrikes instead of riskier ground operations has cut off a way of checking the accuracy of the intelligence.”
37 US casualties as opposed to ~ 400 Afghan civilians. Can it be deduced that US is trying to minimize its casualties at the potential risk to the local civilians, so as to avoid a possible problem at home with higher American casualties? If the figures are close to being true, the stategy seems logical (self-interest etc), but is not a moral strategy.
The US military is not keeping a count of civilian casualties. Can someone tell me why?
So propose a better option. The reason the Afghanistan campaign has credibility is because it is in Afghanistan and not, lets say… Turkey.
The very things that make it such a ideal hideout for terrorists also make it imposible to reach a peaceful political solution:
- Afghanistan was run by a government overtly hostile to the United States.
- The country is dirt poor
- There is no local law enforcement to speak of
- The Taliban want nothing that we have. Even if they did, your morality prevents us from dealing with an oppressive despotic government
What solution would you propose other than turning the other cheek?