On Selective Pacifism & other Oddities
We can start out making this clearer perhaps by following the principle of the UN law on this: No war except in self-defense
This is on direct analogy to American legal rule on self-defense , which is that an individual , A, cannot use deadly force on another individual , B, unless A is in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm from B.
I submit that the U.S. is and was not in reasonable fear of war from Afghanistan.
Charles
%%%%%%%%
Carrol Cox and then Max Sawicky
Over on PEN-L Michael has (I think sensibly) indicated that this thread has lost its usefulness there, but it raised a number of questions I thought worth pursuing on a list not focused (as Michael keeps hoping PEN-L will be) on economics. In an earlier post in the thread I indicated that the phrase "selective pacifism" was simply bad writing. (Max disagreed, and he can re-express that here if he feels it useful.) My argument is that _most_ objections to this or that war are not pacifist objections at all: for example (to explore ancient history) it would have made perfect since in the mid-19th century to both vigorously oppose the Mexican War (which Grant called the most unjust war ever fought by a large nation against a small nation, but of course Grant didn't know about the current war) _and_ to have _supported_ with equal vigor the War to Suppress the Insurrection of the Slave Drivers. (The usual names, Civil War and War Between the States seem to me to distort the nature of that war.) Pacifism or anti-Pacifism has nothing to do with it. The phrase "Selective Pacifism" is sloppy writing, in fact I would say intellectually corrupt, because it obscures the sharp distinction between vicious wars fought for vicious and/or stupid purposes and wars in defense of legitimate causes. Carrol
Clearly there is nothing wrong in and of itself with picking and choosing which wars one approves of. Most people do that. I certainly do.
What I object to is the invocation of universal principles in opposition to particular wars. In particular, to criticize the U.S. interventions in the Balkans and Afghanistan because there are civilian casualties or "war crimes" is bogus unless you oppose *all* wars, since all result in civilian casualties and "war crimes." I put the latter in quotes because I would guess that violations of the rules of war (executing P.O.W.'s, for instance) are ubiquitous in war, though I would be happy to be corrected on that.
Objecting to the Afghani intervention on the grounds that it ratifies a U.S. intention to slaughter civilians wholesale is a different matter. Anyone making this argument is either uninformed or dedicated to insupportable polemic.
My impression is that most opposition to the U.S. intervention here and on PEN-L is founded on factors like: opposition to the use of violence, per se ("violence never solves anything"); rejection of any mission that creates innocent civilian casualties; and inferences of ancillary motives on the part of the U.S. (i.e., oil, hegemonism). My critical label "selective pacifism" refers to the invocation of these arguments *as if* they applied uniquely to the Afghani conflict, whereas in fact they apply to nearly all. The arguments fail my "Civil War Test." So if you invoke universal principles but have your own list, however short, of just wars, then you are a selective pacifist. As to personalities, I have gone no further then to say this bespeaks confusion. I haven't said anybody is vile.
mbs