[lbo-talk] David Brooks calls for US war crimes

Dwayne Monroe idoru345 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 4 13:21:59 PST 2003


Doug wrote (regarding the apparent thick-headedness of David Brooks and company):

What is it with these people? Unlike a Red Cross installation, a military helicopter of an occupation army is a legitimate military target. How is it evil to shoot one down?

Luke replied:

Try thinking of it this way: would Germans be better off now if there'd been real, violent resistance (of the sort some necons now pretend there was) to the allied occupation? How about the Japanese? Whether violent resistance to an occupation is justified depends in large part on the nature and likely ends of the occupation. It also, of course, depends in part on the sort of regime the resisters seek to implement.

************

We're told, by journalists not on American media payrolls, people writing for the Guardian and Asia Times and the Hindu Times and The Independent UK, to name a few prominent examples, that American soldiers are doing violent things to civilians.

Sometimes, it's bursting into homes, placing bags over people's heads and plastic cuffs on their bound wrists while yelling 'shut the fuck up' at the frightened who cry out.

Other times, it's reducing a minivan to blood splattered wreckage via the liberal application of u-tipped ammo fire from .50 calibers.

There are other horrendous examples available I'm sure.

Over and over again we read these stories. And yet, out of some odd will to deny cause and effect, some say that whatever resistance exists must solely be the work of 'Islamic extremists' or 'former Ba'athists' and not, in many cases, an unaffiliated 17 year old who decided, as he lie on the floor of his home watching his sister being roughly treated or witnessed the liquidation of a neighbour, that these Americans must die.

Is violent resistance, given the goals of the resisters, justified in Iraq? Not being a god and lacking the long view I cannot say. But I do know this: the Americans came by force, they are staying by force and they will leave by force.

Your statement implies that the righteousness of the force being employed by Iraqis can be judged according to their aims. This sounds sensible and is comforting to liberal sensibility, which would prefer civil disobedience, but is totally beside the point.

The point being that force begets counter-force.

DRM

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list