War on the Poor

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

The ongoing operations in Libya (and its attendant political ambiguity wrt Ghadaffi), as well as the recent killing of Osama bin Laden have brought an issue to to my mind. When we usually speak of "war on the poor", we generally concentrate on domestic political and economic actions. Historically speaking, however, the "war on the poor" has been entrenched deeply into martial conflict. The inherent classism involved in war is best expressed by the "civilized" standard of not "assassinating" foreign leaders.

This ideal originated in the aristocratic past, reflecting a sort of Mafia-esque code of thieves about not targeting certain privileged positions. For instance, it is entirely ok to "assassinate" sleeping guards or sleeping soldiers in foxholes on the battlefield. Special operations that slip behind enemy lines by slitting throats of sleeping enemies go quite uncriticized. Nobody complains about the "unseemliness" of drilling a private in the back of the head as his tired 18-year old self catches a few winks while on watch.

And yet before the historical modernization and bureaucratization of ruling individuals, kings and lords were considered fair game on the battlefield. I mean, they were actually there a lot of the time, and the rulers led their armies personally. But now? Now we are generally led to believe that these people need to be "protected". Even though such a thing is really quite new, in the grand historical scope of things.

And yet, evidently, we've gone and "assassinated" Osama bin Laden, and now people are wondering about the "morality" of drilling an unarmed man with a bullet to the skull. In my opinion, this is just opportunistic political whining, designed more to sustain a particular narrative, than it is any sort of serious critique.

Perhaps I'm biased, and don't think that certain actors in war should be given a shield of "civilized" restraint. In the end it doesn't matter anyways... we bomb the shit out of things trying to kill each others leaders. But sneaking a SEAL Team in to drill a political leader in his sleep? All of a sudden we've crossed a line somewhere.

I don't like it. We are all human beings of equal worth, and if we can happily drill 18 year old privates whether or not they are unarmed or sleeping, we sure as hell can drill "important" people in much the same way.

Of course, "civilized" has always meant a historically entrenched double-standard, and none of this is new. Political leaders are, of course, highly motivated to bandy about "civilized" standards of conduct while simultaneously fire-bombing, gassing or generally slaughtering thousands and thousands of people. This is old hat. It was quite a Marxist point of contention for a while there-- at least until the Marxists had "important" people who needed "civilized" standards as well.

So, in conclusion, as a liberal I find myself generally at odds with my fellow political compatriots. Morally speaking, I can find little distinction between "nice wars" and "uncivilized wars" where political leaders get killed as a matter of course.

Comments

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The inherent classism involved in war is best expressed by the "civilized" standard of not "assassinating" foreign leaders.

This occurred to me last night when watching "Alexander". During a battle, he attacks the Persian leader on horseback throwing a spear and threatening his life.

How rare is that today?

You've also touched on the odd distinction between civilian and soldier.

My Marine friend is a legitimate target, but not me? He only took the job cause he had nothing else to gain (or lose) in my old neighborhood. Suddenly he's expendable? Not right.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Even more interesting than him being a legit target, and not you: political leaders committing to war do not commit themselves (for another movie reference, think Leonidas in "300"). There's no risk, due to the prohibition against assassination.

To me, the most moral war is that which ends as swiftly as possible. In some cases (perhaps Qadaffi?) an assassination is the best tactic to actually achieve the goal.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

This occurred to me last night when watching "Alexander".

That movie got so much shit; but I liked it a lot. I should see if it's on HBO.Go or Netflix ;) Thanks for reminding me to watch it again.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The directors release is much improved over the theatrical release. There are still some flaws and all, but I couldn't take my eyes away.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Isn't the director's cut shorter?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Not sure. Its on two discs.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Modern war doesn't work this way, though. Armies are too big to be led by a single leader and battles are too large for any one set of generals to co-ordinate. The last leader of a modern country to directly lead an army in wartime was Napoleon VII. It did not end well for Nappy.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it should work that way, and as you said, peace would come back by popular demand of the comfortable generals in leather chairs.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It would certainly give politics more of an entertaining edge, that's for sure. ;P

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

To be fair, your marine friend can probably operate a rifle and other weaponry (quite efficiently I'd imagine) that can kill.

Can you?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

No, I can't. I see your point from a military standpoint, but not from a moral one.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You cannot see the connection?

Killing armed and trained soldiers is not the same as unarmed and untrained civilians.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Good point, but to be the devil's advocate... isn't one of the reasons why leaders are protected to prevent outsized retaliation? Or at lest to manage the consequences of the retaliation?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

See also WW1.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ironically Franz Josef really didn't give a damn when he learned the Archduke was dead. The motivation for going to war with Serbia was to punish its leaders for their successes and as it turned out instead of a rapid Austrian punitive campaign the result was a lengthy coalition war and the fall of the Habsburg Empire.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I anticipated this reply. I'm curious why there exists the myth about the assassination being a root cause?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because it *was* the immediate cause of the war of 1914. The death of Ferdinand triggered the alliance system and thus general war. The underlying nature of the War to End All War was German fear of what Russia might become and Russia's desire to prove itself worth something after revolution and defeat at the hands of Japan. Ferdinand's death and Austria-Hungary's agenda was just the pawn of Germany and Russia, and Germany's timetables made general war inevitable.

All the same, no grilled cheese sandwich of doom, no general war in 1914.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

no grilled cheese sandwich of doom,

Hahaha!!!!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The (YMMRV) great thing is I'm not exaggerating, the Archduke survived two attempts before his driver took a wrong turn at the corner where Princip had finished his sandwich and fired twice. To make matters even worse the Archduke had a functional bulletproof vest that worked everywhere but the neck.....and so he was shot in the neck. God has a nasty, nasty sense of humor.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Wasn't it a chicken sandwich?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, it was grilled cheese.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I've always thought if the world leaders had to settle these issues in gladiator matches world peace might be inevitable.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

But then evolutionary pressures would make it a matter of course that all our leaders would be, say, current or former members of Seal Team 6 or #insert incredible variant of tough guy here#.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

A friend had an odd view of the mid-90s Russian legislator based on that old video of the Duma fight (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/30/230711.shtml). Basically he proposed that the lower house by composed entirely of very scary ex-mafia hitmen, and the upper house made up of economists and skinny folks in glasses. So the upper house makes policy, and the lower house... er... "enforces" it.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That's an amusing imagine.

Reminds me of Plato and the Guardians.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And then we end up going back to medieval times and no more large-scale wars for a few centuries.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

w00 neoserfdom!!!

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Canada, lead by President Georges St. Pierre, would invade the US.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Lol...

I wouldn't even be mad .;)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would note on a serious level, however that there *was* terrorism of a Leftist sort targeted at world leaders in the late 19th Century, among the people killed by them were the Empress of Austria, the King of Italy, Emperor Alexander II, President McKinley, and those unfortunate enough to be near the bomb-blasts.

The result was instead of McKinley Theodore Roosevelt, Sisi replaced by Franz Josef's younger mistress, Umberto I replaced by Victor Emmanuel III, and Alexander II by Alexander III. Aside from this not one thing changed. It was precisely the kind of thing you speak of, a war against the leader of the state as opposed to civilians or soldiers and it did jack shit.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

And yet, evidently, we've gone and "assassinated" Osama bin Laden

I don't know that we can call killing Osama bin Laden an assassination. It's not like he was a head of state of a recognized country.

To me, it would seem more like taking out the head of a street gang.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Mirriam Webster says Assassination is:

To murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack, often for political reasons.

That would seem apropos.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

a usually prominent person

I still don't buy assassination in a political sense. I don't think he was a prominent person. Infamous yes, but not prominent. I would classify this as a summary execution of someone who, no doubt, deserved it as a military option.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I'd disagree, but then we're really just quibbling over definitions, not whether it was justified or not.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Depends on if he was murdered or just killed.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Mere being killed presumes that it was actually lawful under Pakistani law for the U.S. forces to be there in the first place and to do what they did. Not that I have any sympathy for him whatsoever or think they shouldn't have done what they did, but I seriously doubt it was legal.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I certainly understand this isn't about sympathy for OBL or wanting the terrorists to win, there are some legit questions.

I guess we'll see what happens. The United Nations Secretary-General seems to be happy with things, as is Amnesty International. Several of the folks who are complaining in the articles below are saying that this should have been brought up before the UN Security Council, which doesn't seem at all practical. If this is the alternative, I guess I'm pro-assasination... which I find kind of strange.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0502/Was-it-legal-for-the-US-commandos-to-kill-Osama-bin-Laden

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-killing-legality

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Well put!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I think the people who are against us killing OBL unarmed without trial are doing so because they are against the death penalty and/or want to see a trial convict him before execution.

The first is moral and the second is principled.

I'm not saying I agree with those; I do sorta understand em though.

/two cents

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And they're idiots as there'd be no means for a fair trial. You'd have a show trial and that in itself would have some.....interesting....results as far as how people would react to it. The Republicans might be all for it, the Dems against it.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Although there is the usual uncertainty about such claims, the news I read said that the U.S. government specifically claimed that Osama was killed in a firefight and they were prepared to capture if possible.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

One might think MLK Jr, Malcom X, and JFK being vulnerable to targeting implies highly trained terrorists would be able to accomplish the same.

Its possible Osama Bin Laden's demise will trigger a shift in tactics, and that those in positions of leadership will bear the brunt.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Erm, JFK was shot by a nutbar who had defected to Moscow and returned bent on killing one of the great Cold Warriors, turning him into a martyr instead.

Malcolm X was killed because he'd left Elijah Muhammad's black supremacist cult and was an activist for black equality, not black supremacy.

MLK Jr. was killed by a racist who admired Ian Smith (aka Mugabe's white equivalent).

None of those assassins had anything approaching mental stability, the last assassin to have that kind of thing was the guy who shot James Garfield because he didn't get the job he wanted.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Assassination.

So easy: untrained, amateur, wackos could do it.

What could a pro could achieve?

If Bin Laden's death causes Al Qaeda to switch their focus from civilians to leaders -- we may find out.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If an assassin is bent enough on killing another person that person will die regardless of what people do. As with the Narodnaya Volyna who thought that murdering the Tsar liberator would bring utopia, the result will be that Alexander II becomes Alexander III and nothing more. Or in this case person X is succeeded by person Y and shit goes downhill for both sides from there.

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

But sneaking a SEAL Team in to drill a political leader in his sleep? All of a sudden we've crossed a line somewhere.

Well we've got the whole thing of America not asking permission to carry out it's military operations in other countries (as per usual). Then there's the whole shooting an unarmed man in the head in front of his wives and children. Does that make us better or worse than the enemy?

Of course the real reason the US shot was because they could never allow what he knew about the CIA funding terrorist organisations to come into the public domain. Right at this moment they're busily funding organisations where the successors to Bin Laden will spring up in ten, twenty years time.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And also the successors to the Northern Alliance. There *was* an ongoing civil war when the USA invaded, and the people fighting Bin Laden who were already there were as much products of Reagan as OBL himself was. Al-Qaeda was de facto re-inforcement for the Pakistani College Students From HellTM. Did the Northern Alliance get Quesadaed?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Well we've got the whole thing of America not asking permission to carry out it's military operations in other countries (as per usual).
That's up to Pakistan. We don't get to decide how they react.

Then there's the whole shooting an unarmed man in the head in front of his wives and children. Does that make us better or worse than the enemy?
Oh bourgeois liberals... everything is nuanced until it isn't.

Of course the real reason the US shot was because they could never allow what he knew about the CIA funding terrorist organisations to come into the public domain.
What would he know? Oh wait, you're just making that up.

Right at this moment they're busily funding organisations where the successors to Bin Laden will spring up in ten, twenty years time.
Red herring, and excrutiatingly irrelevant to OBL. What does he know? What do you know that he knows? Nothing, of course. But it sure sounds like a nice story!