“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

I quote the memorable words of that less than memorable lady, Hillary Clinton, because they (sort of) seem appropriate to the current 'shock-horror story' (and I absolutely do not intend any irony in that phrase) concerning the execution in Syria of James Foley by, apparently, a London-based Islamic fighter called 'John'.  Before going any further let me pay tribute to Mr. Foley who was, judging by his calm demeanour in the photograph taken prior to his execution, an exceedingly brave man.  I would pray for an ounce of his courage were I ever to face imminent death.

Once again I find myself shaking my head in sorrow at yet another example of man's inhumanity to man which is, of course, as old as Mankind.  Certain commentators will heap curses on the head of the executioner and his fellow jihadists and, to be fair, if I had the chance I would shoot 'John' out of hand . . . and yet . . . and yet . . . what, exactly and precisely, is the difference between 'John' and, say, 'Lt. Wotsisname' of the USAF sitting in a bunker in Texas guiding a drone missile into a car in a street in Iraq on the assumption that it contains some 'baddies' but irrespective if the collateral damage on the street takes out a few women and children?

Well, one difference is obvious.  'John' has to possess, God help him, an unthinking and all-possessing hatred to help him overcome even the minimal human feelings he possesses because chopping someone's head off is about as up close and personal as you can get in the 'killing game'.  On the other hand, all that 'Lt. Wotsisname' has to do is press a button and then supress his imagination.  The point I am meandering towards is this: given that it is war, is there any real moral difference between the two acts?

(I have to go out this morning so I will leave the question with you.  Hopefully I will have enough spare time to think on it myself and see if I can grope my way to a conclusion.  See you later!)

The answer to the question I left you this morning is 'no' but somehow we all tend to think that it should be 'yes'.  Alas, the result is the same in both cases - dead bodies.  There is an all-too-human tendency to feel that because ours is a 'righteous' cause taken up by democratic governments that makes our killing more excusable than theirs.  But of course, they believe the exactly the same thing, that they are acting in God's name in an equally 'righteous' cause and that we are the agents of the devil.  It's worth noting that in both cases the operational imperative is the same - terrorism!  Both sides wish to terrorise their opponents, we by obliterating them suddenly without warning from a blue sky, they by cutting our heads off publicly.  The use of terror has a 'distinguished' pedigree.  Karl von Clausewitz suggested that wars should be fought with maximum ferocity in order bring a war to an end as rapidly as possible.  The collateral damage might be enormous but if the war ends after one year rather than dragging on for a decade then that is to be preferred.

Of course, it is often said that it takes two to make war but that is not quite true.  It might be if one side is so weak and feeble that it merely surrenders but usually an opponent will make it clear that he intends to defend and thus it is up to the challenger to fire the first shot.  There-after, there is only one aim - to win - and yes, to win at all costs.  It is that brutal fact that makes war the hell it is.

 

Comments

[Backofanenvelope]

I notice that the Vox Pop blog is asking why Obama doesn't bomb London, given that a British passport holder has beheaded an American. Some of the commenters, who seem to be English, are saying go ahead. More chance of getting some Muslims!

Mr Foley seems to have been a sympathiser for the Islamic cause.

[David Duff]

Alas, BOE, I haven't had time to read up on Mr. Foley but whatever his beliefs he showed considerable bravery.

[JK]

S'getting all ridiculous over here David, over "there"?

Well. Noting BOE's comment I s'pose I have my answer.

This article-writer I note concludes;

Let us hope that the Obama administration breaks character in this situation and acts on its promise to hold this terrorist organization accountable for the barbaric beheading.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahjeanseman/2014/08/21/doj-to-launch-criminal-investigation-of-foley-murder-n1881502

But I find myself asking myself, does she have even a clue as to what "holding accountable" implies?

http://warontherocks.com/2014/08/dont-bs-the-american-people-about-iraq-syria-and-isil/

[David Duff]

JK, see the ADDITIONAL on the post above this - and thanks!

[Andra]

Good writing again, David.

[David Duff]

Thanks, Andra.

[Lawrence Duff]

The result of killing someone for gain and killing someone in self-defence also results in dead bodies in both cases: So in these cases would you say "there is no real moral difference between the two acts"?

The consequence of dead bodies says nothing about the morality of what got them dead.

If you're saying there's no moral difference between killing an enemy civilian and killing an enemy soldier because Clausewitz said so, I would venture to suggest that Clausewitz was wrong on that count.

Is a drone operator morally any different from a sniper picking off enemy soldiers at a distance, or an artilleryman, or a longbowman? If you've found a clever way of killing enemy soldiers does that make you less moral than someone doing it a dumb way?

My take is this: -

I agree with Clausewitz that terrorism is a tactic, like sniping, gunnery, archery, and joystick control of guided weapons. I agree with him also that it is identifiable from the other tactics, in fact more so than the other tactics are from each other; sniping, artillery bombardment, archery, and drone warfare, although different, are similar. I would define terrorism as the deliberate targeting of enemy civilians and non-combatants in order to cause terror in the civilian and non-combatant population. Quite different from the other tactics, not similar at all. And because it is distinct, definable, defined, and a cause of dead bodies, it is therefore capable of being judged morally. And I judge it immoral.

Therefore I disagree with those who think it is undefined or undefinable. I also disagree with those who say targeting civilians and non-combatants by the state in war is not terrorism because it is governed by some other internationally agreed rules of state war. Terrorism, as defined, is terrorism, whether you're a state at war, or a population resisting occupation.

SoD

[David Duff]

No time this today to respond to that, SoD, but I will comeback to it later.