 |
||
|
|
||
Seeds
of War
The
existence of war and killing has always presented a distinct moral
dilemma. One on hand, people the world over generally agree that killing
is bad, something to be avoided at almost all cost.
The Ten Commandments tell us quite plainly
not to kill.
Jesus said to love our enemies, and turn
the other cheek when stricken.
Humanism condemns killing.
Realism, however, makes no qualms in saying
that killing is sometimes unavoidable. You can kill in self-defense, or
in defending the innocent.
The law allows killing in the name of protecting one's property.
But then comes the gargantuan prospect of
war, which seems to place all other considerations aside. During time
of war, soldiers are expected to kill the enemy. Collateral damage, the
accidental killing of noncombatants, is considered regrettable but unavoidable.
With the War in Iraq, America has adopted
the policy of preemptive strike. Under the aegis of self-defense, we went
to war on the unproved supposition that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
We were wrong, of course. The results have been catastrophic. While we
tell ourselves now that we are fighting for the freedom and democracy
of Iraq, the Iraqi people did not ask for our interference, and probably
were not ready as a consolidated nation to make democracy work. Their
collateral dead, numbering in the tens of thousands, and increasing every
day, are sacrifices for freedom that we imposed on them, and then brush
it aside as the cost of freedom—certain that they should be thanking
us. This differs only in rhetoric from the historical tendency of dehumanizing
the enemy, so that killing them becomes more palatable to our moral inclinations.
There is presently (June, 2006) a controversy
in this nation about pulling out of Iraq. Those in favor of war say that
those who are against it are not supporting the troops, even though saving
the lives of our soldiers is one of the main reasons why they want us
out of there. Does that make sense? Do we honor those soldiers who died
in this war by forcing others to die as well? What kind of logic is that?
Yet people proclaim it with moral fervor!
Our western sensitivities differentiate
between a missile that kills innocent people, and a car bomb that does
the same thing. Rightfully said, we can claim that the purpose of the
missile was not to kill innocent civilians, and that their deaths were
accidental and regrettable. While this is very different from terrorists
who purposely aim at civilian casualties, to the grieving families, what
difference is there? The dead, in both cases, are dead.
Fighting them over there instead of fighting
here? Is that a moral decision, even if it were true? What gives us the
godly right to have thousands of Iraqis killed on our behalf?
We can defend the policy in other ways,
claiming that it must be working—there have been no attacks on American
soil since 9/11.
This is a very misleading message. The truth
is, as of today, we have lost 2,500 American lives because of our
action in Iraq. Al Qaeda uses this figure as proof of its success, even
as we account success differently. American soldiers are Americans. They
are being killed by terrorists and insurgents on a daily basis. That they
are dying there instead of here may grant them a heroic remembrance, but
they are casualties nonetheless.
Justification of war can a tricky problem.
We all agree that human life is special,
even sacred. And there is good reason for that. Whether or not you believe
in a soul, or that we are made in God's image, we are certainly unique
in the universe (as far as we know) in that we have acute consciousness
that is combined with the ability to reason. Each of us is a self-contained
universe of perceptions, ideas, preferences, attachments, loves, interests
and possibilities. Not one of us can be replaced. We think this value
insurmountable, and consider death, any death, a tragedy, even though
mortality is part of the game for all of us.
Destroy a human life, no matter what race,
gender or creed, and you destroy that irreplaceable universe of perception.
We are all diminished because of it.
Yet 2,000 children die each day of
hunger and disease. We try not to think of that as we defend ourselves
from enemies overseas, but there are enemies to human life that guns and
missiles cannot destroy. If only compassion could be processed in arms
factories.
What is the answer to all this? You have
to decide for yourself, and you will decide according to your life-principles.
We are all a mixture of fear and compassion, acquisitiveness and generosity,
selfishness and kindness.
But which do we prefer? And which are spiritual
mandates?
