War

Someone recklessly left a copy of a Washington Post lying around in this coffee shop, and I succumbed to morbid curiosity long enough to notice an article that begins:

“Major U.S. defense manufacturers say they will stand by the Trump administration regarding whether American-made weapons systems should be sold to the Saudi government, despite a global political backlash over the killing of a Saudi journalist and an ongoing humanitarian crisis at the hands of a Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen.”

In a recent interview on National Pentagon Radio, Neil deGrasse Tyson discussed the interactions between (1) the U.S. military and (2) astrophysics. The former is an enterprise that I consider evil and Tyson seems to consider mildly worthy of discomfort but the necessary producer of the research for which he lives. The latter is a field of human endeavor that Tyson apparently considers supremely noble, and I consider absolutely inexcusable. Both are areas into which much energy is driven by irrational delusion.

The University of Virginia’s Miller Center caught flak for appointing Trumpian Marc Short, but has now announced the appointment of John Negroponte, presumably hoping for little resistance since Negroponte’s not a Trumpman.

But shouldn’t morality still matter? Shouldn’t a center that has yet to ever feature an opponent of war but keeps inviting mercenaries and soldiers and warmongers to speak have to have some limits?

1. Chemical weapons are worse than other weapons.

This is not the case. Death and dismemberment are horrific regardless of the weapon. No weapon is being used legally, morally, humanely, or practically in Syria or Iraq. U.S. bombs are no less indiscriminate, no less immoral, and no less illegal than chemical weapons -- or for that matter than the depleted uranium weapons with which the United States has been poisoning the area. The fact that a weapon has not been banned does not create a legal right to go into a country and kill people with it.

2. Chemical weapons use justifies the escalated use of other weapons.

Does shoplifting justify looting? If a Hatfield poisoned a McCoy, would another McCoy be justified in shooting a bunch of Hatfields? What barbarism is this? A crime does not sanction another crime. That's a quick trip to hell.

3. Important people we should trust know who used chemical weapons.

No, they do not. At least they do not know that the Syrian government did it. If they knew this, they would offer evidence. As on every past occasion, they have not done so.

4. The enemy is pure evil and will answer only to force.

"When you kill innocent children, innocent babies, little babies . . . that crosses . . . many lines." -- Donald J. Trump, April 5, 2017

Hypocrisy, because:

Children Killed on January 29 in Donald Trump's Botched Yemen Raid
Asma Fahad Ali al Ameri -- 3 months
Aisha Mohammed Abdallah al Ameri – 4 years
Halima Hussein al Aifa al Ameri – 5 years
Hussein Mohammed Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri – 5 years
Mursil Abedraboh Masad al Ameri – 6 years
Khadija Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri – 7 years
Nawar Anwar al Awlaqi – 8 years
Ahmed Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab – 11 years
Nasser Abdallah Ahmed al Dahab – 12 years

And one of these victims, eight-year-old Nawar "Nora" Awlaqi, was an American citizen.

Gar Smith / Environmentalists Against War www.envirosagainstwar.org

Wars are not fought against flags or ideas, nations or demonized dictators. They are fought against people, 98 percent of whom are resistant to killing, and most of whom had little or nothing to do with bringing on the war. One way to dehumanize those people is to replace all of them with an image of a single monstrous individual.

I've come around in favor of backing all moderates. The question appeared to me for a long time as a difficult one. Should one give anti-aircraft weaponry, for example, to al Qaeda fighters in Syria in order to better combat ISIS (which could some day develop the airplane)?

The answer is yes, if, and only if, those fighters are moderates.

Now, who's a moderate? Some people get confused on this part, but it's not really that difficult to get straight. Fighters who want to blow up buildings and airplanes and cars and pedestrians and playgrounds can be either moderates or extremists, since war has nothing to do with their categorization. After all, we're picking which people to arm in the war.

Also, the question of whom a fighter is fighting for or against is completely irrelevant. The CIA and the Department of Defense have armed and trained forces that are fighting against each other in Syria. Obviously, both are moderate.