In the course of discussion on this war in Iraq, many people claim that the U.S. is killing innocent civilians. This is a true statement. You'd think that everyone would understand that war is by definition a terrible and violent thing. Our troops on the ground are facing enormous burdens placed on them by a demanding homefront insisting that they fight a kind and compassionate war. Now, Americans have a right to expect their military to conduct themselves with restraint when necessary and compassion when appropriate. However, Does anyone else see the ridiculousness of this statement? That's like saying there is such a thing as a kind and compassionate rape! The famous quote isn't quot;Cry Havok and let slip the kind and compassionate dogs of war!quot; Once you commit to armed combat you've understood that the talk is over.
Obviously the taking of any non-combatants life is a horrible thing for anyone to have to live with and all the reasonable and many unreasonable steps one can imagine you should take are being taken to avoid this. Anyone who has ever spent any time in a war zone or been anywhere near armed conflict can attest to the fact that the biggest proponents for the democratic process are the men on the ground. They realize that when the metal meets the meat, they won't be discussing their disdain for the conflict via a computer forum, in an air conditioned room, while eating a big mac. In a war, civilian lives will be lost, so will the lives of men and women fighting.
That's why war must be avoided and used only as a last resort to complete diplomatic failure. It doesn't serve this post to go into who decides when that is or whether or not it's right...that's the topic for another thread and much debate. Suffice it to say that while the U.N. debated whether or not to call the slaughter in Rwanda an actual quot;genocidequot;, as many as 800,000 people were machete'd to death. However, many of the same people who are the most vocal about the Americans killing civilians caught in the crossfire are now demanding that we send troops into Darfur to stop the wholesale slaughter going on there. Well, I can tell you with relative certainty that innocent civilian lives will be lost if and when we go there. In the mean time thousands are dying while the U.N. debates whether or not intervention is called for. At least they are exhausting all diplomatic methods before they resort to violence. I suppose that makes many people happy, but not the ones watching the debates on C-Span while Islamic warlords saw off their heads.
My post isn't about taking a side on whether we should or shouldn't go into a war, I have my personal feelings on this as we all do, but I really want to make the point that using the position that we shouldn't be in Iraq because we're inadvertantly killing some civilians is an irresponsible arguement. Perhaps we shouldn't be in Iraq, perhaps we never should have gone, perhaps we're only making more terrorists, perhaps it only looks like we are because like a red ant hill, when you kick it over and they pour out it looks like all hell has broken loose. But what you've really done is destroy the ant's way of life and brought whatever they were doing underground into the light where you can kill them. Perhaps.....
I hate the fact that innocent civlians are killed in war but we must understand that our resolve to fight cannot be undermined by these terrible truths of war. If that were a reason to not fight, then we would have never been involved in The American Revolution, The Civil War, The War of 1812, The Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, The Balkan states war between Christians and Muslims, Somalia, Rwanda, etc....whether or not any of these campaigns were worth the cost in innocent life lost I'll leave up to our own personal judgements, but make no mistake, innocent lives were lost, and many innocent lives were saved because of them.
Thoughts? |
Post at 2011-4-16 07:02
| This Author's Posts Only
