![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
petermarcusRetaliation...this seems to be the word of the day as much as 'Horror' was the word of yesterday. Given the time after the act, and the sport of free speech in America, I'm going to jump in and give my opinion as well, but with this preface:
One of the pitfalls of speculation without information is the "What if" whirlpool. Obviously, this is occurring quite a bit lately. "What if" can be a valuable intellectual tool for reasoning out the web of possibilities and probabilities -- it is a tool for the exploration of multiple scenarios with fine levels of distinction. "What if" becomes a dangerous trap if used for the justification of a single position. It is a losing exercise in sophistry; a pattern of reasoning that can justify anything and refute anything. The world can not be run solely by cold, heartless facts, but neither can it be run solely through the experimental lab of idealism and intellectual exercise.
I'm going to violate my own pedanticism because of two strikes against me: I'm human, and I'm American. I'm admitting that all of this is speculation on lousy information, and perhaps wrong information. I will almost certainly regret this in the morning when the cold light of new fact will make my opinion yet another exercise of hot air contributing, in its own microscopic way, to global warming. It's a good thing I have no political power.
I'm going to ignore whether this was a criminal act or an act of war for the reason that this is a unique situation. There is no precedent in human history for this act, and in all probability, this will become precedent for similar heinous acts that no doubt lay in the future of the world.
Assuming solid information (and everything is predicated on that assumption) I favor a military destruction of the very small group of perpetrators, and military action against those who militarily hinder us against our narrow goal. Capture, trial, and imprisonment may allow us to sleep at night, smugly assuming we have done the right thing by sparing a life, removing its freedom, and forcing it into virtual or active slavery. Temporary imprisonment may be the least of all moral evils for petty crime in our current social evolution, but for crimes of this magnitude, it is perhaps equally cruel on a moral level to enslave the architects for life than the military reaction between volunteers that seems to be asked for. The tragic question becomes one of innocent deaths. To a certain extent, the sovereignty of nations must be respected -- if a nation puts innocents in harms way, it is the responsibility (and the shame) of that nation. We cannot completely turn our backs to this however, we cannot defer moralism. Our current avoidance mechanisms are good when we're not trying to rationalize the fate of an American military volunteer over the bombing of civilian trains and embassies. But, in reality, there is no answer, easy or difficult, to weigh the fate of innocents. It's a societal paradox that damns us in either direction.
MHO (we all have 'em) to opinions batted about in the country and world at large:
*No, a narrow military retaliation does not put us on their moral level. We are not morally pure, but we are not on the same level. We kill in answer to, we don't initiate killing. We kill to prevent this from happening again even once, through elimination or deterrence, we don't kill to conquer and rule. Inflamatory rhetoric aside, we kill with regret, not glee; we resent having to kill, we don't gloat; we feel guilty after killing, we don't look forward to it. We would gladly never kill again, we don’t look for more targets. If history is a guide, especially recent history, we will stop short of doing enough because our conscience will not let us do what, perhaps, we must.
*No, a narrow military retaliation will not lead to World War III. There are no balances of power, no alliances, no military buildups, no political rhetoric, no economic skirmishes, and no propaganda volleys that approach the state of the world in previous World Wars or the Cold War. Almost every country in the world, including ones that righteously hate our collective guts, has condemned this act.
*This is, as sure as is humanly discernable, a non-nuclear action. If there were nuclear weapons involved, they would already have been used. Other than NATO, there seem to be no nuclear powers actively involved, and none ready to jump to the defense.
One of the pitfalls of speculation without information is the "What if" whirlpool. Obviously, this is occurring quite a bit lately. "What if" can be a valuable intellectual tool for reasoning out the web of possibilities and probabilities -- it is a tool for the exploration of multiple scenarios with fine levels of distinction. "What if" becomes a dangerous trap if used for the justification of a single position. It is a losing exercise in sophistry; a pattern of reasoning that can justify anything and refute anything. The world can not be run solely by cold, heartless facts, but neither can it be run solely through the experimental lab of idealism and intellectual exercise.
I'm going to violate my own pedanticism because of two strikes against me: I'm human, and I'm American. I'm admitting that all of this is speculation on lousy information, and perhaps wrong information. I will almost certainly regret this in the morning when the cold light of new fact will make my opinion yet another exercise of hot air contributing, in its own microscopic way, to global warming. It's a good thing I have no political power.
I'm going to ignore whether this was a criminal act or an act of war for the reason that this is a unique situation. There is no precedent in human history for this act, and in all probability, this will become precedent for similar heinous acts that no doubt lay in the future of the world.
Assuming solid information (and everything is predicated on that assumption) I favor a military destruction of the very small group of perpetrators, and military action against those who militarily hinder us against our narrow goal. Capture, trial, and imprisonment may allow us to sleep at night, smugly assuming we have done the right thing by sparing a life, removing its freedom, and forcing it into virtual or active slavery. Temporary imprisonment may be the least of all moral evils for petty crime in our current social evolution, but for crimes of this magnitude, it is perhaps equally cruel on a moral level to enslave the architects for life than the military reaction between volunteers that seems to be asked for. The tragic question becomes one of innocent deaths. To a certain extent, the sovereignty of nations must be respected -- if a nation puts innocents in harms way, it is the responsibility (and the shame) of that nation. We cannot completely turn our backs to this however, we cannot defer moralism. Our current avoidance mechanisms are good when we're not trying to rationalize the fate of an American military volunteer over the bombing of civilian trains and embassies. But, in reality, there is no answer, easy or difficult, to weigh the fate of innocents. It's a societal paradox that damns us in either direction.
MHO (we all have 'em) to opinions batted about in the country and world at large:
*No, a narrow military retaliation does not put us on their moral level. We are not morally pure, but we are not on the same level. We kill in answer to, we don't initiate killing. We kill to prevent this from happening again even once, through elimination or deterrence, we don't kill to conquer and rule. Inflamatory rhetoric aside, we kill with regret, not glee; we resent having to kill, we don't gloat; we feel guilty after killing, we don't look forward to it. We would gladly never kill again, we don’t look for more targets. If history is a guide, especially recent history, we will stop short of doing enough because our conscience will not let us do what, perhaps, we must.
*No, a narrow military retaliation will not lead to World War III. There are no balances of power, no alliances, no military buildups, no political rhetoric, no economic skirmishes, and no propaganda volleys that approach the state of the world in previous World Wars or the Cold War. Almost every country in the world, including ones that righteously hate our collective guts, has condemned this act.
*This is, as sure as is humanly discernable, a non-nuclear action. If there were nuclear weapons involved, they would already have been used. Other than NATO, there seem to be no nuclear powers actively involved, and none ready to jump to the defense.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2001-09-13 05:34 am (UTC)I keep thinking of Churchill and WWII -- does he let his own city get bombed in order to prevent more deaths later? We will be faced with a similar decision, on a global scale. Whatever is done will cause eventual repercussions. In a sense I think this is a continuation of the damage -- they have damaged us physically, and now they will damage us morally as whatever our decision will be, we will have compromised ourselves on some level.