In World War II, America and its allies bombed German and Japanese cities, killing tens of thousands of people. Bret Stephens asks
How can this be justified? Does it not greatly diminish Allied claims to moral superiority?
Most people would argue that it does not, even though the horror of what was done to Hamburg and the other cities dwarfs in moral scale the worst U.S. abuses in the war on terror (real or alleged), which are so frequently cited as evidence that we have debased ourselves beyond recognition. Most people would also agree that the only compelling ethical defense that can be made for the bombing campaign is that it hastened Allied victory, spared at least as many lives (on both sides) as it cost, and created the conditions for a more peaceful postwar world. In other words, the question here isn't about the intrinsic morality of the bombing. It's about whether the good that flowed from the bombing outweighed the unmistakable evil of the act itself. …
[T]he important point is that the debate fundamentally is about results. Note the difference with the current debate over waterboarding, where opponents argue that the technique is unconscionable and inadmissible under any circumstances, even in hypothetical cases where the alternative to waterboarding is terrorist attacks resulting in mass casualties among innocent civilians. According to this view, it is possible to wage war yet avoid the classic "choice of evils" dilemmas that confronted past statesmen such as Churchill and Roosevelt. Or, to put the argument more precisely, it is possible to avoid this choice if one is also prepared to pay for it in blood -- if not in one's own, than in that of kith and kin and whoever else's life must be sacrificed to keep our consciences clear.
Mr Stephens poses interesting questions in an effort to justify the use of waterboarding and other torture tactics. To further buttress his arguments he takes the bombing campaigns of World War II and attempts to equate the outcomes derived from such terrible carnage with the supposed good that is achieved from U.S. sanctioned torture. He is mistaken in his conclusions.
It is not so bad of a thing that Stephens is morally clueless on this issue. The thoughts of one man without power can be frowned upon and easily dismissed. It is far more upsetting that men and women of power in our civilian government have also become disciples of this philosophy that is the real tragedy and concern. Those who would authorize our ability to torture as a valid tool to win the war on terrorism conveniently forget that such practices including specifically waterboarding is illegal in international law (and the US is a signatory on the agreements) and contrary to US law.
Furthermore, Mr Stephens fails to realize that as terrible as any war is, we were in a "just" war in WWII. This concept of just war is further defined in Marine Corps Doctrine Publication 1-1 "Capital W: War" (he needs to read it). Those engaged in a just war are compelled to take measures to stop the killing as quickly and (strange as it may sound) as humanely as possible. In WWII this took the shape of Dresden, Hiroshima and many other bombings to have the required effect. But even in the midst of such horror we decried the barbarity of the Gestapo and its tactics. We realized that as unclear as the moral line might be, some actions were simply not morally justifiable, even if the end result achieved an Allied goal.
I make these statements not as a committed dove or peace-nik, but rather as a retired U.S. naval officer. I was not a high-ranking officer and I don't claim to have been a hero. My up-close look at war (the 1991 Gulf War) was relatively quick and absent of the up-close life and death experiences of some of my comrades. Nevertheless, I have had the privlege to serve with those who deserve the title of hero, including a few who were POWs during the Gulf War and Vietnam. In talking about their experiences (most notably in hearing them at the Marine Corps Staff College) I never heard anything but contempt for the practice of torture and it was with more than a little pride that they noted the "we" didn't do that kind of thing.
Somewhere we lost the idea that we are the good guys (or at least want to be percieved as such). We are now such frightened wild beasts we will do anything to anyone to protect ourselves, even at the cost of our individual and collective morality. This in not being naive. There are some things so precious that they are worth preserving even at the risk of attack and loss of life. Our national honor and the belief in doing the right and humane things, even on the battlefield are two such concepts that we must hold dear. Perhaps in time people like Mr Stephens will realize this.
DLF
Posted by: Derek Navy Vet Virginia | November 06, 2007 at 04:45 PM