|
So let me get this straight, we've gone from the "it's war, it happens" position to the extreme relativistic position that not only the military have a different set of morals to live by, but that the whole morality thing is so contingent that those outside the military can't even pass judgment on it?
Regarding the whole "should they have waited until they were being fired on" comment, there is an incongruency that has been precisely the point of most of the anti-war movement: yes, if this war is anything like it is claimed to be, they should wait until being fired upon. You see, even other wars don't have the same civilian to military casualty ratio, even assuming the lowest possible estimates. People have talked about the nuclear bomb, but even the war in the pacific didn't have these numbers (the only WW2 engagement that might come close is the invasion of the USSR). So, again, either we admit that this is some sort of neo colonial war were the civilians are an afterthought and we are ok with massive civilian casualties, or we change the rules of engagement and prosecute the hell of those who break them.
Of course, though it should, that won't happen. Instead, a few years from now people will talk about "liberating" Iran, or Pakistan, or North Korea, and when someone points out the dirtiness of war, they'll hear back "how dare you say that about the American military?."
|