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

[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.