Posted on 06/26/2006 9:25:33 AM PDT by marko525
...if the civilized society is to prevail over the barbarous one, it will necessarily and tragically be degraded by the experience as a vital cost of victory. Partly, this is because civilized war tactics are apt to fail against barbarous war tactics, thus requiring civilized society to break the "rules" if it is to survive a true death struggle. It is also because the clash itself -- the act of engaging with the barbarous society -- forces civilization to confront, repel and also internalize previously unimagined depredations. This is degrading, too.
An intersting article.
However, that is only one perspective on viewing things like Hieroshima and Dresden vis-a-vis the nature of the enemy we were facing in WW2. The reality is in the perception.
I think you have to taylor your tactics to fit the opponent with which you are dealing. You can't fight a war with savages like Al Quaida or NAZIs using Marquis of Queesnbury rules and expect to win. Not doing so doesn't somehow "degrade" us. As long as we only retaliate measure for measure, and remember not to employ such tactics against other more "honorable" foes as an acceptable practise, we are O.K.
Its quite curious Churchill made the comments he did.
Aside from much much earlier examples like Indian "reservations," in America, the British in the Boer War deliberately employed concentration camps for the first time against "civilized" people and targeted non-combatants - women and children, the wives and offspring of Boers - who suffered horrendous casualties in an aggressive, imperial, immoral war by Imperial Britain against people who were merely defending their independence - the Boers.
Churchill was a war correspondent in that conflict.
Her wonderings beg the question; what is moral? If there is no ethically absolute than we do live in a ethical relative world where there can be no moral high ground. If, however, there is an ethical absolute - a perfect moral standard that is a reflection of the creator then she is musing in an inappropriate manner. If there are moral absolutes one must reason from their revelation not toward them and certainly not attempting to hide from them.
As she goes on to say, the very act of war is, at its heart, barbaric. In times of war, a "civilized" society (at least that part that participates in the war) ceases to be "civilized." In fact, any restraint on killing or otherwise disabling the enemy becomes a liability, counterproductive. Granted, there are constraints that lessen the barbarity -- eschewing torture, humane treatment of prisoners, limited attrition of civilians -- but these are all relative. Nothing you can do to war makes it civilized. So when you fight it, fight it all the way. And win all the way. By ending it as quickly as possible, you can return to a state of civility more quickly. And you win quickly by utterly destroying your enemy's ability to wage war ... mercilessly, efficiently, unceasingly.
Barbarians are always other peoples.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.