Friendly fire killed Pat Tillman. Why did it take over a month for the Army to admit it?
"The results of this investigation in no way diminish the bravery and sacrifice displayed by Cpl. Tillman," said Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., commander of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, who made the surprising announcement in Fort Bragg, N.C.
Vigorous, but irrelevant. I don't think anyone was questioning the bravery of Corporal Tillman, the former NFL starter who gave up celebrity and fortune to become a Ranger. He was brave and idealistic and his sacrifice was irrevocably real.
It's Army's conduct many people should and will question, both in creating a situation were super-skilled Rangers could kill each other with friendly fire, and their delay in revealing the true circumstances of a tragedy. Again. I won't even go into the policy ramifications of diverting priorities (not to mention earmarked millions) from Afghanistan to Iraq. I cringe when I read that line in Sports Illustrated, "Tillman, and the thin detail of Rangers and Afghani fighters in his patrol..."
Over the past five weeks, the U.S. military has received tremendous positive and free publicity, courtesy of the news and entertainment media, as well as the NFL. Don't the actual events leading to Tillman's death demand the opposite - that the military deserves blame? And wouldn't our military have the ethical burden not to benefit from a tragedy it caused, by coming clean as soon as possible?
Or perhaps we should file military ethics under "O", along with military intelligence. Americans, civilian and uniformed alike, deserve better.
The Original Scone Blog (plus some food for thought)
Monday, May 31, 2004
Friday, May 14, 2004
An unjust cause and the trigger effect
"Theophrastus, in his comparison of bad acts - such a comparison as one would make in accordance with the common notions of mankind - says, like a true philosopher, that the offenses which are committed through desire are more blamable than those which are committed through anger. For he who is excited by anger seems to turn away from reason with a certain pain and unconscious contraction; but he who offends through desire, being overpowered with pleasure, seems to be in a manner more intemperate in his offences. Rightly then, and in a way worthy of philosophy, he said that the offense which is committed with pleasure is more blamable than that which is committed with pain; and on the whole the one is more like a person who has been first wronged and through pain is compelled to be angry; but the other is moved by his own impulse to do wrong, being carried toward doing something by desire."
- Meditations, Marcus Aurelius
So many words, intelligent and otherwise, are being written about the torture of prisoners in Iraq. Likewise regarding the execution of Nicholas Berg. I have only the following to say: The second evil does not mitigate the first. On the contrary, the second evil must be added to the evil of the first. Keep in mind that:
1) Had we not tortured the prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Nick Berg would still be alive.
2) Had we shared peacemaking and governing duties with the United Nations, Nick Berg would still be alive.
3) Executioner Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not Iraqi. He was born in Jordan. The Iraqis are innocent people in both situations. Their conduct is not in question.
But here are some questions.
What kind of people are we, and to what depths will we go to achieve our ends? Are we a nation of laws, or not? Do we resolve disputes like civilized people, or not? These questions are doubly important since the powers that be have framed the Iraq War and "war on terror" in terms the superiority of our ideas and culture. If our ideology is what we say it is (Enlightenment, democracy, pluralism, marketplace of ideas) then neither war nor peace can be won by force. But they can be lost through cruelty.
- Meditations, Marcus Aurelius
So many words, intelligent and otherwise, are being written about the torture of prisoners in Iraq. Likewise regarding the execution of Nicholas Berg. I have only the following to say: The second evil does not mitigate the first. On the contrary, the second evil must be added to the evil of the first. Keep in mind that:
1) Had we not tortured the prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Nick Berg would still be alive.
2) Had we shared peacemaking and governing duties with the United Nations, Nick Berg would still be alive.
3) Executioner Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not Iraqi. He was born in Jordan. The Iraqis are innocent people in both situations. Their conduct is not in question.
But here are some questions.
What kind of people are we, and to what depths will we go to achieve our ends? Are we a nation of laws, or not? Do we resolve disputes like civilized people, or not? These questions are doubly important since the powers that be have framed the Iraq War and "war on terror" in terms the superiority of our ideas and culture. If our ideology is what we say it is (Enlightenment, democracy, pluralism, marketplace of ideas) then neither war nor peace can be won by force. But they can be lost through cruelty.
Saturday, May 01, 2004
A city upon a hill
"...for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us..." - John Winthrop, 1630
On Wednesday, I got to hear George Mitchell discuss "America's Role in the World" at UCI. It's a welcome topic, as the people actually leading America today have so few intelligent, or even intelligible, things to say about it.
Mitchell is a former Senate majority leader and chair of the successful peace negotiations in Northern Ireland. So he's a natural authority on the subject of America's role in the world, the substance of which I have roughly transcribed below. During his lecture, he struck me as a kinder and gentler Winthrop, the Puritan who led the Massachusetts Bay Colony with a visionary but iron hand. Mitchell believes America is the best and greatest, but he also recognizes that being a great nation has nothing to do with being a great power. We are a great power, but power should serve our ideals, always.
If people around the world perceive that our greatness is merely the result of our power, and if our power serves interests counter to our ideals, then we're in trouble and we will lose the world. As well we should. He didn't go so far as to draw that conclusion, but maybe that's the optimist in him. Or the pessimist in me.
Over 100 Americans, and many more Iraqis, have died since I last wrote. That makes me so sad. Perhaps, if enough people keep speaking out...
"America's Role in the World" by George J. Mitchell
Most nations aspire to what we call American values:the primacy of individual liberty, equal justice under law, and opportunity for each member of society. However, our policies are opposed by many: specific actions against others, indifference to their plight, and resentment at our place in the world.
I have visited every country in Europe. I asked every European leader that I met with: now that the Soviet Union doesn’t exist, and Russia has withdrawn to its national borders, what should be America's place in their country? They want American forces on their soil. Why? Most want to be on the side of the strong. Power is perceived to be the exclusive basis of American authority. Power is essential for many reasons. But power must serve our ideals.
The United States was a great nation long before it was a great military and economic power. Its greatness began with the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights - the most eloquent and concise document of individual liberty in the world.
People expect our actions to match our stated ideals. There is a widespread perception that this is not true. Regarding war, peace, and terror, we need friends, allies, and international support. Throughout history, the dominant power has overextended itself. Power is most effective when used sparingly and with restraint, but when used, decisively. No challenge is more daunting than terrorism and the prospect of a wider war in the Middle East.
[Mitchell summarized his work on the Northern Ireland Commission, which he chaired.] Three objectives: ending violence, halt the destruction, and return to meaningful negotiations. Commission offered to continue services. Disappointed when this administration did not show interest. Report incorporated into the “Roadmap”. Disappointment when the current administration did not implement their “Roadmap”. We must keep trying until there is peace.
The Palestinians must end incitement of violence, and prosecute those who commit terrorism. The Israelis must order the return of military to their borders, and freeze settlements. But they harbor a “double fantasy” - some Palestinians and many in the Arab world want the removal of the Israeli state. Some Israelis, including some in cabinet, want the physical removal of Palestinian people -every man, woman, and child. The Israelis have a state, need security. Palestinians want a state, that is viable and geographically contiguous.
Violence. Palestinian violence is reprehensible, unacceptable, and politically counterproductive. Nonviolence. There must be available to Palestinians a nonviolent path to their political goals - a state - which a majority on both sides still support. The culture of peace has been totally destroyed over the past few years. Mutual mistrust is total. A majority of Palestinians support the terrorists. A majority of Israelis support “whatever” force.
From my experience in Northern Ireland: there is no such thing as a conflict that cannot be ended.
Iraq. The borders of Iraq were drawn by the British after World War I. A British civil servant drew the lines on a map that created Iraq and Jordan. They were concerned with their immediate political situation, not the history of the region or the desires of its people. They created a territory that never existed before - with the Kurdish in the north, and Sunnis in the South. This land had been separate regions in the Ottoman Empire for 400 years.
The military plan was well planned and executed. The political phase was not. Failing to act as leader of broad international coalition was “so unwise” and so shortsighted. Bush now recognizes that error, and is practically begging the UN to share political responsibility over Iraq. The total disarmament of the Iraq security forces was also unwise. Transfer of limited power will be important, they (Iraqis) must be able to choose for themselves. That’s what self-determination means.
The war on terror cannot be waged solely by military means. This war also requires effective intelligence, coordinated police work, and checks by financial institutions - all of which require international cooperation. George Bush gave a great speech after September 11. When he announced the first arrests, he named the seven cities where they occurred - Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid, etc - only one was in the U.S.
Is World Peace An Impossible Dream? A college student once asked. If by "world peace" one means a complete absence of conflict between and within nations, then yes. World population from 1 AD to 1800 AD increased by 1 billion. Since then has increased by 5 billion. Consequently, more struggle for land, water, natural resources, power. Technology of killing has increased brutality of war. And war drives technology more than anything else. Today's technology allows fewer people, with less skill and resources, to kill more people than ever.
Yet, more freedom, more knowledge, more prosperity, can be the world's future. For example, the Constitution: its authors were constrained by their society and time. They allowed the vote only to adult white men who owned property. Compare to this moment. To expand the definition of what freedom means (i.e., to whom it applies). A dominant power can use its authority to end war, famine, injustice. That is our destiny.
A final anecdote: as a federal judge, my favorite task was to preside over the naturalization ceremony for immigrants, and making them American. My mother was an immigrant, she didn't speak English when she came. My father was the orphan son of immigrants. They were poor, but here they were able to give their children the education they never had. My family's experience reflects the openness of American society. After the ceremony, I would talk with the new citizens, asked them what they thought. Favorite quote, from one Asian man, who said in halting English: here in America, everybody has a chance.
On Wednesday, I got to hear George Mitchell discuss "America's Role in the World" at UCI. It's a welcome topic, as the people actually leading America today have so few intelligent, or even intelligible, things to say about it.
Mitchell is a former Senate majority leader and chair of the successful peace negotiations in Northern Ireland. So he's a natural authority on the subject of America's role in the world, the substance of which I have roughly transcribed below. During his lecture, he struck me as a kinder and gentler Winthrop, the Puritan who led the Massachusetts Bay Colony with a visionary but iron hand. Mitchell believes America is the best and greatest, but he also recognizes that being a great nation has nothing to do with being a great power. We are a great power, but power should serve our ideals, always.
If people around the world perceive that our greatness is merely the result of our power, and if our power serves interests counter to our ideals, then we're in trouble and we will lose the world. As well we should. He didn't go so far as to draw that conclusion, but maybe that's the optimist in him. Or the pessimist in me.
Over 100 Americans, and many more Iraqis, have died since I last wrote. That makes me so sad. Perhaps, if enough people keep speaking out...
"America's Role in the World" by George J. Mitchell
Most nations aspire to what we call American values:the primacy of individual liberty, equal justice under law, and opportunity for each member of society. However, our policies are opposed by many: specific actions against others, indifference to their plight, and resentment at our place in the world.
I have visited every country in Europe. I asked every European leader that I met with: now that the Soviet Union doesn’t exist, and Russia has withdrawn to its national borders, what should be America's place in their country? They want American forces on their soil. Why? Most want to be on the side of the strong. Power is perceived to be the exclusive basis of American authority. Power is essential for many reasons. But power must serve our ideals.
The United States was a great nation long before it was a great military and economic power. Its greatness began with the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights - the most eloquent and concise document of individual liberty in the world.
People expect our actions to match our stated ideals. There is a widespread perception that this is not true. Regarding war, peace, and terror, we need friends, allies, and international support. Throughout history, the dominant power has overextended itself. Power is most effective when used sparingly and with restraint, but when used, decisively. No challenge is more daunting than terrorism and the prospect of a wider war in the Middle East.
[Mitchell summarized his work on the Northern Ireland Commission, which he chaired.] Three objectives: ending violence, halt the destruction, and return to meaningful negotiations. Commission offered to continue services. Disappointed when this administration did not show interest. Report incorporated into the “Roadmap”. Disappointment when the current administration did not implement their “Roadmap”. We must keep trying until there is peace.
The Palestinians must end incitement of violence, and prosecute those who commit terrorism. The Israelis must order the return of military to their borders, and freeze settlements. But they harbor a “double fantasy” - some Palestinians and many in the Arab world want the removal of the Israeli state. Some Israelis, including some in cabinet, want the physical removal of Palestinian people -every man, woman, and child. The Israelis have a state, need security. Palestinians want a state, that is viable and geographically contiguous.
Violence. Palestinian violence is reprehensible, unacceptable, and politically counterproductive. Nonviolence. There must be available to Palestinians a nonviolent path to their political goals - a state - which a majority on both sides still support. The culture of peace has been totally destroyed over the past few years. Mutual mistrust is total. A majority of Palestinians support the terrorists. A majority of Israelis support “whatever” force.
From my experience in Northern Ireland: there is no such thing as a conflict that cannot be ended.
Iraq. The borders of Iraq were drawn by the British after World War I. A British civil servant drew the lines on a map that created Iraq and Jordan. They were concerned with their immediate political situation, not the history of the region or the desires of its people. They created a territory that never existed before - with the Kurdish in the north, and Sunnis in the South. This land had been separate regions in the Ottoman Empire for 400 years.
The military plan was well planned and executed. The political phase was not. Failing to act as leader of broad international coalition was “so unwise” and so shortsighted. Bush now recognizes that error, and is practically begging the UN to share political responsibility over Iraq. The total disarmament of the Iraq security forces was also unwise. Transfer of limited power will be important, they (Iraqis) must be able to choose for themselves. That’s what self-determination means.
The war on terror cannot be waged solely by military means. This war also requires effective intelligence, coordinated police work, and checks by financial institutions - all of which require international cooperation. George Bush gave a great speech after September 11. When he announced the first arrests, he named the seven cities where they occurred - Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid, etc - only one was in the U.S.
Is World Peace An Impossible Dream? A college student once asked. If by "world peace" one means a complete absence of conflict between and within nations, then yes. World population from 1 AD to 1800 AD increased by 1 billion. Since then has increased by 5 billion. Consequently, more struggle for land, water, natural resources, power. Technology of killing has increased brutality of war. And war drives technology more than anything else. Today's technology allows fewer people, with less skill and resources, to kill more people than ever.
Yet, more freedom, more knowledge, more prosperity, can be the world's future. For example, the Constitution: its authors were constrained by their society and time. They allowed the vote only to adult white men who owned property. Compare to this moment. To expand the definition of what freedom means (i.e., to whom it applies). A dominant power can use its authority to end war, famine, injustice. That is our destiny.
A final anecdote: as a federal judge, my favorite task was to preside over the naturalization ceremony for immigrants, and making them American. My mother was an immigrant, she didn't speak English when she came. My father was the orphan son of immigrants. They were poor, but here they were able to give their children the education they never had. My family's experience reflects the openness of American society. After the ceremony, I would talk with the new citizens, asked them what they thought. Favorite quote, from one Asian man, who said in halting English: here in America, everybody has a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)