via Jonathan, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have grasped the nettle first. Thankfully, not a car bomb or bus attack, but a single death is as much a tragedy as a busload of children, and deserving of the same condemnation.
Tacitus characterized my ealier post as blind to the nature of the terror groups - I respectfully disagree, and will underline appropriate passages in that post to demonstrate. I also disagree that the Al-Aqsa refusal to join the hudna means that the truce is DOA, because what is important is whether the larger groups (especially Islamic Jihad and Hamas) - which have demonstrated the organizational "skill" (sneer quotes) to exact a far greater price in Israeli blood - remain committed to the hudna (Al-Aqsa is "affiliated" with Fatah in the same way that the Christian Identity folks are "affiliated" with the GOP. But that doesn't mean that they haven't been used as "plausible deniability" brigades by Fatah in the past. It's difficult to tell which are teh pawns and which are the... pawns, in this grim game).
My earlier post was about the (puzzling) willingness of Hamas and IJ especially to adopt the language of hudna with respect to the cease fire. As organizations whose self-proclaimed legitimacy is derived solely from an Islamic context (unlike Fatah and Al-Aqsa and the old PLO itself, all strictly secular nationalist movements), their personal commitment to Islam is irrelevant. If they break the hudna without cause, then they sacrifice their own Islamic credentials in the eyes of the general populace. I might think that those credentials are a total mockery, but what I think is not relevant.
If Israel responds to this provocation by Al Aqsa with a massive onslaught, that would however give IJ and Hamas therationalization they need to break the hudna. It's anyone's guess as to whether (secular) Al-Aqsa was acting as a plausible deniability brigade for (religious) Hamas and/or IJ solely in order to provoke such a reaction from Sharon. I'm sure that there are plenty of people willing to believe that the root of all such machinations lie with one side or the other.
Let's assume that this is entirely a plot by Hamas or IJ to pretend to a truce, and then find a way around it. What then makes me completely confused is, again, why bother with a formal hudna? Maybe they are just masochists by proxy, I don't know.
anyway, it's clear that Al Aqsa is either a pawn or just terminally (I hope) clueless. The question is whether there is any subtlety and cleverness on the Sharon side of things to respond the way that the nutjobs want them to, or whether Sharon can look beyond this cycle and deal with Hamas and IJ on the basis of their actions, not Al-Aqsa. The temptation to lump all Palestinian groups into one common morass of motives is tempting, but ultimately exactly what the radicals on the Palestinian side are counting on.
I should clarify that I do think Sharon is a rational actor. But I also think that from his perspective, increasing settlement activity, building the wall, and rejecting the road map all fall into his perception of "self interest". I doubt he sees it as putting the settlers above the rest of Israel's needs - in fact, I wager that he sincerely believes that what is good for teh settlers will ultimately benefit Israel. Such is the problem of mixing religious belief with policy - hardly unique to the Islamic world.
Monday, June 30, 2003
Sunday, June 29, 2003
the price of liberty: tax cuts paid for with blood
via TBogg:
Daily Kos has a lot more about how our soldiers, dying to defend our freedom, are being "thanked" by the GOP:
Can the GOP at least spare a child tax credit for our underpaid soldiers? The Marine Corps Times notes, "House Republicans dig in against child tax credit for combat troops".
This is part of a broader pattern of saluting the troops - with the middle finger - by Bush and the GOP.
... George W Bush, the pilot hero of USS Abraham Lincoln, ... is fighting to keep our precious taxdollars out the hands of the parasitic widows and orphans of US soldiers who have died defending our equally precious freedoms.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary � including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Why look. He saved us $6000 just today. With two hundred soldiers dead in Iraq so far, this is adding up to some serious money.
Daily Kos has a lot more about how our soldiers, dying to defend our freedom, are being "thanked" by the GOP:
They LIE to place our troops in harms way. Then they:
* Refuse to double the $6,000 gratuity to the families of soldiers who die in harms way.
* They roll back pay increases for troops in harms way.
* They refuse to pass servicemember-friendly tax provisions, as the GOP's corporate masters get first dibs.
* They provide meager basic increases for the lower ranks.
* They cut the Pentagon's building budget (which pays for things such as barracks improvements, bowling alleys and other quality-of-life improvements at military bases, something that was really important to us soldiers), in order to make room for Bush's tax cuts.
In fact, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee tried to restore $1 billion of the construction money, and proposed paying for it by trimming some of the recent tax cuts for those making more than $1 million. Get this: under Obey's proposal, instead of an $88,300 break, they would've gotten an $83,500 cut.
The Republicans killed the proposal. To Republicans in Congress, $4,800 for their richest benefactors was more important than improving the quality of life of our men and women in uniform.
Can the GOP at least spare a child tax credit for our underpaid soldiers? The Marine Corps Times notes, "House Republicans dig in against child tax credit for combat troops".
This is part of a broader pattern of saluting the troops - with the middle finger - by Bush and the GOP.
the hudna and the betrayal of self-interest
The term "hudna" is essentially "truce" in Arabic. The term, in the Islamic context, is part of the large and rigorous body of jurisprudence and theologic interpretation of the limitations on war (often ignored by so-called Islamic groups when it is politically convenient). It's not my intent to explain the subtleties of hudna - but to point out that adopting the phrase amounts to a kind of straitjacket for the various terror groups (Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and Hamas) that the simpler language of "cease-fire" does not.
An article in Ha'aretz by Zvi Bar'el analyzes the hudna in detail:
I believe that Sharon lacks the political and ideological motivation to allow this process to move forward. The Israeli governments response to the hudna betrays the political self-interest of the settlers (to whom Sharon is beholden at the expense of the rest of the Israeli polity):
The rhetoric of the Israelis and the Bush administration aside, there is a real potential here for progress, because the reason the terror groups are willing to unilaterally adopt the constraining language of the hudna is to achieve a united Palestinian government:
Incorporating the terror organizations into a single umbrella is essential to creating the environment for actual reform in the PA government. As long as Hamas for example exists outside the PA, providing social services to the Palestinian people from its civil wing, they will act as both a check upon the legitimate PA government and be freer to operate their terror threats and attacks against innocent Israeli people. The right model here is Sinn Fein - a way of co-opting the political currency of the terror group and thus achieving the goal of disarmament not by force, but rather by expediency.
Of course this does not mean that Islamic Jihad or Hamas will renounce their political goals of destroying Israel or implementing Sharia or their other nonsense, but as political parties in a united PA government, these are tempered by check and balaces inherent to government, just as the GOP's impulses to tear down Roe vs Wade or Social Security are thwarted even during absolute GOP rule over all three branches of the US government:
And that is the key - that the entire process must result in a notable improvement in conditions for the general Palestinian populace, who are the real target audience that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the PA are all struggling to influence. The one thing that partisans of both sides in the conflict refuse to acknowledge - for purely polemical reasons - is that both sides are rational actors. The demand that the Palestinian terror groups simply "disarm" as a precondition for peace is nonsensical. The right way to actually achieve their disarmement, however, is to give Abu Mazen the breathing room to make it appealing for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah to cede to his authority.
This is a critical opening - and the language of the hudna is the sign.
I am a pessimist about the conflict however. My prediction is that Sharon will order another assassination either today or tomorrow, and this will of course shatter the agreements being reported today. If that happens, then the hudna will have been broken, and the cycle will continue.
But the road map will of course be derailed, and there won't be any dismantling of settlements. And that's the only goal that Sharon has.
UPDATE: Fatah has joined the hudna, probably because of Marwan Barghouti's tireless efforts at convincing them of the counter-self-interest of not doing so. I had also agreed with Jonathan's assessment that the minor terror groups probably would not sign on, but to my surprise, it seems that at least two (PFLP, DFLP) have done so. But it only takes one angry terrorist, regardless of his affiliations, to give Sharon an excuse - and I doubt Sharon even needs an excuse anyway, to stop this momentum.
An article in Ha'aretz by Zvi Bar'el analyzes the hudna in detail:
Something happened over the weekend. On Friday Sheikh Ahmed Yassin announced that the Hamas decided on what is known as hudna or "suspension of resistance acts," but delayed the official
announcement until the end of the consultations with other Palestinian organizations. The Fatah declared it would present its own proposal and the Islamic Jihad said it intends to adopt "a calming down."
I believe that Sharon lacks the political and ideological motivation to allow this process to move forward. The Israeli governments response to the hudna betrays the political self-interest of the settlers (to whom Sharon is beholden at the expense of the rest of the Israeli polity):
Israel's reaction, as expected, was that the hudna means nothing because it does not include dismantling the Hamas, which is defined as a terror organization. In other words, Israel will not accept less than a Palestinian civil war, even at the price of the Palestinian Authority's losing control.
The rhetoric of the Israelis and the Bush administration aside, there is a real potential here for progress, because the reason the terror groups are willing to unilaterally adopt the constraining language of the hudna is to achieve a united Palestinian government:
The importance of the hudna, if obtained, lies in the two objectives the PA will achieve from it. First and foremost, it will bring the opposition groups and the Hamas and Jihad, which were not part of the PLO, back into a broad national framework under a common leadership.
The second goal, deriving from the first, is the implementation of Abu Mazen's vision to have one law, one security force and one leadership. The PA will be spared going to war against Palestinian citizens to disarm them. The Hamas' weapons will become an inseparable part of the Palestinian defense establishment. The new Palestinian leadership will also be able to relieve the Hamas and Islamic Jihad of the title "terror organizations" and show the world a relevant leadership speaking with one voice and representing one policy.
If these goals are achieved, they will be the most important outcome of the intifada, because only they will enable the advancement of political processes in the territories - holding elections, rebuilding the institutions, uniting the armed forces and applying one law to all. Before all this can happen, Abu Mazen will have to conduct the political negotiations with a heavy load of radical Islamic millstones around his neck.
Incorporating the terror organizations into a single umbrella is essential to creating the environment for actual reform in the PA government. As long as Hamas for example exists outside the PA, providing social services to the Palestinian people from its civil wing, they will act as both a check upon the legitimate PA government and be freer to operate their terror threats and attacks against innocent Israeli people. The right model here is Sinn Fein - a way of co-opting the political currency of the terror group and thus achieving the goal of disarmament not by force, but rather by expediency.
Of course this does not mean that Islamic Jihad or Hamas will renounce their political goals of destroying Israel or implementing Sharia or their other nonsense, but as political parties in a united PA government, these are tempered by check and balaces inherent to government, just as the GOP's impulses to tear down Roe vs Wade or Social Security are thwarted even during absolute GOP rule over all three branches of the US government:
The Hamas and Jihad are the rivals of the PA no less than they are enemies of Israel. But the hudna may create a new equation of checks and balances in which the Hamas and Jihad will have a political whip, which will be recognized by the PA as well. They will be able to veto any political move of the PA, because they will be part of the process itself.
Hence the tremendous importance of the Israeli reaction in the civil and military arenas. The better the PA is able to demonstrate to the Palestinian public that the hudna is indeed a turning point to a better life, and that there is a real reward to renouncing the armed struggle, the more the opposition groups will have to adapt to public opinion.
And that is the key - that the entire process must result in a notable improvement in conditions for the general Palestinian populace, who are the real target audience that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the PA are all struggling to influence. The one thing that partisans of both sides in the conflict refuse to acknowledge - for purely polemical reasons - is that both sides are rational actors. The demand that the Palestinian terror groups simply "disarm" as a precondition for peace is nonsensical. The right way to actually achieve their disarmement, however, is to give Abu Mazen the breathing room to make it appealing for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah to cede to his authority.
This is a critical opening - and the language of the hudna is the sign.
I am a pessimist about the conflict however. My prediction is that Sharon will order another assassination either today or tomorrow, and this will of course shatter the agreements being reported today. If that happens, then the hudna will have been broken, and the cycle will continue.
But the road map will of course be derailed, and there won't be any dismantling of settlements. And that's the only goal that Sharon has.
UPDATE: Fatah has joined the hudna, probably because of Marwan Barghouti's tireless efforts at convincing them of the counter-self-interest of not doing so. I had also agreed with Jonathan's assessment that the minor terror groups probably would not sign on, but to my surprise, it seems that at least two (PFLP, DFLP) have done so. But it only takes one angry terrorist, regardless of his affiliations, to give Sharon an excuse - and I doubt Sharon even needs an excuse anyway, to stop this momentum.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Abizaid
Steven has a great post about the promotion of General John Abizaid, who succeeds Tommy Franks at the head of CENTCOM. I've written before about why I thought Abizaid was the perfect choice to run postwar Iraq:
and I'd like to reiterate my request to anyone who may have access to his policy paper, "Lessons for Peacekeepers." in Military Review 73:11-19 (1993) to please send me a copy.
It's good that I was wrong about Abizaid being appointed to run Iraq. As the commander of CENTCOM, he can have an even greater influence on America's foreign policy in the Middle East, and help shape the future of the region.
The best thing about him is that he will be able to articulate the US policy and rationale during postwar administration in a way that has cultural resonance with Arabs. Lecturing Arabs about the failure of their face-based culture is simply counter-productive self-righteousness, but Abizaid can make much the same point without the condescension.
and I'd like to reiterate my request to anyone who may have access to his policy paper, "Lessons for Peacekeepers." in Military Review 73:11-19 (1993) to please send me a copy.
It's good that I was wrong about Abizaid being appointed to run Iraq. As the commander of CENTCOM, he can have an even greater influence on America's foreign policy in the Middle East, and help shape the future of the region.
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
dangerous games
The GOP's obsession with President Clinton is a symptom of a growing radicalization of conservative politics in this country (which has only accelerated under total GOP control of all three branches of government, instead of diminshing as I had expected). In a spectacular inversion, the conservative moderates are pushed farther and farther to the fringes, until they are left alone on the field, contemplating their impotence.
This is harmful in the general First Amendment sense because such radicalization and conformity dominating 50% of the political landscape acts to undermine the free discussion of ideas in our society, dialouges that serve the common good by fostering the ideal of the best solution to each problem, based on merit, not ideology. The mainstream of conservative thought however labels dissent as Treason, and disagreement as Bias.
But sometimes this damage to our society takes a much more direct form. The media never grapples this issue directly, preferring to hide behind an illusion of objectivity - but you can sometimes discern the larger picture by reading between the lines. Case in point: this story in the AP.
Read between the lines:
So in January of 2001 - 8 months before 9-11 - the Bush Administration was briefed about the counter-terrorism plans of the Clinton Administration, notably the use of armed Predator drones to hunt and kill bin Laden.
Continue on:
So a week before 9-11, the plan which was formulated by the previous administration was still unimplemented. A week before 9-11, the findings of Bush's own new terrorism task force and security analyses were only being finalized, despite the fact that there were detailed plans that were ready to have been implemented as early as January.
Why do you think that is? the narrative that emerges from the AP story is a focus on the "missed opportunity" of OBL's dramatic escape from a hellfire missile. Entirely lost is the analysis of what the Bush Administration was doing to counter terrorism (ie, nothing) a week before 9-11 despite having a detailed plan of action sitting unused for 8 months.
Read between the lines...
for a detailed analysis of what the Clinton Administration had done to address the terrorist threat by OBL, I suggest The Age of Sacred Terror, by former Clinton staffers Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon.
Related: see Eschaton for the original link and analysis. Also see this comment by Leah on that thread.
This is harmful in the general First Amendment sense because such radicalization and conformity dominating 50% of the political landscape acts to undermine the free discussion of ideas in our society, dialouges that serve the common good by fostering the ideal of the best solution to each problem, based on merit, not ideology. The mainstream of conservative thought however labels dissent as Treason, and disagreement as Bias.
But sometimes this damage to our society takes a much more direct form. The media never grapples this issue directly, preferring to hide behind an illusion of objectivity - but you can sometimes discern the larger picture by reading between the lines. Case in point: this story in the AP.
Read between the lines:
Nearly a dozen current and former senior U.S. officials described to AP the extensive discussions in 2000 and 2001 inside the Clinton and Bush administrations about using an armed Predator to kill bin Laden. Most spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing the classified nature of the information. Two former national security aides also cite some of the discussion inside the Bush White House in a recent book they published on terrorism.
The officials said that within days of President Bush taking office in January 2001, his top terrorism expert on the National Security Council, Richard Clarke, urged National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to resume the drone flights to track down bin Laden, citing the successes of late 2000.
The drones were one component of a broader plan that Clarke, a career government employee, had devised in the final days of the Clinton administration to go after al-Qaida after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Clinton officials decided just before Christmas 2000 to forward the plan to the incoming Bush administration rather than implement it during Clinton's final days, the officials said.
So in January of 2001 - 8 months before 9-11 - the Bush Administration was briefed about the counter-terrorism plans of the Clinton Administration, notably the use of armed Predator drones to hunt and kill bin Laden.
Continue on:
After Clarke's briefing in January, the drone plan was discussed again in late April by national security deputies and the test on the mock-up of bin Laden's home was conducted in July. A Bush administration official said Rice was generally supportive of the idea as part of a broader strategy.
At a White House meeting of Bush's national security principals on Sept. 4, 2001, senior officials discussed several ideas, including use of the drones, as they finalized a plan to accelerate efforts to go after al-Qaida amid signs of a growing threat of a domestic attack.
Among those present were Rice, CIA Director George Tenet, soon-to-be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Clarke, then Bush's anti-terrorism chief inside the White House.
So a week before 9-11, the plan which was formulated by the previous administration was still unimplemented. A week before 9-11, the findings of Bush's own new terrorism task force and security analyses were only being finalized, despite the fact that there were detailed plans that were ready to have been implemented as early as January.
Why do you think that is? the narrative that emerges from the AP story is a focus on the "missed opportunity" of OBL's dramatic escape from a hellfire missile. Entirely lost is the analysis of what the Bush Administration was doing to counter terrorism (ie, nothing) a week before 9-11 despite having a detailed plan of action sitting unused for 8 months.
Read between the lines...
for a detailed analysis of what the Clinton Administration had done to address the terrorist threat by OBL, I suggest The Age of Sacred Terror, by former Clinton staffers Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon.
Related: see Eschaton for the original link and analysis. Also see this comment by Leah on that thread.
keeping score
Just to summarize:
Apple released spec benchmarks of its new G5 desktops. Claimed they were faster than a specific Dell system.
The same benchmark performed by the actual group that wrote the benchmark (not Dell) showed a much higher score than Apple demonstrated for the Dell.
The poor performance of the Dell under Apple's tests was because Apple did not use Intel's optimized and processor-tuned compiler for the pentium chip, instead using GCC.
Sources: Slashdot 1, Slashdot 2, Slashdot 3. Also see Apple's powermac site, and a detailed rebuttal.
As usual, the fine details are more exhaustively analyzed in the comment threads of the Slashdot posts than in the lede. But given Apple's history of deceit when it comes to speed claims (and their waffling marketing claims: Mhz matters! no it doesn't! yes it does!) it's unsurprising that Apple has no credibility whatsoever.
But what really is surprising is that Apple has returned to emphasize performance as a selling point for their machines, when all the most articulate defenders of the Mac have always been mor focused on software and OS (sadly, Brian is now also drinking the Kool-Aid with the usual "but they just wouldn't! they couldn't! they're Apple for god's sake!" true believer Jobs theology).
The most devastating argument against Apple's transparent attempt to recast their new desktops as superior to Intel rather than as an improvement over the G4 (which they assuredly are, and brilliantly so) is made by a great article in OS News:
Apple's claim that the G5 is the "fastest desktop in the world" is false to begin with, but even more telling is that Apple's hardware moves forward in discrete steps whereas Intel is always evolving. Even if Apple could compete on speed, it coudl also never match PCs on price - which means that the only people buying these Macs for the speed will be those who already are drinking Kool Aid.
UPDATE: Now, THIS is why buying a Mac makes sense. THAT's the selling point - the kind of thing that makes an ambitious consumer think, "maybe I wouldn't mind dropping $1000 each for a few Powerbooks to act as terminals around the house someday."
It is inexplicable to me why Apple insists on screwing about with lies and statistics and stupid claims about performance when it has real value to offer consumers.
Apple released spec benchmarks of its new G5 desktops. Claimed they were faster than a specific Dell system.
The same benchmark performed by the actual group that wrote the benchmark (not Dell) showed a much higher score than Apple demonstrated for the Dell.
The poor performance of the Dell under Apple's tests was because Apple did not use Intel's optimized and processor-tuned compiler for the pentium chip, instead using GCC.
Sources: Slashdot 1, Slashdot 2, Slashdot 3. Also see Apple's powermac site, and a detailed rebuttal.
As usual, the fine details are more exhaustively analyzed in the comment threads of the Slashdot posts than in the lede. But given Apple's history of deceit when it comes to speed claims (and their waffling marketing claims: Mhz matters! no it doesn't! yes it does!) it's unsurprising that Apple has no credibility whatsoever.
But what really is surprising is that Apple has returned to emphasize performance as a selling point for their machines, when all the most articulate defenders of the Mac have always been mor focused on software and OS (sadly, Brian is now also drinking the Kool-Aid with the usual "but they just wouldn't! they couldn't! they're Apple for god's sake!" true believer Jobs theology).
The most devastating argument against Apple's transparent attempt to recast their new desktops as superior to Intel rather than as an improvement over the G4 (which they assuredly are, and brilliantly so) is made by a great article in OS News:
I am not saying that G5 is slow. It is not! It is a fast machine. It is the product that has made Apple really caught up with the competition. But I don't see the dual G5 at 2 GHz overcoming the x86 today. Intel released today a 3.2 GHz P4 and they expect a new P4 version (faster core per same speed), to go all the way up to 4 GHz before the end of this year. Apple's roadmap is to reach 3 GHz in a year from now. So, has Apple caught up now for real, or Intel will speed through again and leave Apple in the same condition as it was until last Sunday night? We will know in a few months.
Apple's claim that the G5 is the "fastest desktop in the world" is false to begin with, but even more telling is that Apple's hardware moves forward in discrete steps whereas Intel is always evolving. Even if Apple could compete on speed, it coudl also never match PCs on price - which means that the only people buying these Macs for the speed will be those who already are drinking Kool Aid.
UPDATE: Now, THIS is why buying a Mac makes sense. THAT's the selling point - the kind of thing that makes an ambitious consumer think, "maybe I wouldn't mind dropping $1000 each for a few Powerbooks to act as terminals around the house someday."
It is inexplicable to me why Apple insists on screwing about with lies and statistics and stupid claims about performance when it has real value to offer consumers.
we are better than this
Jim Henley has a powerful moral argument against the recent attack on a "desert caravan" which was purported to have killed Saddam. We still don't know if Saddam's remains will be found, but we do know that :
Jim notes that Maha was one year old. Is this how we win the peace? But whether or not we actually killed Saddam in this attack is irrelevant. Jim writes:
It is callous - and immoral, because (exactly like the IDF in the West Bank), this policy denies all moral responsibility for causing the deaths of innocents. Collateral damage is an immoral and callous concept.
There's another word for this policy besides "callous" however - it is also cowardly. And we as a nation are better than this.
At about 1:30 a.m., as the four trucks burned, the first of about five missiles struck Hamad's brick house, he said. Although everyone was sleeping outside, debris killed his sister-in-law, 20-year-old Hakima Khalil, and her daughter, Maha. Khalil's husband, Mohammed, was wounded in the foot. Hamad, his 24-year-old brother Mahmoud and his mother, Rasmiya Mishaal, 62, were also hurt. Mahmoud suffered the severest injuries, with deep cuts to his back and face.
Jim notes that Maha was one year old. Is this how we win the peace? But whether or not we actually killed Saddam in this attack is irrelevant. Jim writes:
...we're doing too much of this. Blow it up first, then see if the corpses are the specific people you were aiming for.
...
Bomb first, swab later. It reduces the risk to American infantrymen at a known cost in lives of innocent foreigners. No surrounding the convoy and demanding surrender, no up close and personal. Hit them with a Hellfire or a helicopter autocannon. Act on "intelligence" that you lack the knowledge and experience to vet. Pick through the cinders to see how you did.
This is wrong. It is the callous policy of an evil government. This was not a wartime operation to capture a strategic crossroads. This was, supposedly, an effort to detain specific fugitives in a country where "major combat operations have ended." In that context it is not moral to kill strangers because one or two of them might be in your deck of cards.
It is callous - and immoral, because (exactly like the IDF in the West Bank), this policy denies all moral responsibility for causing the deaths of innocents. Collateral damage is an immoral and callous concept.
There's another word for this policy besides "callous" however - it is also cowardly. And we as a nation are better than this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)