Not Learning From History
George Washington was Commander in Chief of the Colonial Army a ragtag group of poorly trained, barely paid, badly equipped soldiers outnumbered by a far better operational British army.
Yet the Colonists were victorious in the Revolutionary War because the British were categorical imperialists. The British knew the rules of war and refused to compromise those rules even when attacked by soldiers who could not have cared less about their combat categories and canons.
1) It was unethical to attack at night (could this not be compromised?)Ethicality has changed over the past two centuries. But O my—is this not deja Vu in Iraq today.
2) It was unethical to attack from many fronts at once (could this not be compromised?)
3) It was unethical to hide and fight rather than wear red and stand up like a man (could this not be compromised?)
posted by Fred Peatross @ 9:07 PM
2 Comments:
Fred,
I am sorry, but you have hit a sore spot. Are you suggesting that using women and children as pawns and cover is ethical? Are you suggesting that raping a man with the barrel of a pistol and firing it becasue he is SUSPECTED of collaboration with the infidels is ethical? Are you suggestiong that poisoning the Iraqi policemen, as was reported this weekend, is ethical? Are you suggesting that using children as a human chain/roadblock across a road in an effort to slow down a convoy so that they might be destoyed, is ethical? I should hope not.
I suppose that you are going to retort with the various wartime actions be the US/UN that has brought pain and destruction to the Iraqi people. However, I submit that the country is merely having birthpains as a new country is born. In time, we can look back on these pains and see them for what they are.
First of all, I never said the things you mentioned were ethical. I simply stated the reason for the British defeat. My point? Unless something strategically changes we may face a similar defeat and with it overwhelming shame.
Is all this really as simply as you seem to imply? Can I hear your spin on what is ethical?
Is war ethical?
Is killing ethical?
Does it make sense to allow killing but only under certain conventions and canons?
How does that make killing ethical?
Can one justify a war on the basis of a “just war” which presupposes a just cause? Do you think the daughter who loses a father in war finds any justification for the cruelty of her loss? Seems to me that the “just war” theory is, at best, relative.
The gist of my post was that the British lost their war in the 17th century because of their refusal to rethink their strategy. Using conventional means to fight an enemy using unconventional tactics is unimaginative.
As a sidelight: I do not believe the Geneva Conventions nor those who scream for the rights of combatant prisoners should have a say in the direction this country takes.
You might want to sign your post.
Post a Comment
<< Home