OK so we're back to whether Kerrey acted reasonably, if not honorably (Joanna Sheldon), in these circumstances.
> For about a century now, it's been true
>of war that a lot more civilians die in them than do soldiers - that's just
>a given (mind you, (1) what the moral difference between a conscript and a
>civvie is, I'm not sure - and (2) even most of those dead soldiers
>typically never had a chance to shoot back at the artillery, armour and
>airpower that pulverised 'em).
Well this is most certainly true of the people slaughtered on orders by Kerrey. Not all soldiers are trusted to lead such covert missions; you probably have to prove yourself to be quite bloodthirsty or clinically detached. It may be possible to have some empathy with those under Kerrey's command--one of whom has clearly said that his superior is a liar: the American unit was not fired upon.
> By definition, to conduct a war is to
>conduct a process more accurately defined as the mass-killing of innocents
>than anything else. That's the most important point.
I think you are missing the point. Kerrey was not a conscript or a civilian--he was the commander in charge. He gave the order. He had a choice; he chose to kill; he could be trusted to kill even when not fired upon; that's why he was given command of the mission.
>
>The blowtorch of social scrutiny should always be levelled at those who
>start wars before it is on the people who fight in 'em.
Oh poor Bob Kerrey was not a hapless conscript.
> One thing war
>ALWAYS does is brutalise its younger participants (it might even be a
>conscious process for many - with the youngster thinking, 'either I get
>brutal or I'm bound for a bodybag').
One thing war does is make heroes of the most brutal or cynical youngsters.
> So, those who send 'em to where the
>bleeding's done, are knowingly sending (mostly) adolescent boys to where
>the brutalising is done. That's the second most important point.
No the most important point is that Kerrey ordered a massacre.
>
>Anyway, 'war crime' is a BIG term, and I'd not be throwing it around whilst
>our state of information is as limited as it is (which it will probably
>ever be, of course).
Even Kerrey recognizes that's what he may have done. So I am not throwing it around; the other accounts confirm each other. And those accounts clearly describe a war crime.
> I reckon our state of information is a lot healthier
>about the 1969 WhiteHouse than it is about the 1969 Kerrey.
It's not that the different accounts of what transpired in 1969 are that far apart; it seems the big question is whether Kerrey is lying about being fired upon. And if you read the interview, he himself grants that his account may be wrong. And you have two other people confidently saying that he is wrong--that the American unit was not fired on.
This may all not be very clear to you or Hitchens.
> And I reckon
>our state of information is a lot healthier about the 1999 pilot than the
>1969 Kerrey, too. That we're still arguing exclusively about the Kerrey
>killings tells me the professional framers of debate have yet again had
>their wicked way ...
Why shouldn't we talking about what happened in Vietnam?
Rakesh