Collateral Damage
I have a love-hate relationship with Euphemisms. On one hand, they're amusing in a morbid sort of way. On the other hand, they can hide the true nature of actions from people that would otherwise be horrified. One such word that raises my ire is the term "collateral damage".
Sometimes I'll have arguments with hawkish individuals regarding various wars (normally those undertaken by the United States) and a common argument I hear from the pro-war position regarding the issue is this: The killing of innocent people should not be considered murder, as long as they were not intentionally targeted.
An hostage scenario analogy is often used, in which the U.S. bombing is an act of self-defense or the lesser of two evils - the number of innocents killed would likely have been higher of the bombing had not taken place. This is most commonly seen when people justify the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From the opposite side of the spectrum, some argue that the citizens of a country are one way or another part of the "war effort" and as such, killing them is perfectly legitimate.
I want to address these points separately here.
1. The question of intentional targeting. The argument asserts that it is not murder if innocents are bombed, as long as it is accidental and the primary target is an evil regime. We should not hold the killers responsible for the understandable, regrettable, but excusable deaths of innocents. After all, people die in war.
What's striking here is the fact that there is an inherent flaw in the argument which causes it to contradict itself. When you bomb a city like the allies did in World War II, innocents will die. Whether or not you wanted them to die has nothing to do with the fact that it happened, and the fact of the matter is that those deaths are entirely predictable. If you know that your actions will result in the deaths of innocent people and you do it regardless, then you are entirely responsible.
2. Another argument excusing collateral killing is the hostage analogy. The proponents state that if a bank robber takes hostages and they are accidentally killed by the SWAT team that storms the bank, it is the responsibility of the bank robber. After all, the dead hostages are the victims of the original aggressors who put the SWAT team in this dilemma. This argument is often used to explain why the US government is not the aggressor.
There are significant flaws with this argument as well, the very least being that is never comes up. If we examine major US military interventions in the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is nothing as simple or clear cut as the hostage scenario that war is supposed to be analogous to. There is no empirical evidence that indicates that Nazi Germany would have invaded the US if we hadn't bombed Dresden. There is no evidence that indicates Japan would have invaded the US if we hadn't firebombed Tokyo. There is no evidence that indicates the "Asian Reds" would have invaded the US if we hadn't killed tends of thousands in Vietnam and Cambodia.
In fact, even if the situation were actually true - that killing innocents in a foreign country is the only way to protect innocents in your own country - this has uncomfortable logical implications. For example, let's go back to the Cold War. The Soviet Union is about to launch nuclear ICBMs at America and obliterate our cities. For sake of argument, let us state that the only way to stop this is for the U.S. to launch nuclear ICBMs at Soviet cities first. Regrettably, millions of innocent Soviet will die ("collateral damage") but the Americans are not ethically responsible for these deaths, since it was in defense of the American citizens. It was the fault of the Soviet government - they had held their own citizens hostage.
Here, most hawks stop thinking. But let's push the analogy further.
Let's say a Soviet general who has control of a nuclear missile discovers that the U.S. is about to launch a nuclear strike on the USSR. He knows that millions of innocent Soviets will die. Is he morally justified in launching nukes at the US to prevent the deaths of his countrymen? Can he claim that the U.S. government held the American people hostage?
In this bizarre logic that is more similar to the hostage scenario than actual wars, we see that in theory it is morally defensible to nuke another nation in defense of your own innocents, and likewise it is also morally defensible for the other nation to nuke you as well. This is unfortunate, because there are obviously millions of innocent citizens in both countries. The closer you get to the hostage scenario, the closer you are to justifying the killing of innocents. And that is the most disturbing aspect of it.
Once you decide that innocents necessarily must die, you have divorced yourself from the realm of morals and ethics. If you want to kill people because you're xenophobic and scared, then just come out and say so. Don't hide behind the smoke and mirrors of "morals".
As pointed out above, the hostage scenario extends further than simple morality. If it is moral to kill innocent hostages in an attempt to stop an aggressor, then those hostages likewise have the right to kill you first in order to defend themselves. We all have the right to self-defense, no?
Granted, everything must be taken in context. If I push you out of the way of a speeding car and you break your arm on the sidewalk as a result, I am responsible - but most people would probably view this is defensible. If I break down your door with an axe to save you from a fire, I would probably be excused as well.
However, it is ill-advised to extend these moral arguments to the State - particularly because it is not accountable for its actions. It is perhaps good that most wars are not comparable to the hostage scenario. After all, there are always innocents in war - but they are all hostages of their governments... you connect the dots.
3. The third point is regarding "collateral damage". More innocent lives would have been taken had aggressive military action not been perused. In its purest form, it is the collectivist defense of murder. In the leadup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, we were told that Saddam Hussein was Hitler reincarnate and that overthrowing him was noble regardless of the costs. Even in 2007, four years after the bloody invasion and occupation this line of defense is still used. We are constantly reminded of the atrocities perpetrated by his regime, and that while the U.S. invasion has resulted in Iraqi deaths ranging from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, Saddam Hussein would have killed more if not overthrown.
First off, to believe this you must have much certainty in the credibility of the U.S. government. How many people would have died if the U.S. had not invaded? We honestly don't know. Even more damning is the US government's unapologetic statement, "We don't do body counts." Technical arguments aside, the most horrifying aspect of this argument is that in essence, the U.S. government has a right to kill innocent people as long as it is ousting an absolute monster that would have killed even more. Logically, we can justify the slaughter as many innocents are necessary as long as it does not exceed the n number of innocents that would have been killed by the enemy regime.
To draw another analogy, the ousting of Hitler would have justified the killing of millions of Jews, political dissidents, Slavs, Gypsies, etc. as long as the US didn't kill as many as Hitler ultimately would have. The US would have been justified in murdering millions of Chinese in an attempt to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party under Mao as long as the number of deaths was less than the ultimate figure.
It boils down to this: As long as the enemy would have murdered more, slaughter is justified. In this scenario, human lives are nothing more than statistics. The argument for "collateral damage" is nothing less than a blank check written in blood to The State to go and murder large numbers of people in other states even while simultaneously claiming to save lives.
The final point is regarding the assertion that innocent civilians are part of their respective State's so-called "war machine". I won't elaborate on this seeing as even the most die-hard right-wing hawks would not agree with the Soviet Union's nukes ending their own lives just because they happen to be citizens of the US. "Collateral damage" means nothing less than mass murder. I repeat, it is not moral nor necessary to bomb cities filled with innocent people. If the State's military action will inevitably result in the deaths of innocents, then it is ethically and morally responsible. A war euphemism is rhetorical dishonesty at its worst - used to cover up the worst crimes against humanity.
For your amusement, here are some common euphemisms used in war, take a look - hopefully you will not think of them as abstract technical concepts any more.
"Take Out" - Destroy
"Wet Work" - Assassination
"Area Denial Munitions" - Land Mines
"Physical Persuasion/Tough Questioning" - Torture
"Operational Exhaustion" - Shell Shock
"Department of Defense" - Department of War
"Neutralize" - Kill
"Collateral Damage" - Civilian Deaths
"Target of Opportunity" - Assassination
"Regime Change" - Overthrowing of a government
"Shock and Awe" - Blitzkrieg
"Surgical Strike" - The use of guided munitions
"Caught in cross-fire" - Innocents shot dead by soldiers
"Ethnic Cleansing" - Genocide
"Protective Custody" - Imprisonment without charge or trial
"Generous Offer" - Demand for Surrender
"Incursion" - Attacking with heavy metal
"Air Campaign" - Bombing
"Friendly Fire" - Death caused to one's own troops
"Prohibiting Transactions" - Economic embargo
"Soft targets" - Humans
"All out strategic exchange" - Nuclear War
"Open up on" - Fire upon with all available weaponry
"Frag" - Kill a friendly soldier (now extended to enemies as well)
"Greenbacking" - Hiring mercenaries
"Monitoring" - Eavesdropping, spying
"Conventional weapon" - Non-nuclear weaponry
"Clean bomb" - Neutron bomb, only kills people leaving infrastructure intact
"Nerve agent" - Poison gas
"Strategic movement to the rear" - Retreat
"Pacify" - Lay waste to, destroy
"Pre-emptive strike" - Surprise attack
"Second strike capability" - Ability to retaliate with nuclear weaponry
Sometimes I'll have arguments with hawkish individuals regarding various wars (normally those undertaken by the United States) and a common argument I hear from the pro-war position regarding the issue is this: The killing of innocent people should not be considered murder, as long as they were not intentionally targeted.
An hostage scenario analogy is often used, in which the U.S. bombing is an act of self-defense or the lesser of two evils - the number of innocents killed would likely have been higher of the bombing had not taken place. This is most commonly seen when people justify the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From the opposite side of the spectrum, some argue that the citizens of a country are one way or another part of the "war effort" and as such, killing them is perfectly legitimate.
I want to address these points separately here.
1. The question of intentional targeting. The argument asserts that it is not murder if innocents are bombed, as long as it is accidental and the primary target is an evil regime. We should not hold the killers responsible for the understandable, regrettable, but excusable deaths of innocents. After all, people die in war.
What's striking here is the fact that there is an inherent flaw in the argument which causes it to contradict itself. When you bomb a city like the allies did in World War II, innocents will die. Whether or not you wanted them to die has nothing to do with the fact that it happened, and the fact of the matter is that those deaths are entirely predictable. If you know that your actions will result in the deaths of innocent people and you do it regardless, then you are entirely responsible.
2. Another argument excusing collateral killing is the hostage analogy. The proponents state that if a bank robber takes hostages and they are accidentally killed by the SWAT team that storms the bank, it is the responsibility of the bank robber. After all, the dead hostages are the victims of the original aggressors who put the SWAT team in this dilemma. This argument is often used to explain why the US government is not the aggressor.
There are significant flaws with this argument as well, the very least being that is never comes up. If we examine major US military interventions in the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, there is nothing as simple or clear cut as the hostage scenario that war is supposed to be analogous to. There is no empirical evidence that indicates that Nazi Germany would have invaded the US if we hadn't bombed Dresden. There is no evidence that indicates Japan would have invaded the US if we hadn't firebombed Tokyo. There is no evidence that indicates the "Asian Reds" would have invaded the US if we hadn't killed tends of thousands in Vietnam and Cambodia.
In fact, even if the situation were actually true - that killing innocents in a foreign country is the only way to protect innocents in your own country - this has uncomfortable logical implications. For example, let's go back to the Cold War. The Soviet Union is about to launch nuclear ICBMs at America and obliterate our cities. For sake of argument, let us state that the only way to stop this is for the U.S. to launch nuclear ICBMs at Soviet cities first. Regrettably, millions of innocent Soviet will die ("collateral damage") but the Americans are not ethically responsible for these deaths, since it was in defense of the American citizens. It was the fault of the Soviet government - they had held their own citizens hostage.
Here, most hawks stop thinking. But let's push the analogy further.
Let's say a Soviet general who has control of a nuclear missile discovers that the U.S. is about to launch a nuclear strike on the USSR. He knows that millions of innocent Soviets will die. Is he morally justified in launching nukes at the US to prevent the deaths of his countrymen? Can he claim that the U.S. government held the American people hostage?
In this bizarre logic that is more similar to the hostage scenario than actual wars, we see that in theory it is morally defensible to nuke another nation in defense of your own innocents, and likewise it is also morally defensible for the other nation to nuke you as well. This is unfortunate, because there are obviously millions of innocent citizens in both countries. The closer you get to the hostage scenario, the closer you are to justifying the killing of innocents. And that is the most disturbing aspect of it.
Once you decide that innocents necessarily must die, you have divorced yourself from the realm of morals and ethics. If you want to kill people because you're xenophobic and scared, then just come out and say so. Don't hide behind the smoke and mirrors of "morals".
As pointed out above, the hostage scenario extends further than simple morality. If it is moral to kill innocent hostages in an attempt to stop an aggressor, then those hostages likewise have the right to kill you first in order to defend themselves. We all have the right to self-defense, no?
Granted, everything must be taken in context. If I push you out of the way of a speeding car and you break your arm on the sidewalk as a result, I am responsible - but most people would probably view this is defensible. If I break down your door with an axe to save you from a fire, I would probably be excused as well.
However, it is ill-advised to extend these moral arguments to the State - particularly because it is not accountable for its actions. It is perhaps good that most wars are not comparable to the hostage scenario. After all, there are always innocents in war - but they are all hostages of their governments... you connect the dots.
3. The third point is regarding "collateral damage". More innocent lives would have been taken had aggressive military action not been perused. In its purest form, it is the collectivist defense of murder. In the leadup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, we were told that Saddam Hussein was Hitler reincarnate and that overthrowing him was noble regardless of the costs. Even in 2007, four years after the bloody invasion and occupation this line of defense is still used. We are constantly reminded of the atrocities perpetrated by his regime, and that while the U.S. invasion has resulted in Iraqi deaths ranging from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, Saddam Hussein would have killed more if not overthrown.
First off, to believe this you must have much certainty in the credibility of the U.S. government. How many people would have died if the U.S. had not invaded? We honestly don't know. Even more damning is the US government's unapologetic statement, "We don't do body counts." Technical arguments aside, the most horrifying aspect of this argument is that in essence, the U.S. government has a right to kill innocent people as long as it is ousting an absolute monster that would have killed even more. Logically, we can justify the slaughter as many innocents are necessary as long as it does not exceed the n number of innocents that would have been killed by the enemy regime.
To draw another analogy, the ousting of Hitler would have justified the killing of millions of Jews, political dissidents, Slavs, Gypsies, etc. as long as the US didn't kill as many as Hitler ultimately would have. The US would have been justified in murdering millions of Chinese in an attempt to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party under Mao as long as the number of deaths was less than the ultimate figure.
It boils down to this: As long as the enemy would have murdered more, slaughter is justified. In this scenario, human lives are nothing more than statistics. The argument for "collateral damage" is nothing less than a blank check written in blood to The State to go and murder large numbers of people in other states even while simultaneously claiming to save lives.
The final point is regarding the assertion that innocent civilians are part of their respective State's so-called "war machine". I won't elaborate on this seeing as even the most die-hard right-wing hawks would not agree with the Soviet Union's nukes ending their own lives just because they happen to be citizens of the US. "Collateral damage" means nothing less than mass murder. I repeat, it is not moral nor necessary to bomb cities filled with innocent people. If the State's military action will inevitably result in the deaths of innocents, then it is ethically and morally responsible. A war euphemism is rhetorical dishonesty at its worst - used to cover up the worst crimes against humanity.
For your amusement, here are some common euphemisms used in war, take a look - hopefully you will not think of them as abstract technical concepts any more.
"Take Out" - Destroy
"Wet Work" - Assassination
"Area Denial Munitions" - Land Mines
"Physical Persuasion/Tough Questioning" - Torture
"Operational Exhaustion" - Shell Shock
"Department of Defense" - Department of War
"Neutralize" - Kill
"Collateral Damage" - Civilian Deaths
"Target of Opportunity" - Assassination
"Regime Change" - Overthrowing of a government
"Shock and Awe" - Blitzkrieg
"Surgical Strike" - The use of guided munitions
"Caught in cross-fire" - Innocents shot dead by soldiers
"Ethnic Cleansing" - Genocide
"Protective Custody" - Imprisonment without charge or trial
"Generous Offer" - Demand for Surrender
"Incursion" - Attacking with heavy metal
"Air Campaign" - Bombing
"Friendly Fire" - Death caused to one's own troops
"Prohibiting Transactions" - Economic embargo
"Soft targets" - Humans
"All out strategic exchange" - Nuclear War
"Open up on" - Fire upon with all available weaponry
"Frag" - Kill a friendly soldier (now extended to enemies as well)
"Greenbacking" - Hiring mercenaries
"Monitoring" - Eavesdropping, spying
"Conventional weapon" - Non-nuclear weaponry
"Clean bomb" - Neutron bomb, only kills people leaving infrastructure intact
"Nerve agent" - Poison gas
"Strategic movement to the rear" - Retreat
"Pacify" - Lay waste to, destroy
"Pre-emptive strike" - Surprise attack
"Second strike capability" - Ability to retaliate with nuclear weaponry
Comments
Post a Comment