How is a bullet better than poison gas?

Imagine how you would react if China launched their version of cruise missiles at Israeli military targets because the Chinese Government did not approve of the way the Israelis had conducted a military operation in the West Bank.  You would probably be outraged, right?

Now tell me why the United States has any standing to launch a punitive attack against Syrian forces in the wake of their likely use of chemical weapons on Syrian rebel-held territory.  How has it come about that we have appointed ourselves in charge of punishing nations who do things the global community of nations disapproves of?

If the world is outraged by the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the world should do something about it—not just the United States.

And while I am ranting, how are chemical weapons different from more traditional ways of brutally killing your own citizens?  The Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad has killed between 20,000 and 40,000 rebel fighters.  The rebels have killed near 30,000 Syrian soldiers and police.  By all accounts, more than 100,000 civilians have been killed in the fighting. 

How are the deaths of those 100,000 children, men, and women any more acceptable than the deaths of the 1000 killed by a chemical agent last week?  This distinction between conventional weapons and chemical weapons is stupid.  Weapons are weapons and dying is dying. 

President Obama and those who support a limited strike on Syrian military capacity say they are sending a message that the use of chemical weapons crosses the line.  I would agree that a limited strike does send a message.  But I would also argue that supporters leave the second half of the message it sends unstated.

“The use of chemical weapons crosses a line—that the use of old-fashioned bullets, landmines, mortars, and shells does not cross, so you should feel free to rain those more traditional weapons down on civilians all you want.”  Is this really the message President Obama—and the rest of the world—wants to send?

I have no solution here.  In an ideal world, the UN would be unanimous in its condemnation of the Syrian regime and all of their actions against civilians.  It would also deplore any rebel actions aimed at civilians.  The UN has proven time and again to be a terribly flawed and mostly powerless institution when it comes to preventing violence.  

But this is far from an ideal world and bad actors have forever, (and probably will always), use whatever means at their disposal when they are feeling like they are out of options.  For the United States to have any credibility, we need to either stand up for innocents EVERY time governments use any weapons against them or we need to be much more cold-hearted and practical and respond only when our self-interest as a nation is at stake in a real and strategic way.  Our selective moral outrage drives me crazy and only serves to lessen our credibility around the world.

A weapon is a weapon, whether it be a suicide bomb strapped to the belly of a 12-year old girl, a drone-launched missile fired at a Land Rover in the desert around Marib in Yemen, a smallpox-infected blanket left as a gift for relocated Native Americans, or Sarin gas deployed against a town in Syria.  The people who die, die.  One way is not any more morally reprehensible than another to me.

I hope in the coming days President Obama will see the futility of any sort of military strike against the Syrian regime.  But I doubt it.

To Pee or Not To Pee?

“It is absolutely inconsistent with American values, with the standards of behavior that we expect from our military personnel.” US Secraetary of State Hillary Clinton

“This act by American soldiers is simply inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms.” Afghan President Hamid Karzai

“No religion in the world will allow someone to do this…” Taliban Spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi

By now you probably know what could unite Hillary Clinton, Hamid Karzai, and Qari Yousuf Ahmadi. Several US Marines urinated on some dead Taliban fighters in Helmand Province in Afghanistan. Someone on the scene filmed the actions of these soldiers. Someone then posted the video online, thus ensuring it will live forever. As evidenced by the quotations above, reaction around the world has been swift and near-unanimous condemnation of the actions of these young American soldiers.

People are shocked and horrified.

I have to be honest—I am shocked and horrified, too. But my shock and horror are of a different flavor than most. A soldier peeing on a dead enemy fighter is immature. Another soldier filming soldiers peeing on dead enemy fighters is perverse. Posting the video where anyone could see soldiers peeing on dead enemy fighters is ill-considered.

But I would argue that none of these actions is “inhuman.” In fact, it is ONLY humans who do this sort of thing. We always have and probably always will. Read the ancient Greeks. What did Achilles do when he killed Hector? He tied him up to a chariot and dragged his corpse around for all to see. Have you read or seen Black Hawk Down? What did the Iraqis do to the bodies of the contractors they caught in Fallujah back near the beginning of President Bush’s invasion of Iraq? For as long as there have been wars, there have been men (mostly) treating the bodies of the enemy in ways that are disrespectful.

In fact, it seems unfair to expect otherwise. Take a young soldier, train him to kill, immerse him in a situation that breeds hate and contempt, order him to kill, and then expect him to treat the hated enemy’s body with respect? That is asking a lot.

What amazes me about the behavior of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the great majority of these young men and women DO rise to the occasion and DO treat the bodies of dead enemies with respect. It is a real testament to their training and their character that incidents like this are few and far between. I am in no way excusing what those Marines did in Helmand—it was stupid and will have repercussions far beyond Afghanistan.

The shock and horror I have been feeling the past few days have been rooted in the fact that humans are still solving problems between groups the same way we did 5000 years ago. And instead of using our prodigious intellects to think our way around war, we have been making up rules for the “civilized” prosecution of our wars. Government officials, citizens, soldiers, and Taliban spokesmen are all upset that some dead fighters were peed on by some live soldiers, but no one seems upset by the fact that the live soldiers shot and killed the dead ones to begin with. Which is worse: that some living American soldiers urinated on some dead Taliban fighters, or that some Americans and some Afghanis who don’t even know each other are trying to kill each other?

As I said, I am not trying to minimize the stupidity and callousness of what those Marines did in Helmand. But I do wish Hillary Clinton, Hamid Karzai, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, John McCain, and all the others who were so shocked and horrified by the actions of those Marines would step back and take a moment to think about which is worse: Killing someone or peeing on his corpse? These Marines certainly deserve some blame, but our species’ continued reliance on warfare to “solve” problems is the real culprit here, not a 23-year old grunt.