Cease fire in Lebanon!

Let's see if it holds. But it's a good start. I'd love to take a break from reading about this depressing tragedy for a while. BBC NEWS | In Pictures | In pictures: Lebanon ceasefire (news.bbc.co.uk, 8/14/06).

A short (unauthorized) editorial from a friend about "smart bombs." A while back, I quoted an acquaintance who was mystified that people can ever be upset about being accidentally killed by the military. (!) Seriously. Anyway, a friend replied to him, and I'd like to quote that conversation, because I like it.

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

It's worth making a fuss about. There are still several people who believe in "smart bombs". Many of these ignorant folks are voters. Some of them are decision makers.

In WWII, most folks said that the Norden Bomb Sight could put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet up. It got a lot of guys to volunteer for bomber crew who otherwise wouldn't have. They liked the idea of the precise bomb. Heck, who wouldn't? Put a bomb into some tank factory, leave the women and children alone, plenty to like about that idea. Later, we figured out that those bombs were lucky to get within two miles of their targets. Guys who'd signed up to be precision bombers instead burned down cities--a task that our precision bomb sights could actually handle.

I believe that there are situations in which it makes sense to use bombers. But when deciding to use them, don't think of those bombs as smartbombs. Think of them as smart-as-an-aphid bombs. Better than they could be, but still pretty bad. Whenever you hear someone use the phrase "smart bomb", call them on that crap. It's your duty as an engineer.

(My friend knew better than to take on the whole idea of why 'accidental killings' aren't okay, since that was beyond the conceptual acceptance range of his intended audience.)

Nothing brings people together like being attacked by other people. Israel expands war (washingtonpost.com, 8/09/06):

A Tel Aviv University poll showed 93 percent of Israelis believed the campaign in Lebanon was justified, and 91 percent backed the air strikes even if they destroyed Lebanese infrastructure and inflicted suffering on civilians. . . .

At least 1,005 people in Lebanon and 101 Israelis have been killed in four weeks of bloodshed which erupted when Hizbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

A sensible editorial from the PM of Lebanon: End This Tragedy Now: Israel Must Be Made to Respect International Law, by Fouad Siniora (washingtonpost.com, 8/09/06). Yes, there's that concept of international law again.

This is a very worthwhile read.

[I was able to take a vacation, from both work and the news. Many were not so lucky...]

The Washington Post has been updating its collection of photo essays and other media associated with the violence in Lebanon at: Crisis in the Middle East Multimedia.

The biggest side effect: unanticipated popular support for Hezbollah. My extremist political friend had been talking up Israel's attacks on Lebanon as the sort of bold action that so many Americans prize, even when it's directed at the wrong target. While I am relieved not to know too many people like my friend, their are plenty of them in the world, but without his particular political biases. As a result Hezbollah, who is seen as taking decisive action against Israeli aggression, is winning support as the violence against the civilians of Lebanon continues. They are "doing something" about the scenes of horror that people see on the nightly news, and people who think like my friend admire that.

This doesn't sit well with many regional authorities. Arab leaders fear rise of Hezbollah (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/28/06) describes the disruption that such broad support for a militia might have on other countries.

Some Saudi religious figures have gone much further. For them the issue is not so much political as sectarian.

One well-known sheikh, Abdullah bin Jabreen, has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, declaring it illegal for Muslims to join, support or even pray for Hezbollah.

In a time with many unpopular Arab governments, a wildly popular militia in any Arab country could be perceived as a threat.

This points to the fear that many have had about Israel's action against Lebanon destabilizing the region in unpredictable ways.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Blair defends decision on Lebanon (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/29/06):

He added it was 'simply not correct' to say he and US President Bush had not called for an immediate ceasefire because they wanted Israel to win the conflict.

The reason Blair was put in a position to issue this rather odd defense, while traveling to promote high tech business in the U.S., was that he hadn't prepared a really coherent, brief explanation as to why he didn't support a ceasefire. (The article quotes his explanation - see if you can decipher it.)

Please keep track of which war I'm referring to... Meanwhile, in Iraq, the Bush Administration remains frustrated that Americans do not see all the good news about the U.S.-sponsored rebuilding projects. It turns out that it's probably better that we not read about those. Iraq Hospital Touted by Laura Bush Delayed (nytimes.com, 7/28/06) provides some reasons why.

He said that, of nearly 180 medical facilities promised by the U.S., contracts were awarded for 142. Only six have been completed and turned over to the Iraqis and those ''are not even fully complete.''

''This comes as a sharp contrast to the Japanese,'' Ali said. ''They have promised and delivered 13 hospitals around the country, including three cutting-edge cancer centers. The Japanese have been very faithful to us, unfortunately, the Americans aren't like that.''

I think it's important that the interviewee for this story differentiate between the U.S. and the Japanese. U.S. contractors have been saying that working in Iraq is impossible, while still cashing their checks. If the Japanese are delivering on their commitments, it means that it IS possible, but we're not doing it correctly.

Speaking of war crimes... U.N. Says It Protested to Israel for 6 Hours During Attack That Killed 4 Observers in Lebanon (nytimes.com, 7/27/06):

Jane Holl Lute, the assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations, said at an emergency meeting of the Security Council that over the six-hour period in which the United Nations' warnings were being conveyed to the Israelis, the observation post at Khiam, in southern Lebanon, continued to come under fire.

The firings persisted even after rescuers reached the hilltop site, she said, and in all it was subjected to 21 strikes, 11 of them aerial bombardments and at least 6 artillery rounds.

She described the observation post as "well known and clearly marked" and added that no Hezbollah activity was reported in the area.

The four dead observers were from China, Finland, Canada and Austria.

An eerie resemblance to certain events that occurred in Vietnam. Sergeant Tells of Plot to Kill Iraqi Detainees (nytimes.com, 7/28/06):

Just before leaving, the soldiers had been given an order to "kill all military-age men" at the site by a colonel and a captain, said Paul Bergrin and Michael Waddington, the lawyers who are disputing Sergeant Lemus' account. Military officials in Baghdad have declined to comment on whether such an order, which would have been a violation of the law of war, might have been given.

What I hope the men do not know is how it turned out in one of the Vietnam versions of this story: there was a lot of fuss, and a lot of media (and the loss of 'hearts and minds' everywhere), and then everyone involved basically got off and went back to their normal lives.

*

I've had some complex discussions with my partner about the concept of the 'law of war.' To him, war is fundamentally immoral, and so it is preposterous to provide rules and laws that make war acceptable to anyone.

I do believe in war laws and war crimes. I believe that, if a home country of mine was attacked, that I should be able to have a right to self defense in similar form to the form of the original attack; that the defense should play by certain rules (no raping, pillaging, theft, slaughter of innocents, despoiling of land, etc.) - that a certain level of lawful order should continue to exist, and that everyone who violates that order should be held accountable in the aftermath along with whoever started the attack.

Unfortunately, this is an ideal: superpowers (worldwide and dominant regional powers) only abide by the rules they wish, take what they want, execute dissenters, and then hold themselves above the law. My partner's point about how preposterous the entire idea of war laws are is valid in the world now, where the victor in a war generally gets to choose against whom laws will and won't be retroactively applied. Winners do not currently pay for war crimes. And we live in a country which holds itself above the law consistently, yet uses the same laws to justify invading others who do not comply, as if the laws only exist when applied against our real or imagined enemies.

For this reason, we really need international legal bodies with the authority to hold all nations into account. My country believed in such bodies when it was small and vulnerable, but now that it's strong, it prefers to dominate by force. When it becomes weaker, as other world powers grow, I imagine there will be another change of position on the issue. But such international authority is currently needed.

Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah (nytimes.com, 7/28/06) suggests that Arab governments which previously criticized Hezbollah's actions against Israel are now being forced to jump onto a bandwagon of support that is being pulled by popular opinion. With images of destruction in Lebanon on television nightly, Hezbollah's fight against a government that is devastating innocent civilians looks more respectable to many.

I'm sure this is a consequence that Israel did not intend.

418% Overhead in Iraq. Audit Finds U.S. Hid Cost of Iraq Projects (nytimes.com, subscription required, 7/30/2006): The NY Times' first paragraph:

The State Department agency in charge of $1.4 billion in reconstruction money in Iraq used an accounting shell game to hide ballooning cost overruns on its projects there and knowingly withheld information on schedule delays from Congress, a federal audit released late Friday has found.

The article goes on to describe examples in the audit where figures were fabricated to make projects appear to stay on budget, and situations where significant delays weren't reported.

Awkward, awkward timing. Israel 'presses US on bomb sale' (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/23/06):

Reports from the US suggest Washington has been asked to speed up a shipment of precision bombs sold as part of a deal with Israel last year.

According to a report in the New York Times, Israel made the request after it began its air assault on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon 12 days ago. . . .

Israel is one of the largest customers for US armaments.

It also receives several billion dollars a year in direct and indirect aid from Washington.

Heartbreaking to see. I live in a city, and there are certain things about living in a densely populated area that have a familiar, home-like feeling. People who don't like cities may not understand, but seeing images of cities devastated is painful. This isn't just a city: it's a city like the one I live in.

(Photo popup link) BBC News | In pictures | Beirut destruction | A city in ruins (news.bbc.co.uk).

BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN appalled by Beirut devastation (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/23/06).

The UN's Jan Egeland has condemned the devastation caused by Israeli air strikes in Beirut, saying it is a violation of humanitarian law.

Mr Egeland, the UN's emergency relief chief, described the destruction as "horrific" as he toured the city.

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?