[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete's Role Reversal
- From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:57:52 -0500
Phil: If we want to make moral judgments, then we have to make
moral distinctions. As far as I can tell, M. Chase declines to
make such distinctions so I don't see any grounds for moral
judgments. I have difficulty imagining how the Bush
administration could have done a worse job of fucking-up the
situation in Iraq but the fact remains that the U.S. soldiers in
Iraq are under orders to do all they can to avoid civilian
casualties. This distinguishes them, morally, from al-Zarqawi
and his ilk.
_____
That sums it up. As I wrote to Judy a couple days ago, the worst
mistakes of the US troops resemble the day-to-day strategy of the
insurgency.
Mike Chase says war crimes are war crimes, wrongful deaths are
wrongful deaths. So he would make no distinction between an
Allied soldier in World War 2 who accidentally shot a civilian in
a firefight and a German soldier in Auschwitz who turned on the
Xyclon-B gas in an extermination room.
That's convenient if your motive is to ignore the agency of
individual soldiers and instead concentrate on hated icons like
Bush & Co. Very convenient. You can say that Eisenhower
accidentally shot the civilian and Adolf Hitler turned on the gas
in that particular room. It wouldn't be true but you could say
it. Then you could foam at the mouth and posture moral outrage.
It's something to do I guess.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: