Friday, July 28, 2006

Fighting a Just War

Michael Hirsh has a generally good peice in Newsweek about the series of strategic, tactical, and ethical stupidites that have constituted American involvement in Iraq. The piece allows me to make a quick point which I intended to pursue in the context of Michael Walzer's recent just-war analysis of Israel-Lebanon in The New Republic, but was too inarticulate and tired to make. Hirsh, in describing the nightly raids on Iraqi civilians by American soldiers, carried out on poor intelligence, crudely, and needlessly, in order to exemplify the failure of American commanders to correctly win the hearts and minds of civilians, a strategic error, writes:

"Like [Thomas] Ricks, The Washington Post's first-rate Pentagon correspondent, I don't really fault the soldiers on the ground for the mistakes made. These young men and women were in a hellish situation, and as warriors they performed superbly."

It seems that the general liberal critique of the Iraq war, often made not just in the name of attacking Bush, but in defense of a bold secular humanist tradition of reason and moral clarity, presents "war" or "just war" as a goal almost accomplished, but disastrously missed. These descriptions of our current conflicts in the Middle East seem to suggest that the empirical war = "war" + unfortunate aberrations, where "war" is the just war that we all want our boys and girls over there to fight. This talk, which seems to be the most level-headed around, is only a cruel and foolish form of utopianism.

If I had a large audience, and charisma that I lack, I would dedicate myself to convincing folks, any folks really, that perhaps war is the aberration itself. That we keep trying to fight this just war, and we get all these bad side effects. These side effects are nothing other than the expression of war itself. Only an absolutely unreformed idealist could argue otherwise. Where are the empirical contours of the non-aberrant war? In major newsmagazines and books mostly.

But back to the soldiers. What I really wanted to say, and this is a thing that one doesn't feel that comfortable saying, is that the heart of the problem, the heart of our continuing infatuation with the pursuit of proper war, is the sort of statement I quoted above.

If the 20th century has not taught us that following orders is a purely individual choice, and in order to maintain the very integrity of any concept of the human, we must insist that one chooses to follow orders, and is thus culpable, I don't know what further civilizational failure will teach us.

I am writing from a comfortable apartment on a nice Dell laptop. I studiously avoid violence out of fear. I certainly do not have the courage of those who fight. But I am not ready to accord their courage an uncritical positive evaluation.

In what brutal pax romana do we live in that the idea of warriors performing superbly is a replacement for moral judgement? What kind of vaunted church-state separation is there if at the heart of our concept of state is that at anytime its abstract authority wishes it may absolve men and women of any and all crimes. This is crucial. All the rhetoric of the past 5 years about rogue states and terrorists is essential to the continuation of any sort of just war ideation. Because we believe, along with Hirsh et al. that as long as the invisible "state" bestowed as it is with a sort of amoral goodness, orders war, then its human subjects no longer act in a moral context. The soldiers' sins become mistakes, misfirings of the war machine. But this amoral field can only be allowed to certain invisible forces, and thus we invent "state" versus "non-state" putatively freeing our citizens who choose to fight of the grotesque moral baggage their allegience entails.

But of course the freedom only accrues to the amorality of the state. The soldiers will be haunted by their actions. They, or most, will have to reckon with their brutality. But by then they will have returned into the interior of true freedom, which does not offer a license to kill, but only the pain of regret and the weight of self-appraisal.

There may come a time, and it will mostly likely not be at the behest of either political party, that people come to realize that supporting the troops during a war is a fatuous exercise, because the war is waged as much against the guilty as the innocent, and that rather than supporting "troops" you must support the humans that they actually are. The only way to do this is to disarm them and keep them home.


At 11:41 PM, Blogger the actual rod said...

well said...and it is obvious, but supporting these humans also requires the removal of the profit motive of those who clamor most loudly for wars of choice (that is, probably all wars).

at the same time, if you or i had said that to an Iranian in September 1980 we would have looked like idiots--still, that war was created and driven by the same two bullshit reasons that the war on Iraq is being fought: securing oil reserves and selling fear/weapon technology. the practical point being, can any government be expected to disband its military and melt down its military hardware before any other?

if iran had done so before the iraqi invasion in september, maybe less people would have died in the conflict itself (that is up for debate when we're considering an iraqi regime that published a pamphlet called 'three things that god should not have created: persians, jews, and flies'), but the country would most likely be completely impoverished, deprived of resources and susceptible to all kinds of hardship that may have led to an even higher eventual death toll than the whole 8 year war (of course that is very speculative, but you get my point).

if france had unilaterally disarmed in 1938, it would have been overrun in just a few days at hitler's whim.

maybe that example doesn't work.

regardless, you get my point. there is absolutely a need to de-fang/marginalize those who actually stand to benefit from war (& in the good authoritarian tradition, they are usually completely unaccountable to anyone but shareholders, who also benefit from war while having to answer to no one), but it's going to be a much taller order to argue for complete global demilitarization while the global socioeconomic system remains so fragmented. how do you combat fear of endemic domestic terrorism (clearly, every patient has a different presciption)? how do you counteract national passions that lead to a fear of separatism in, say, russia or china? wait a generation?


Post a Comment

<< Home

  • E-mail me: Dan Koffler
  • My YDN Column: Smashing Idols
  • The Reasonsphere
  • Hit & Run
  • Matt Welch
  • Julian Sanchez
  • Jesse Walker
  • Virginia Postrel
  • Tim Cavanaugh
  • Ringers
  • Andrew Sullivan
  • Josh Marshall
  • Crooked Timber
  • Matthew Yglesias
  • Kevin Drum
  • John Cole
  • Leiter Reports
  • Pharyngula
  • Gregory Djerjian
  • Atrios
  • Mickey Kaus
  • Jim Henley
  • Radley Balko
  • TNR's Plank
  • Balkinization
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Thomas Knapp
  • Justin Logan
  • Laura Rozen
  • Mark Kleiman
  • Print Culture
  • Arthur Silber
  • Tom Tomorrow
  • James Wolcott
  • OxBlog
  • Eric Muller
  • Majikthise
  • Pandagon
  • The American Scene
  • Daniel Drezner
  • Will Wilkinson
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • Intel Dump
  • Prequels
  • Johan Ugander
  • Dan Munz
  • Josh Eidelson
  • Future Less Vivid
  • Sequels
  • (not)Delino Deshields
  • Actual God
  • Hidden Hand
  • I am justice
  • Death/Media Incarnate
  • (not)Marquis Grissom
  • Yanqui At Cambridge
  • Beneficent Allah
  • Mr. Wrongway
  • The Hippolytic
  • Discourse Decision
  • Tight Toy Night
  • Mulatto Jesus
  • Sago Boulevard
  • Immortalized Stillicide
  • Nick's Corner
  • Dead Trees
  • Reason
  • Dissent
  • The New Republic
  • The New Yorker
  • The Atlantic Monthly
  • The American Prospect
  • Arts & Letters Daily
  • The Economist
  • The Nation
  • Yale Daily News
  • Virtual Reality
  • Wikipedia
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Symbolic Logic into HTML
  • Slate
  • Salon
  • The Huffington Post
  • Crooks and Liars
  • The Smoking Gun
  • The Smoking Gun: Bill O'Reilly
  • Romenesko
  • The Christopher Hitchens Web
  • Draft Russ
  •'s Library
  • Urban Dictionary
  • Homestar Runner
  • Planet Rugby
  • Flex Online
  • Card Player Magazine
  • Gawker & Such
  • News
  • Politics
  • Gambling
  • Gossip (NY edition)
  • Gossip (LA edition)
  • Cool Shit
  • Cars
  • Video Games
  • Photoshop Fun &c.
  • Travel
  • MacGuyver Yourself
  • Porn
  • Prepare For The Worst
  • Bull Moose Blog
  • The Corner
  • Instapundit
  • Reel Blogs
  • BathTubYoga
  • More TK
  • R.I.P.
  • Jamie Kirchick
  • That Girl