Stop Apologizing for (Iraqi) Civilian Casualties {Ayn Rand Inst]

Ayn Rand Inst ^ | Apr 3, 2003 | Peter Schwartz

[Diddley]

The administration's policy of minimizing harm to civilians is an unwarranted confession of guilt about waging a war strictly to safeguard America.

In war, a country convinced of the rightness of its course expects its forces to subordinate all considerations to the objective of military victory. Our government, however, has adopted the indecisive policy of "balancing" the goal of defeating the enemy in Iraq with the goal of avoiding harm to civilians.

When General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declares that great care is being taken to prevent civilian casualties, he is not referring to the random shooting of Iraqis; a free nation's military does not engage in such wanton behavior. Rather, he explains: "We're more likely to take a little bit more risk ourselves than to bring the population in harm's way."

Thus our forces refrained from destroying Baghdad's vital power plants, phone exchanges and television transmission towers. Even outright military equipment was spared if it was near what the United Nations deems a "historic site." As one military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank, puts it: "We decided we would restrain the use of air power for reasons of humanity and world image."

Here is the stark, daily meaning of this restraint, as described by a New York Times reporter who interviewed two marines: "They were most frustrated by the practice of some Iraqi soldiers to use unarmed women and children as shields against American bullets. They called the tactic cowardly but agreed that it had been effective.

Both Sergeant [Eric] Schrumpf and Corporal [Mikael] McIntosh said they had declined several times to shoot at Iraqi soldiers out of fear they might hit civilians."

Hussein is saying, in effect, "Let me keep shooting at you, or I will shoot my civilians"—and we're complying. Why? What right does anyone have to demand that these marines let enemy soldiers go, in order to avoid harming innocent civilians? Aren't the marines innocent victims? Aren't all Americans, who have to worry about Hussein's criminal-state, innocent victims?

[Diddley]

According to the article,
". . . administration officials feel guilty for giving primacy to our lives and our interests in waging this war.

Powell is willing to have a postwar Iraq molded by the anti-American despots who dominate the United Nations".

[freedom44]

Im not a big fan of the ayn rand institiute they're very radical in their ideas.

Chair came out after 9/11 and suggested nuking countries in the ME on O'reilly. Needless to say O'reilly referred to him as a 'nutcase'.

[m1911]

If winning the war was the overriding goal, the author would be correct. But this war like all others, is an extension of politics, it does not stand in a vacuum. The administration decided that some American lives were worth the political goal. That is the underlying decision in all decisions to go to war, and by what means and under what rules of engagement.

[Illbay]

The administration's policy of minimizing harm to civilians is an unwarranted confession of guilt about waging a war strictly to safeguard America.

Far be it for a godless Randist to understand this, but you see, we are a majority Christian nation, and we actually abhor the taking of innocent life.

I know you people don't understand this conceptually, so you'll just have to take our word for it.

[Illbay]

The administration decided that some American lives were worth the political goal.

Considering that very, very few American lives were lost compared to what the projections were--more were lost to accident than to force of arms--I would suggest that we did well by doing good.

[m1911]

I'm glad I didn't have to make the call, but I agree with the decision regarding the rules of engagement. And I agree with your assessment of the results.

[marron]

The writer does make a good point; when we are rightly worrying about the loss of "innocent" life, it is good to remember that our soldiers qualify as fully innocent and worthy of being defended and mourned. We are the agrieved party, and we are the liberators. We are the good guys.

[ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds]

does "thou shall not kill" now apply to only innocent lives - does your holier than thou morality not understand that life is life - we godless ones understand that nature demonstrates that the struggle for life pervades all living creatures and we humans have a choice - is your choice to determine those who deserve to live and those who deserve to die - because you are christian are you able to make that determination

[Diddley]

I agree with you.
There are so many "innocent" lives that get caught in war.
Sometimes a leader has to go ahead, even knowing that "innocents" will be lost, in order to prevent more from being lost later.
We ARE the good guys, and a leader (Dubya) has to make these difficult decisions.

If the decisions were easy, Liberals could make them.

[Illbay]

The phrase translated in most Bibles as "thou shalt not kill" is more properly rendered "thou shalt not murder."

God specifically told Noah, that it was His law that a man who takes a life, by man his life shall be taken. That isn't "Mosaic law" but precedes it by a thousand years.

Death for a murderer is ordained by God Himself.

[ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds]

by your own admission, different translations of the bible can't even agree on termenology so what makes you the expert on what your god intends

[Kevin Curry]

is your choice to determine those who deserve to live and those who deserve to die

Better our choice than Saddam's, bin Laden's, Kim Jong Il's etc. I don't believe there is any moral equivalence at all. Neither do you. Just ask yourself, "If I had to suffer a civilian in an invaded land, would I rather be an innocent civilian in a nation being overrun by Saddam's Fedayeen, or an innocent civilian in a nation being overrun by Bush's Marines?"

You decision--if you are at all rational and sentient--will tell you who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.