By now most people have heard about the U.S. airstrike in a remote section of Pakistan on Friday. Immediately after the airstrike of a house where a dinner party (which may have been celebrating Eid al-Adha) was taking place, there were whispers that that among the dead may have been Al Qaeda’s number two himself, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was the intended target. By yesterday morning officials were saying that the initial missile (probably launched by an unmanned Predator) must have just missed his departure, or perhaps he hadn’t shown up yet. Today all hell has broken loose:
U.S. television networks CNN and ABC cited sources saying that unmanned U.S. drones had fired missiles at the village of Damadola, some 200 kilometers northwest of Islamabad. Their target: top Al-Qaeda figures believed to be in the area, including Osama bin Laden’s No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Those reports said it’s possible al-Zawahiri was killed in the strike. If officially confirmed, al-Zawahiri would be the most senior Al-Qaeda figure captured or killed so far.
However, unnamed senior officials in Pakistan told Reuters and AP that al-Zawahiri was not present at the site of the attack.
And angry villagers in Damadola have also denied al-Zawahiri was there and thousands were today protesting the strike in a nearby town. [Link]
Later came came confirmation that al-Zawahiri never showed up:
Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader was invited to dinner at one of the houses struck by a purported CIA airstrike on a Pakistani border village, but he did not show up, a newspaper and intelligence officials said Sunday…On Sunday, the Dawn newspaper quoted unidentified senior Pakistani officials as saying al-Zawahri had been asked to dinner in Damadola along with two clerics…
A Pakistani intelligence official said al-Zawahri might have been in the area to meet with his wife, who is from the Mahmoond tribe that is predominant there, for last week’s Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha. [Link]
This strike marks the most visible instance where the U.S. has undeniably violated Pakistani sovereignty and it puts the General in a precarious political position:
In a statement, the Foreign Ministry condemned the loss of civilian lives and said it had delivered an official protest to the American ambassador in Islamabad. The information minister, Sheik Rashid Ahmed, said in Islamabad that the government wanted “to assure the people we will not allow such incidents to reoccur,” The Associated Press reported…On Saturday, a Central Intelligence Agency spokesman declined to comment on any raid that might have taken place. The agency is known to operate armed Predator aircraft, but the missions remain classified and are not generally acknowledged by the C.I.A…
President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan mentioned the attacks during a meeting on Saturday with officials from the town of Sawabi, according to a local reporter. He was quoted as saying: “We are looking into it, as to who has done it. We are looking into it, that there were people who came from outside.”
Thousands of tribesmen, led by a local parliamentarian, protested the killings on Saturday, chanting anti-American and anti-government slogans in the town of Khaar, the central administrative center of Bajaur. [Link]
Just two days ago I watched the MTV documentary Aftershock and was feeling pretty good about the U.S. military’s campaign to win hearts and minds in rural Pakistan where many militants come from. This incident unravels everything. If I were an aid worker in Pakistan right now I would probably start watching my back. When the Bush administration failed to find Osama and his #2 in the year or two following 9/11 they started arguing that these two men weren’t that important and that in reality Al Qaeda the organization had been dealt a crushing blow. At the time most people attributed such excuses to failure, and they probably were just excuses. Now, a few years later, I am beginning to reconsider. It is true that if the airstrike had succeeded we’d all be jumping for joy right now. But it failed. And in failing it has dealt us a major blow in the “War on Terror.” Is one or two men, largely isolated, worth the extreme risk (in terms of losing hearts and minds) that we sometimes take in bagging them? Villagers in the area claim to have seen the Predator overhead for several days. It would only seem logical that al-Zawahri might stay away. I have a strong belief that a patient hand will eventually be able to deliver justice to an evil heart. America should never stop trying to kill Bin Laden and all of his lieutenants. However, I hope someone at the top sees that if you break too many eggs you aren’t going to enjoy your omelet.
See more pictures of protests against America in Pakistan.
“It’s not exactly the most idealistic philosophy to aspire to. Let me flip this around:”
It is idealistic…it’s based on my rational self interest, and as I said before, that not a bad thing
As for the rest of what you say, you dropped the context of this disscussion entirely: we are talking about the context of war, where a tough choice may have to be made, where priorities actually have to be assessed, and where innocent civilians unfortunately do die, no matter hard one tries and how much care is taken. And of course there is a “fundamental value [of] each human life… regardless of their location and status in the world” If everybody believed that, there would be no war in the first place, and no discussion would be necessary. Look at the discussion again; this discussion is deeper than the fact that “charismatic, brilliant, ethical, and inspirational leadership, etc. is necessary” and that fact that war should “be in self-defense and not to gain territory, resources, or wealth.” The context is already defined, so if you have anything substantial/illumating to add, let me know.
(an interesting and substantial point of view on the subject can be found here: http://angermanagement.mu.nu/archives/109692.html )
PCM,
Every single thing I included in my previous post has real-life precedents — individuals and groups espousing exactly this mindset, and engaged in warfare for exactly the reasons I stated, using exactly those military strategies. We’re not talking about purely hypothetical scenarios. Successfully achieving victory using ethical warfare tactics, combined with the aim to “win hearts & minds”, is not a new idea.
You may well be able to rationalise your view that one life is worth more than another, and possibly that the ends justify the means, but engaging in such self-serving arguments still doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the morally-correct attitude to take — even if you’ve managed to convince yourself otherwise.
Interesting article, but again: very self-serving logic. It also veers dangerously into the kind of mindset followed by OBL/Al-Qaeda (and their supporters), ie. espousing “collective responsibility/group guilt”, and that citizens of enemy states should also suffer for the perceived crimes of their leaders.
My original arguments still stand.
“It also veers dangerously into the kind of mindset followed by OBL/Al-Qaeda (and their supporters), ie. espousing “collective responsibility/group guilt”, and that citizens of enemy states should also suffer for the perceived crimes of their leaders.”
I find my “mindset” (aka philosophic standing) the exact opposite than of collectivism or Islamofascism. My “mindset” ultimately derives from my rational, individual self interest, not Allah’s, society’s, etc. Its derived from my responsibility to secure my liberty in response to a government that had stepped beyond its proper bounds by violating my individual rights, and even the rights of its own innocent civilians.
…and if a rational self interest, is, according to you, not the morally correct position in a war, than I am guessing you must be, in reality, against targeted missle and bomb attacks against enemies in civilian areas of any kind, even in World War II. And, in this war, since terrorists are often in civilian areas, we should pretty much do away with bombs of any kind. Am I right? If so, fair enough.
Jai is a good example of the degeneration and collapse of the post-modern left:
“Nobody’s life is worth more than another’s, no matter what, and regardless of how one may attempt to rationalise or justify it.”
No life is valued above any other… not a cop above Ted Bundy’s, not yours or mine over Osama’s. Note what’s missing in this picture – any form of moral distinction. The cloaking of the view in a pious faux-morality that demands a perfection (cynically known in advance to be unrealistic) tends to hide this, until one considers the implications.
The notable fact that this leaves one as the undefended prey of any and every human predator out there is glossed over by this professed view, and may even be a feature rather than a bug for those who espouse it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I’m a Sikh; do some research on Sikh history, the affiliated saint-soldier ideal, and (most importantly) the life and actions of a certain gentleman called Guru Gobind Singh (who lived and died by exactly the kind of military/humanitarian principles I’ve described in my last few posts here), and you’ll be able to place my views into their proper context.
Every single thing I’ve said is fundamentally part of the Khalsa (google it) ethos on achieving victory via ethical warfare. And, as I mentioned earlier, there are major precedents for this along with a number of current world events.
I trust that this will clear up any confusion that may be present…..
Let me briefly supplement the message above with a well-known quote by the person I have mentioned regarding the use of force:
“In a righteous cause, when all other ethical means have been exhausted, it is lawful to draw the sword”.
My point is that it is not violence per se which is immoral; in fact, in certain situations it is the only possible solution. However, what is important is the reason for using it and the methods by which it is deployed (ie. the means are as important as the ends).
” ‘In a righteous cause, when all other ethical means have been exhausted, it is lawful to draw the sword’ …My point is that it is not violence per se which is immoral; in fact, in certain situations it is the only possible solution”
Fine then, let’s “place your views into their proper context”: war, with terrorists in civilian areas of an enemy country
…if your ‘sword’ is the bomb, then a discussion wasn’t necessary.
Pakistan is nominally an ally. This operation would’ve been a CIA body snatch if conducted in Europe, but because it’s in a less-developed country, we just lob a missile. Imprecise and racist.
Good point, but I’m guessing a CIA ‘body snatch’ in Europe sounds less risky than in the northern regions of Pakistan. Anyway, the context was “war, with terrorists in civilian areas of an enemy country”, and I’m still wondering what the ‘sword’ is, according to the Khalsa ethos.
“This operation would’ve been a CIA body snatch if conducted in Europe, but because it’s in a less-developed country, we just lob a missile. Imprecise and racist.”
It’s racist to attack a less developed country? Didn’t know that.
PCM means pico-cranial mind? Didn’t know that.
Enlighten me then
The ‘sword’ is a metaphor for the use of force. The exact weaponry depends on the specific situation.
Manish has actually inadvertantly summarised my own viewpoint (and, incidentally, the Khalsa teachings in this matter) in his new thread “Tactics”. The key point is precision. You utilise every possible means to deal with the situation while minimising the risk to innocent, unarmed civilians caught in the crossfire. Which means special ops units, siege tactics, and so on. More difficult than just indiscriminately firing a missile/dropping a bomb, certainly, but more ethical, and in the long-run it’s a hell of a lot more effective.
Maintaining the higher moral ground (irrespective of how far into the gutter the enemy goes with regards to their own ruthlessness) has the following effects:
It’s racist if you use heavy-handed tactics that you certainly would not deploy under similar circumstances in either your own country or in another “developed” nation, especially if one believes that their lives are worth less than your own purely as a result of their underdeveloped status.
The latter is a dangerous step towards the road to fascism — which is particularly pertinent in view of PCM’s own views on his blog that concepts such as altruism and caring for the needy are “evil”.
As Manish explains pretty clearly, differential tolerance for collateral casualties is racist. A third world life should be worthy of the same regard as a first world one.
Well if pakistan allowed US ground forces to clear the mess it wouldnt be so! If pakistan allowed US ground forces in pakistan, US would clear alquaida quite swiftly and more humanely(its relative) its hard to tell who is inside a building from outside, but smoke all of them out and see who is who. Then the question may shift to manhandling civilians or destruction of property but that is less evil than killing innocent beings. Pakistanis are more pissed this time b/c it looks like US took the action without ISIs consultation. Which goes back to what the US has been worried about, how much to trust the intelligence coming from ISI. Mussharrafs game is to (a) Keep as much influence over afghanistan as possible. Pakistan has allways wanted leverage in afghanistan and its not happy that its lost it. Karzai is a curios fellow and he may again look towards pakistan at a later day. But as of now the pakistani influence is limited in afghanistan. (b) delay on kashmir till pakistan is in better position. It has been handicapped now with the world opinion against terrorism and also internal pakistani economic issues. The strategy is to wait and negotiate later when it is more powerful (c)Get as much US$ as possible. He had asked for aid in excess of 30 billion. This is why musharaf will not allow US ground troops and intelligence operatives inside pakistan. If they come on ground and clear Alquaida(and also his other jihadis who he may need against india) without giving him the resource to develop the military, From his perspective thats a bad deal. He wants resources that will improve the military substantialy(and allow him to keep the jihadi infrastructure intact for use against india). It is the zia strategy adopted for a new war. He has performed superbly so far.
“Maintaining the higher moral ground (irrespective of how far into the gutter the enemy goes with regards to their own ruthlessness) has the following effects”
At least we now agree now that a moral distinction has to be made before even a very precise action, which is quite different than what you said before: Nobody’s life is worth more than another’s, no matter what, and regardless of how one may attempt to rationalise or justify it . “No matter what” means “irregardless of context.”
You mention the term “indiscriminate firing of a missile/dropping a bomb”…well, that’s exactly what would happen if you don’t make a moral distinction. Anyway, the more interesting question is, and which is the question we have ultimately been discussing all along, is: what is the moral distinction between yourself, innocent civilians of your own country, and innocent civilians of an enemy government, in the context of a war?
And by the way, I see your point when you mention people who “believe that their lives are worth less than your own purely as a result of their underdeveloped status”, but that’s not “racism”; I think you may be confusing it with another term.
And, by the way, “caring for the needy = “evil””? Where’d I say that? And before you misrepresent me any further, what’s your definition of altruism? Make your definition clear: is it the same as mine? Heres a definition I agree with: http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Altruism.html
No, you misinterpreted my earlier statement. “No matter what” means that one human’s intrinsic worth is fundamentally the same as another’s, and that you should not diminish the worth of foreign citizens in enemy territory purely because they live in distant locations. However, this should not stop one from using appropriate means to stop a malicious individual from terrorising/persecuting/attacking you or another innocent third-party. The point is that the extent of the response should be in proportion to the transgression, limited to the extent required to prevent the attacker from continuing their malicious actions (in the most extreme cases this limit will of course be “terminal”, especially in the context of warfare), and not cross the line into excessive brutality or sadism. And, as repeatedly mentioned previously, you go out of your way to make sure that unarmed, innocent civilians are not injured, ie. no collateral damage, and certainly no “collective guilt” or “guilt by association”.
There is no moral distinction.
May I remind you that Osama Bin Laden uses exactly the kind of logic stipulated in the earlier lionk you supplied in order to justify 9/11 and continued Al-Qaeda-affiliated attacks (and threats) against civilians.
Topic: Interpretations.
Extract: “the philosophic axis of evil: altruism, collectivism, and mysticism. In India, these ideas have created a culture of extortion, anti-individualism, and dehumanization.”
(Extract continued):
“These ideas have trickled down through the generations and have created a herd mentality, ultimately making each human being a disposable, expendable member of a collective group (Mother nature, a race/ethnic/tribal group, the needy, etc.).
This is completely wrong. There are multiple scientific sources available to refute your statement, but here’s a good paper which gives a particularly thorough answer: http://biology.binghamton.edu/dwilson/Wilson%20publications/DSW01.pdf
Pages 11 (near the bottom) onwards are particularly relevant.
The definition you have referenced is an excessively black-&-white interpretation of altruism. An interesting discussion with some alternative definitions can be found here.
My own definition ? The following two from the quoted website:
being helpful to other people with little or no interest in being rewarded for one’s efforts (the colloquial definition). This is distinct from merely helping others.
an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help others, if necessary to the exclusion of one’s own interest or benefit. One who holds such a doctrine is known as an “altruist.”
However, altruism in the Sikh context would be the most accurate description of my own interpretation of the concept. You would have to understand the basic tenets of the faith along with some of the history in order to understand what this precisely involves.
“disposable, expendable member of a collective group (Mother nature, a race/ethnic/tribal group, the needy, etc.).”
“caring for the needy” and becoming a disposable, expendable member of a collective group such as the needy are very different things. And evidence has also shown that becoming a disposable, expendable member of anything does not allow a human being live in this world happily and successfully, especially when humans are recognized as entities who are different from animals. As far as your article is concerned, the differences between ecological/ecological/evolutionary definitions of altruism vs. the definition I provided gets into a very different discussion altogether than the one we have been having (though I have to admit, it would be a very interesting discussion!) But back to the point: since you were quoting my blog without using the definition that I assume in blog, it was a misrepresentation nonetheless.
“You’re ignoring the fact that Indian society isn’t necessarily based on the contents of the Bhagavat Gita, and hasn’t been for a very long time indeed. Moreover, there have been huge cultural influences from other, originally non-Indian groups and religions over the past 1000 years. Blaming everything that’s wrong with Indian society on the Gita is the wrong conclusion to make”
More misrepresentations? I do not blame everying that’s wrong with Indian society on the Gita, but rather saying that certain philosophical interpretations of the Gita, when manifested in reality, have not had a positive effect on the country. I see the Gita with a lot more positive potential for the country if a more individualistic interpretation of the book is made.
“You would have to understand the basic tenets of the faith along with some of the history in order to understand what this precisely involves”
I am thinking that you have to understand the basic tenets of my philosophic standing in order to understand what this precisely involves, too.
Jai: You say that there is no moral distinction between your life, innocent civilians of your own country, and innocent civilians of an enemy government, in the context of a war.
Ah, now that gets to the real crux of the matter: In a war where terrorists hide within the civilian population, giving these civilians the same exact moral regard as your own life makes the war unwinnable. If the risk of killing a civilian, who you value as much as yourself, carries the same risk as killing yourself, then why fight in the first place?
In other words, since values are that which we seek to achieve or maintain according to our life as the standard of evaluation, and if someone elses life also equally becomes the standard in our evaluation, as you seem to think, we should be seeking to maintain his life just as much as ours. So why fight to preserve what I value (my life)?
…This war requires your life to be of the ultimate value, not the life of a random innocent civilian of an enemy country (that is, if you want to win the war).
PCM,
I apologise if your actual intentions were different to what you seemed to be inferring in your blog. However, it may be worthwhile for you to perhaps be more specific in future when there are potentially multiple definitions of certain terms (eg. altruism), in order to prevent any misunderstandings by other parties reading your blog (which, incidentally, is very well-written, even though I obviously don’t agree with several of the major points you make there).
Not quite — note that I edited your quote in my previous post. I did not mention “my own life” as a theoretical combatant — I was referring only to unarmed civilians on both sides.
No. If your cause is just, then the continuation of your own life is more important than that of an enemy combatant, assuming that you are fighting him in self-defence or to protect the lives of innocent parties that the enemy combatant is attacking. However, the life of an innocent civilian is not yours to take and must be protected as far as possible, because he is not fighting you.
Let me wrap this up with a pertinent historical example (I suspect you may think that “times have changed” and that this analogy isn’t necessarily relevent, but we’ll have to agree to disagree there). Guru Gobind Singh was engaged in protracted armed conflict with the military-political authorities of the Mughal Empire in order to protect Sikhs from a genocidal “convert or die” jihad, and simultaneously to prevent the rest of the Indian population from being forcibly converted to Islam. The soldiers which eventually comprised his army consisted of ordinary men and women, up against fanatical professional soldiers from what was then one of the most powerful military, political and economic superpowers on the planet. The Empire was also ruled at the time by someone with an identical ideology to OBL — imagine OBL at the head of the unified Middle Eastern caliphate that he dreams of, with all the associated resources at his disposal, and you’ll get the idea. Nevertheless, the Sikh armies, headed by Guru Gobind Singh, used exactly the same tactics and mindset that I have been describing on this thread, were engaged in 14 major battles and lost only 2 of them — which is a success rate approaching 90%. Now, I wouldn’t expect you (or any other non-Sikh) to be concerned with the religious angle here, but even looked at from a purely military or historical perspective, that makes the Guru a truly brilliant military strategist and “leader of men”, considering the type of people who were his “raw material”, the ethical warfare tactics he used (even though the enemy combatants and their leaders had no such scruples — they had no problem with the idea of deliberatly killing civilians, including children, along with engaging in horrific torture and espousing the policy of “collective guilt/guilt by association”), and the fact that not only did enemy historians concede to his higher moral credibility, large numbers of Muslims actually joined forces with him to fight against what they perceived as a morally-corrupt jihad, and there were even instances of senior Mughal generals switching sides in the middle of battles because of the righteousness of his cause and the impeccable ethics of his actions both on the battlefield and off it (including the Khalsa’s treatment of wounded/dying enemy soldiers, along with innocent civilians on the “enemy” side).
Despite the bloodshed on both sides, the Guru never gave up attempting to make the fanatical Emperor understand why he was wrong and to try to achieve a peaceful resolution, and eventually Aurangzeb did “see the light” and ceased hostilities, along with simultaneously admitting that his jihadist ideology and campaign had been misguided and morally wrong all along. So, the moral of the story is that, while we cannot guarantee that OBL and his fellow jihadists will “definitely” take the same route as their Mughal predecessors, these things are achievable and there are notable precedents — but it requires the right leaders, with the right soldiers, and using the right tactics. You could say that Guru Gobind Singh was a superb example of someone engaged in a truly just war but using morally-impeccable tactics, and simultaneously ensuring that “winning hearts and minds” was also part of their overall technique (although this was done primarily for altruistic reasons — “the bigger picture” — rather than as part of a coldly-calculated gameplan).
So, there are major lessons here, and victory can indeed be achieved in this way.
It may be better to continue any discussions on this topic on the “Tactics” thread, since commenters there seem to be talking about many of the issues we’ve touched upon.
Let’s just hope that OBL and his fellow jihadists take the same route as their Mughal predecessors, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I guess we have much to agree to disagree on. Thanks for the discussion.
PCM,
I agree completely about OBL etc.
Thank you for your views too — it’s been good talking to you.