I don’t often agree with him on issues regarding Iraq, but this column by James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal strikes me as a sensible commentary on the responses to the reports of the execution-by-torture of two U.S. servicemen, viz. that such acts are part of a “cycle,” in which one vicious act simply begets another:
This rhetoric about “cycles” appears to reflect a theory of moral equivalence, but in fact it is something else. After all, if the two sides were morally equivalent, one could apply this reasoning in reverse–excusing, for example, the alleged massacre at Haditha on the ground that it was “provoked” by a bombing that killed a U.S. serviceman–and hey, violence begets violence.
But America’s critics never make this argument, and its defenders seldom do. That is because it is understood that America knows better. If it is true that U.S. Marines murdered civilians in cold blood at Haditha, the other side’s brutality does not excuse it. Only the enemy’s evil acts are thought to be explained away by ours.
For it to hold water, it would have to imply that criminal acts by American soldiers could be explained away by invoking acts such as the torture of U.S. servicemen, the beheadings of innocent school teachers, and on and on and on, rather than forbidden and guarded against and, when that fails, punished.
“For it to hold water, it would have to imply that criminal acts by American soldiers could be explained away by invoking acts such as the torture of U.S. servicemen, the beheadings of innocent school teachers, and on and on and on..”
No doubt these things do help ‘explain’ at least psychologically, but they don’t excuse.
His conclusion follows his premise, but his premise doesn’t make much sense to me. How does “cycle” reflect moral equivalence?
Radical Skeptic gets it right. At least IMHO. To talk about a “cycle” is precisely to talk about causation. If you don’t distinguish that from morality, you end up with acts of torture or murder being “caused” by earlier acts, which removes from the act its moral significance. Acts are caused by choice, not only by earlier acts of others. You can explain how someone gets angry, but when he murders innocents in anger, moral responsibility should not be forgotten. If it is true for American soldiers, it is also true for their enemies.
As someone who probably whould be considered one of of “America’s critics” be the likes of Taranto, I agree that U.S. atrocities are perfectly consistent with a “vicious cycle” analysis.
Atrocities by U.S troops have taken place in every war of occupation including the Philippine insurgency, Vietnam, etc. It pretty much goes with the territory e.g. occuping troops become frustrated by the “ingratitude” of the locals and then fly off the handle and start shooting people.
To say that a cycle of atrocity is almost inevitable on both sides in these situations doesn’t provide an “excuse,” of course, but it is true just the same.
As an American, I focus my criticism on the U.S. because my tax dollars are being used for such crimes and (theoretically) as a citizen I can actually do something to stop them. For this reason, I think that withdrawal is the best way to address the overall problem.
Apart from the question of “cycles,” unfortunately I have often heard Americans defend atrocities committed by American troops on the basis that insurgents do the same or worse — e.g. this morning on NPR, where a number of Americans expressed disbelief that it could be at all appropriate to investigate Marines for possibly criminally executing defenseless civilians, after all, they argued, consider the terrible things done by the enemy and the stress the Marines are under.
I don’t think it is is even close to universally accepted by Americans that atrocities by alQaeda et al. don’t justify violations of rights by the government. This is the whole essence of the argument for sacrificing liberty for “security,” in fact.