Getting practical

[arpad]

Let’s face it – a double morale standard do exist.

Former Iraq could attack neighbor countries and kill thousands of its own citizens. Assad can openly feed terror groups. Arafat can spit on agreements he made. Chechen militants can bomb crowded stadium. Zimbabwe can push white farmers off their land. North Korea can use nukes as valid argument in getting aid. No one seriously count it as crossing a red line.

Why? Because all are silently sure: this is what those barbaric states are supposed to do.

On other hand, US occupation of Iraq, Israel targeted killings of terrorists, Russian reconquest of Chechnya, Serbian attempt to find military solution in Kosovo were labeled a grave offense to humanity.

Jail abuse by US soldiers or lone Jewish terrorist instantly become a point of national politics. Point that forces country leaders to mutter apologies and start investigations. Whereas cutting off head of captured American or killing Jewish children is just legitimate show of people’s anger. Whereas habit of killing your own sister or daughter for family honor sake is just a part of Islam domestic culture. Whereas – well you all know what I am talking about.

In the end of previous century there was hope of raising common degree of civilized behavior in the world. Do we still believe in that now?

I am afraid that the situation will continue, amplified by the media, and unresolved on every level of political and ethical thought.

And if that will continue long enough - at some point Western feeling of moral superiority will snap. I am horrified by the consequences. Because with superiority goes responsibility.

You think that US behavior in Iraq bad? Well – imagine the same but without any “program of rebuilding”. Imagine the same as a true ruthless conquest aimed to take natural resources, kill most of population and push the rest into Stone Age. Do you really think US, France, Japan, Russia can not do that? Do you really think that caught between economical and political troubles they will remain sane?

Comments

[zakat451.livejournal.com]

I agree

[sowa.livejournal.com]

Don't you think that West assumed stand of the moral superiority leads nowhere? At least you argued well this point. Why not to base the actions on just superiority, without any moral connotations? In the long run, this may prove to be more beneficial even for the West adversaries.

(Inspired also by the "Dogville" of Lars von Trier.)

[arpad.livejournal.com]

May be, because actions based on "just superiority" tends to backfire.

[sowa.livejournal.com]

Aren't the actions based on the current mode of operation (moral superiority) backfire?

[arpad.livejournal.com]

Yea, they do. But at least they preserve the moral superiority. And exchange the moral advantage for right to mass murder does not look like a good bargain.

My position is that the problem does not have effective solution.

[sowa.livejournal.com]

I prefer to at least try to learn something from the history. Let us look at the WWII. The carpet bombings of civilian targets, the destruction of Hamburg and Dresden, firestorms in Tokyo, the nuclear bombs, finally. The outcome was much better even for the defeated powers than what we have now with our current moral restraints.

[moderndayknight.livejournal.com]

Well put!

[arpad.livejournal.com]

Mmm. I would not be so quick in labeling this outcome "better". You do remember that cost of that war was in millions of dead, not in thousands, eh?

[sowa.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do. Actually, tens of millions. Most of them Russians and Jews, not Germans or Japanese, by the way.

If you do not feel that that outcome is better, imagine WWII with Allies restrained by the modern "morality". It is a difficult exercise, because one of the Allies was another brutal dictator, Stalin. It would be hard to expect him to care about German civilians. Therefore he would do what he did anyhow, but British RAF will not bomb German cities, and the US Air Force will not carry on the night bombings of Japanese cities. And, of course, no nukes.

To outcome could be like this: Stalin wins, but it takes longer. In particular, all Jews within Germany's reach are exterminated by Hitler. After this Stalin takes over the whole continental Europe, and does not enter the war against Japan. Without bombings, Stalin and nukes, USA conclude an honorable peace with Japan, and Japan is left to rule over China and whatever part of the continental South Asia it likes. No Israel. UK, probably, remains independent with a status similar to the actual postwar status of Finland.

Well, enough science-fiction.

The outcome is better in the sense that WWII ended in just 6 years, compared to the 55-years of the Israeli war with Arabs, and even to 14 years of the war with Iraq. The outcome is better also in that the defeated countries in WWII very soon turned out to be very prosperous countries, on par with the victors. Our current undefeated enemies slowly moving into the Middle Ages, or, rather, the Stone Age with Kalashnikovs for the populace and jet-fighters for the ruling class.

[arpad.livejournal.com]

Umm, well argued. I see your point now.

[ex-ilyavinar899.livejournal.com]

Onward Chartered Soldiers, on to heathen lands,
Prayer books in your pockets, rifles in your hands.
Take the florious tidings where trade can be done,
Spread the peaceful gospel --- with a Maxim gun.

Tell the wretched natives, sinful are their hearts,
Turn their heathen temples into spirit marts.
And if to your teaching they will not succumb,
Give them another sermon with the Maxim gun...

When the Ten Commandments they quite understand,
You their Chief must hocus, and annex their land;
And if they misguided call you to account,
Give them another sermon --- with a Maxim from the Mount.

[moderndayknight.livejournal.com]

Amen! I wish I could read the rest of your posts. Anyway, I added you to my friends list.

[m-p.livejournal.com]

That's a good one. :-)

First of all: you are wrong. We are not going to snap. Yet. The main reason being that nothing the enemy has done so far warrants "taking natural resources, killing most of population and pushing the rest into Stone Age" as dictated by the oldest moral standard of all - "an eye for an eye". It's unlikely any amount of economic or political troubles will make us step over it.
Now, if tomorrow North Korea nukes Seattle or LA, killing 75% of the population there, we (the US) might in response obliterate a country or two - but that won't violate any moral standards as it will be considered self-defense or a legitimate deterrent of future attacks (and at least before the war in Iraq the rest of the world would have been on our side - now we probably won't elicit much sympathy due to our own violation of other moral standards).
Another possible scenario of potential snapping - if the extremists among us get even more power than they already have. I doubt you can sell the logic "we nuked Japan and look how well they turned out!" to the majority of the public in the US, but there are other political means of advancing radical goals. We can discuss them at a later time, if you wish.

Back to the issues of morality. I don't think there are double standards. Nobody assumes that "those barbaric states are supposed to do" whatever barbaric things they do or "that just legitimate show of people's anger". But a lot of us assume that we have little control over it, unless we step over our own moral standard. That's the trick - maintain the standard and still improve something in the world. Not easy, as the example of Iraq is showing - if you remember, we wanted to raise "common degree of civilized behavior in the world" by building democracy in the Middle East. Noble goal, and at least one person still believes in it. So don't worry, idealists among us are alive and well. However, implementation sucks.
There's no feeling of superiority either - there's only the acknowledgment of our own moral standard and, as you pointed out, of the responsibility that comes with it. That's why the apologies, investigations, etc. - we have to follow our own laws. Just a bunch of people doing their jobs.