Actual quote from an acquaintance of an acquaintance. I used to attend school with someone who eventually joined the military. This was something of a shock: this person had fled an oppressive military regime in their home country, signed up for our military, and actively advocated the use of force against.... well, everyone. I had expected some enthusiasm for the entire American democratic experiment, but not necessarily for the same force that had been used to threaten his family back home. But, these things happen: sometimes, people like the appeal of power, regardless of who wields it, and he did learn early in life that the people with guns were in charge. And who doesn't want to be in charge?

Anyway, he has a friend who is also in the military, and... always seems to miss some major aspect of any issue, in that same zeal for force that my acquaintance has. And so today, he asked two questions:

How come whenever a smart bomb kills civilians people makes a fuss about it? Even though it's unintentional.

And no one makes a fuss when the suicide bombers deliberately target civilian populations?

There are screamingly obvious answers to these questions: killing people is always wrong, even if it is done out of incompetence; and you need to read the papers, because suicide bombings are covered extensively in our media, so long as the victims are our key allies. I was recently told that Sri Lanka has a much higher rate of suicide bombings than Israel, but Sri Lanka doesn't have a key alliance with us, and so I've only been led to believe by the mainstream press that suicide bombings are performed by (a) Palestinians and (b) various people in Chechnya.

But he didn't ask the question to get an answer (though I foolishly answered). Those were really just statements of position from someone who works in the military, which really meant: the military is not responsible for its accidents, and ONLY the victims within our allies are important.

If you were in the military, would you say the same thing? You might. It might eat you inside, but you might. Which is sad.

*

My main acquaintance then made some additional statements. The key items were:

One man's crusade is another's genocide.

He had several variations of this, which looked like they were leading to an interesting point... But the point is that he agrees. It's all relative; it's all fine; call it what you will.

This is why the U.S. can't lead on any issue of international law. Our leaders keep saying we WANT to be the world's policeman and moral compass... But we don't OWN moral compass. It's whatever works for our allies at this moment. There's no standard of human rights or law that ACTUALLY applies equally to everyone. And that makes the world very confusing.

I like to think that few Americans are like this, but the ones who are like this say so, and are in vogue right now in the corporate media. I believe I only have one acquaintance in a circle of a 140+ people who thinks like this. But he really believes it, whereas most other folks I know will less extreme opinions are open to discussion, and they adjust their opinions over time to match their experiences.

*

(Certain kinds of experience help explain militarism, too. Anyone who wants to militarize you puts you in an extreme situation, especially where [whatever military or vigilante force you're in] has done some harm and is unwelcome, providing an opportunity for armed soldiers to feel threatened by the locals, and bond over their need for mutual defense. It's apparently quite effective.)

*

So there was some back and forth. I noted repeatedly that killing people is wrong, no matter who does it - in this instance, Hezbollah OR Israel. This was flatly rejected. When I got specific about Lebanon, it was rejected even more zealously - in favor of just one side.

Another excerpt:

Me: Under international law, it is illegal to kill civilians in other countries to irritate some other group...

Him: Isn't that what the terrorists are doing? Or, have done. So, am I to surmise that terrorism is illegal? Isn't anyone stopping them? Or, wait, someone is doing something about it.

So, you see, bombing the fleeing civilians (including Americans!) in Lebanon is fine, because it is an anti-terrorist act, even if it is not being taken against terrorists. See? Well, okay, it doesn't work. But you see where he's going? Sort of?

Summary: Hezb. kills anyone = bad; Israel kills anyone = automatic anti-terrorism = good.

There are variations, of course, but this is the overall summary.

*

I feel even worse for my friend than before we had this conversation. I had even asked if there were any circumstances that he could justify having any ally or non-ally kill his family for anti-terrorism purposes, in hopes of having him express some sympathy for either the Israelis catching missiles or the Lebanese catching bombs. He basically said there were such situations, but that he didn't want to commit those to writing. :-(

If this was 1950 and we were similar but back in time, and if our policies then had allowed him to move here from his home country, he'd probably say the same thing about sacrificing his family for the glorious cause of anti-communism. Or, if we were in the 1950s in China, perhaps he'd say the same thing for pro-communism, to be patriotic.

So now I feel EVEN WORSE for my friend. He's been unhappy in many aspects of life, including his military assignments/stations, and now he's burdened with this type of non-thinking. He's always the first to express defensiveness over any military incident that could lead to accusations of "baby killing," having read his history of Vietnam, but now he finds himself in the position of defending the killing of civilians in actual and hypothetical contexts, with a few self-pitying comments about how bad that must look.

It looks bad, and I feel bad that he feels that way. But I can't help him. I think of that website, sorryeverybody.com, where Americans apologize for not electing a better president (or, at least not electing the current one). I'd like to post something that says, 'Sorry world: I have this friend who thinks that killing is fine in general, and he's in the military and is stationed in your countries, and I can't change his mind.'

Perhaps when he leaves the military, and that attitude is no longer adaptive to the macho, force-based environment he works in, he'll get better.

*

There are LOTS of veterans in my family, male and female, especially on my dad's side, and none of them advocate killing in casual conversation. That gives me hope.

*

The folks in the peace movements around the world, who want a better place to live with their families, and who like the idea of universal human rights also give me hope. Because they want the sort of world that I want to live in, too.

*

I know that American foreign policy is a mystery to many, especially over the last few years. Also: the American justice system, which is so clearly rigged based on economics. And American attitudes toward foreigners, which swing like a pendulum. I think it is confusing because we expect it to make sense, when most people who make the confusing announcements are just like my old classmate, and are merely taking sides and justify them later, without any absolute ethical or moral values that would provide a consistent base.

To paraphrase the current figurehead and add a few clarifying comments in plain speech:

You're either with us or against us.
If you are with us, you can do no wrong.
If you are against us, you can do no right.
We reserve the right to redefine who is 'with us' at any time.

Sorry everybody.

"We are not colluding." Oh. Okay. But do you think it looks that way? Reuters AlertNet - UN, defying US, urges quick Middle East cease-fire (alertnet.org, 7/19/06):

"Washington frowns on the idea of a cease-fire now. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said a cease-fire between a state and a 'terrorist group' like Hizbollah made little sense.

... In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States was not engaged in military strategy sessions with the Israelis, 'sitting around at the war map saying, 'Do this, this and this.''

'We're not colluding, we're not cooperating, we're not conspiring, we're not doing any of that,' he told reporters.

I think that was supposed to be the quote that explained why weren't allowing the international community to stop the war against the entire civilian population of Lebanon and its civilian infrastructure, which Mr. Bolton apparently cannot distinguish from a terrorist organization which is supposedly the intended target of these bombardments.

If that was supposed to be the convincing argument... I wonder what the runner up argument was.

Another reference for the current, unfolding tragedy, since our papers have short-term memory, and won't remember the details by the end of the week. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Day-by-day: Lebanon crisis - week two (a link to the first week is also provided).

Comments on Iraq from Baghdad Burning (7/11/06), which is always a good blog to read. This excerpt is part of a much larger piece of commentary on the feeling of Iraqis toward the Americans, as things have gotten worse:

I look at them and wonder just how many innocents they killed and how many more they'll kill before they go home. How many more young Iraqi girls will they rape?

I'm not sure how the people here who believe that the soldiers must stay in Iraq until order is restored can understand that even the perception that the soldiers are part of the problem makes their plan futile.

And who can say it's just the perception?

News update: things still getting worse for women in Iraq. TomDispatch - Tomgram: Ruth Rosen on Sexual Terrorism and Iraqi Women (undated) is a rather terrifying update to the horror stories we've already read about.

No country that falls into chaos and looks toward extremists religious leaders for assistance can provide a situation in which women are fully equal in society, and so cannot form a true democracy in which all citizens can meaningfully participate.

Compilation of global protests over the attacks on Lebanon: Informed Comment: Lebanon (7/15/06).

The note about how these attacks are also attacks on Catholic communities in Lebanon is interesting (which may lead to new political alliances as a result), and how, since the U.S. subsidizes Israel, the current actions tarnish the U.S. also.

Too High a Price, from thenation.com (7/14/06):

It makes no sense for Israel to destroy the civil infrastructure of the Palestinians and of Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of its soldiers, or to further weaken the capacity of the governments of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority while at the same trying to hold them accountable for the actions of groups and militias they cannot reasonably control. This collective punishment of the Palestinian and Lebanese people is not only inhumane and should be condemned but also leads to more radicalization and to more chaos.

An interesting, relevant point.

Sample of international reactions. BBC NEWS | Middle East | In quotes: Lebanon reaction (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/13/06): From a European Union Statement:

The European Union is greatly concerned about the disproportionate use of force by Israel in Lebanon in response to attacks by Hezbollah on Israel. The presidency deplores the loss of civilian lives and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The imposition of an air and sea blockade on Lebanon cannot be justified.

From the Russian Government's statement:

All forms of terrorism are completely unacceptable.

That's close to a dangerous, two-sided criticism.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Lebanon seeks Israeli ceasefire (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/13/06)

Lebanese ministers have called for a ceasefire with Israel, saying that all means should be used to end 'open aggression' against their country.

International calls for restraint are growing, with Russia, France and the EU saying Israel's response to the capture of two soldiers was disproportionate.

Especially bad news, which has been casually referenced in a few articles, but not specifically remarked upon by the U.S. government representatives. BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN fails to agree Lebanon truce:

The UN Security Council has failed to agree on a statement calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon, despite pleas from the Lebanese prime minister.

Lebanese diplomats blamed the US for blocking the ceasefire move.

There will apparently be quotes on this soon from the Administration. My guess is that they will be bizarre quotes.

[Postscript: oh yes, they are bizarre. See 'We Are Not Colluding' on July 19th.]

Interest background reading: List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

There are a variety of very carefully worded Wikipedia entries on the topic of the Middle East conflicts, including Israel's various... departures from international law. (They're worded like that.) Some of them are quite interesting, in that they shed light on the Israeli point of view that they shouldn't be punished for breaking international law or committing war crimes, and the general UN assembly is just picking on them.

Wow.

Part of the lesson of this long list is that heavily armed allies of the U.S. don't need to pay the UN much attention.

Oh look, another war.

There's something painfully discouraging about what's happening in Lebanon right now. I'm old enough to remember the last time that Beirut was bombed, and it was terribly sad then, also. There are certain sort of cities everywhere in the world, despite differences of construction and topography, that still somehow feel familiar. City people can recognize that as a place they might live.

In the early 90s, I worked at an architecture firm that had designed a building in Beirut. They had a photo of it on the wall, and it was such a sad photo: it was the cover of Time magazine, with their building in the foreground, and the city smoldering behind them.

So sad.

And it's happening again.

Anxiety Grips Civilians in Lebanon, Israel (washingtonpost.com photo gallery, 7/16/06).

Israel bombed gas stations, fuel tanks, roads and the last bridge on the highway to Damascus, the major route out of the country.

Near Tyre, fleeing civilians were killed by Israeli helicopters. Israel bombed the airport, and is imposing a sea and air blockade.

This is HORRIBLE.

I'm one of those peculiar people who believes that killing is wrong. Like those folks who believe in international law and human rights, I believe that the civilians of Lebanon have a basic right not to be bombed by neighboring countries who are mad at one of many, many political groups in the government. I do not support terrorism by either Hezbollah nor the State of Israel, and both sides are engaging in it. Israel happens to be doing it on a larger scale, and as an actual government it should know better.

I also believe in treating others as one would like to be treated. I do not believe that it sets a reasonable precedent to say that if any country is home to a group that kidnaps your nationals, you can bomb their home country. I am not only writing this because it came to light earlier that the U.S. has been kidnapping LOTS of foreign nationals, but you can see that there could be a concern there.

If this isn't obvious, killing civilians is a crime. It is always a crime. Just because one killer is your ally, doesn't erase that.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan... BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Refuge from the real Afghanistan:

"The only Afghans that many of these people meet are the ones circulating with the trays of Chardonnay or Merlot at parties."

Ouch. This is an interesting picture of the haves and have-nots in Kabul, a city that is still not safe to wander around in.

It's not a very positive endorsement about what 'nation building' amounts to currently.