Jonathan Dresner is single-handedly responsible for at least a dozen of my posts. Today, he sent me this link to a Michael Neumann article in Counterpunch. Entitled "How We Became Barbarians", it is a provocative op-ed on terrorism, civilian casualties, and collateral damage. It got me thinking about many things, especially pacifism (something I haven’t blogged about in a while).
Some excerpts:
People can get astonishingly sensitive when they discuss moral
issues.
Someone who can scarf popcorn all through *both*
Kill Bills will go hoarse about the killing of innocents in Israel or Iraq or
anywhere suitably distant. Someone who’d cheer a B-52 strike on Baghdad will
murmur feelingly about the perfect little hands of a second trimester fetus. And
everyone hates terrorism with a passion because it victimizes innocent people:
that’s so outrageous!
Really the claptrap about terrorism has gone far
enough. Brutes should at least recognize their own brutality. None of us, left,
right, or center, are all that bothered about the deliberate killing of
innocents. Virtually none of us think it’s that big a deal to tear the flesh off
a child.
Okay, now you’ve got my attention. What Neumann means, of course, is that since the advent of air power, we in the industrialized West have become increasingly accepting of the "collateral damage" (loss of civilian life) that comes with bombing.
The brutalization of attitudes towards attacks on
civilians was and is quite universal. We may deplore some such attacks, but not
all of them. We disagree, not about whether they are ever legitimate, but rather
about whether they should be blatant. Some think it’s ok to kill civilians as
long as they’re not really your target. Others think that they can be all or
part of your target. It’s the difference between dropping bombs you know will
kill civilians and dropping bombs to kill civilians.
Amen. It’s refreshing to see this argument made by a secular leftist rather than by an Anabaptist; Neumann sounds here as if he is indeed close to the position of most Mennonites around the world. It’s the refusal to see as morally legitimate the sophistry that he describes so well that led me to embrace pacifism in the first place. Christian morality ought to be about total and radical congruence between "ends" and "means" — peacemaking can only be done peacefully, modelled on the life of Christ Himself.
But Neumann is not an Anabaptist pacifist. (He’s a Canadian philosopher.) The central point of his article revolves around the distinction between "expected" and "unexpected" collateral damage. You’ll need to read that bit carefully.
But it’s Neumann’s conclusion that is so remarkable:
What, then, is left to us, if we have become so
cruel? We cannot say that two wrongs don’t make a right, or that our hypocrisy
doesn’t justify others’ savagery, because it is the very rules of morality that
we have come to view differently. We really do believe that murdering innocents
is, in the relevant cases, no sort of wrong at all. We cannot reproach others
for terrorism, not because this would be hypocritical, but because it would be
inconsistent. Our own standards allow what we might like to forbid.
Terror, by our own standards, isn’t always wrong.
Neither is the murder of innocent civilians, including children. Excoriating
these practices is nothing more or less than a cynical or pointlessly moralistic
diversion from any serious attempt to prevent them.
Such an attempt can’t attack the practices
themselves for the excellent reason that we have no moral basis for attacking
them. To the extent that they can be prevented, it is only through appeals to
self-interest, not to compassion or a level of decency we quite obviously
lack.
There’s much more. Like much of what appears on Counterpunch, the rhetoric is harsh. And I can in no way agree with Neumann’s rather remarkable conviction that this is why Israeli and American atrocities are so
much worse than Iraqi or Palestinian atrocities.
Uh, sorry Mike, you lost me there. Neumann does a far better job of stripping American military tactics of moral legitimacy than he does of imbuing the intifadas with that same legitimacy. Consistent-life pacifism is never as concerned with intent as other philosophies are; it is concerned with method. The Mennonite vision of pacifism (to which I still cling) is one of radical faith that God holds us responsible for our actions, but He remains sovereign over the outcomes of those actions.
Our limited humanity often sees no way other than violence to accomplish a good end; we are like Peter in the garden on that last night, flailing away with a sword at the guards who had come to take Jesus off to die. We justify violence because we are, for all of our external piety, mostly "Good Friday" Christians. We see the world as violent and chaotic, and feel compelled to use the sword to defend the vulnerable and to bring in justice. Christian pacifism is an Easter theology — it is only when one is convinced and convicted of the absurd and marvelous Good News of the resurrection that one can contemplate letting go of even the noblest justifications for the use of violence.





