collateral damage

As the death toll of the London bombings continues to rise, I can't help thinking about the Downing Street Memo and wonder if, deep down inside, Tony Blair, George W Bush and John Howard, are starting to realize what they have started. Are they connecting the dots? Was this part of a collateral damage assessment when they made the decisions in 2002/2003 to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? When they were carefully duping the public about the justifications for attacking these countries, did they genuinely believe they could prevent the fight being brought to our streets indefinitely?

Let's not forget who started this conflict. It was Western governments who sent troops into Arab countries - not the other way around. It's Western countries who maintain a multi-billion dollar per annum investment in military bases on Arab land - not the other way around. We - Australia and our allies - invaded Iraq in March 2003 with no justification. And our chickens will be coming home to roost for many years to come. Our leaders are fond, at moments like this, to stand at podiums and talk somberly about "defending our values and our way of life" and the terrorists' "determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people".

And then I start thinking about the 22,787 - 25,814 civilians who are estimated to have been killed in Iraq since March 2003 and I wonder about the hypocrisy... I wonder... if I were Blair, Bush or Howard, how would I rationalize these deaths (Iraq, 9/11, London) and the ongoing security threat in our countries to myself? Are a few thousand deaths here and there just collateral damage?

Comments

[Tony]

Well said.

[Rob Irwin]

Cameron, I'm not sure how you can be tying in 9/11 deaths to a comment on this all being the fault of the Afghanistan libertation and the Iraq war? Last time I checked, 9/11 happened all on its lonesome without ANY ongoing, direct cause at the time. Proof, to me at least, that these things can ALWAYS happen in a vacuum, and it's not always as simple as joining the dots between other events.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Quite day Cam?
You make some points, You have a might Long bow. I have to agree with a point that Alan Singer makes about Sadam and the WMD, if Sadam didn't have any, why didn't he play ball.

On your number of deaths in the war, the one thing that we still don't know is if this is more or less deaths then when Sadam was in power? I guess the difference is now the numbers are being reported.

Cam, you should really Tag this with a Technorati London tag, I would be really interested what the world bloggers would have to say about this post.

Molly

I don't understand. Are we supposed to defend against these sorts of attacks by checking every bag, searching every person, having metal detectors everywhere and just having tons and tons more security? Is that really realistic in today's world?

If the above isn't realistically possible, the only other option I see is to get out there and forcefuly detain or kill terrorists. After september 11 we went to Afghanistan, but it was obvious that there were still threats coming from various terrorist groups (e.g. consider the Bali Bombings from some Indonesians, which occured pre Iraq). Of course one might suggest negotiation, but do we really believe that you can negotiate with people who shoot children in the back, or believe that the Koran prescribes a duty to kill every single jew in the world? We must also consider whether negotating with these people will merely encourage them to use terrorism as a practical and effective way to achieve their political aims.

I think clearly then, the only real solution to this problem is to use some kind of force against terrorists - attack, not defence is the only way to resolve our problems with terrorism. It is unreasonable to believe that had we not invaded Afghanistan or Iraq that the problem would just go away - that 20 years from now (when the problems with nuclear proliferation will really start to peak) the terrorists would not have massed to a far greater strenght then they are now.

I might add that it's needlessly offensive to say that Bush and Blair and Howard chalked up human deaths to 'collateral' damage. Did the Allies chalk human deaths to 'collateral' damage when invading Nazi Germany? Surely they were saddened by the number of allied soldiers who would die, and the number of civilians who would get caught up in the crossfire. Yet they attacked, saddened at the cost in lives, but determined that they had made the correct decision, and that in the long term an invasion of Germany was the only way out.

It is possible of course to argue with the actual decision to invade Iraq, as to whether it was the most correct decision to make. But I think it stretches credibity to think that the US, UK and Australia did not make that decision after consulting with the best foreign relations policy makers in their governments, with a bona fide intention to reduce terrorism. As for your comments about the public being duped, apparently the public didn't see it that way, handing reasonably good election wins all three of those governments. I tend to believe that in these fair democracies the public got a very fair hearing about the allegations of fraud/misconduct/misrepresentation by their respective governments, with the oppositions in these countries having a full chance to make their case about Iraq in the elections. I think you'll find that at the time of the polls the public was reasonably informed about all the issues concerning Iraq, and made the best decision it could at the time.

[Cameron Reilly]

Alan, Molly, etc.

This didn't start with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That just exacerbated the situation. This started a long time before, with the CIA's involvement in the Middle East. It started with America's military support of Israel. It started with America's arming of the Afghans against the Russians. It started with America's arming of Saddam against Iran. It started with America's establishment of military bases in Kuwait in the early 90's.

If you haven't, I recommend reading Chomsky on the issue.

[phillip Molly Malone]

Cam, I thought thats what you were referring too. Thats why I didn't comment on that front.

I guess its another case (like the treatment of Aboriginals in Australia) that if you had your choice, you wouldn't start from this point in history trying to work it all out.

But does that mean we just pull out of everywhere and hope everything works out? I am not sure thats practicle.

JMTC
Molly
http://mollyzine.blogspot.com

[Cameron Reilly]

Molly, you're starting to sound like the White House press secretary! Stop buying their bullshit.

As far as I can see, there are only three ways out of our current predicament.

1) Stick to our guns, refuse to acknowledge the cause of our problems, and try to kill every Muslim "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" on the planet before they kill us.

2) Acknowledge publicly what the real problem is. Admit that Western governments covet Middle East oil and have been funding covert activities in this region for 60 years. Try to apologize and negotiate a way out.

3) Everybody dies.

The situation with indigenous Australians is similar in that there is a basic refusal to acknowledge the issue, but the key difference is - they haven't YET learned to fight back.

[Glenn Vassallo]

Cameron I am ever impressed with the extensive knowledge you have on so many topics. The truth behind what we in the west are experiencing (9/11, Bali, Spain, London etc) is a long and disturbing tale, that it seems few have taken the time to understand.

I recommend for those who have a desire to understand the history and motivation of what is happening in the world today, and how we got here. Please check out the 3 part series "The Power of Nightmares"

I: Baby It's Cold Outside
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

II: The Phantom Victory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3951615.stm

III: The Shadows In The Cave
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm

[Cameron Reilly]

Glenn, don't be impressed - I just read a lot. I figure that's why I learned to read in the first place.

Anyway, as you say, not many people have familiarised themselves with the history of Western involvement in the Middle East, which is EXACTLY how Western politicians, media and corporation WANT it. Keep the masses busy watching MTV and Donald Trump, while we install corrupt dictators into third world countries to keep their populations broke (and remain a source of cheap labour for Western companies) but still big acquirers of Western produce. That's ONE perspective anyway, which needs serious consideration.

[Trevor Cook]

Murdering innocent people (mostly working class - even Red Ken gets that point) on the way to earning a living is an act of evil. Whatever is wrong with the world (stop reading chomsky before they cart you away BTW), indiscriminate slaughter is evil, always evil.
Another point you have to recognise is that terrorists resort these tactics because they do NOT enjoy popular support for their 'causes'.
And lastly, what is the demands of these terrorists? They don't want compromises, they don't want justice for some group or other? (unless you count the 'bring back Saddam' iraq insurgency as a legitimate demand). They just hate the evil West and they want to kill us all or at least make the men wear beards and the women robe up.
Its just silly to keep bagging America and americans as if they caused all the world's problems.
As for the 'memo' I can't see the relevance of that to the recent evil deeds in London.
The fight came to 'our' streets before the memo was ever written.

[Cameron Reilly]

Trevor, come on, you aren't writing speeches for the ALP here. This isn't the time for sloganeering.

Define "evil" for me. That's a Judeo-Christian term I didn't learn in Psych 101. But if you want to talk about murdering civilians, how do you classify the tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq who have been murdered by Western rockets and troops since Iraq 2003? Does that fit the bill of "evil" in your definition?

Saying "they just hate the evil West" may be convenient Western government propaganda but it's also taking a complex political situation and dumbing it down to a 15 second 6 O'Clock News soundbite.

And I'm not "bagging Americans". Some of my best friends are Americans. What I'm pointing out is that Western governments have been interfering in Middle Eastern politics for the last hundred years, particurlarly since the secret 1916 Sykes-Pikot Agreement called for the division of the Ottoman Empire into a patchwork of states that would be ruled by the British and French. (See: Said Aburish, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, Indigo, London, 1998). The US got involved after WW2 when the various puppet governments in the Middle East were collapsing. There are plenty of internal US documents from the 50's now available through the US FOI Act saying stuff like:
“United States policy is to keep the sources of oil in the Middle East in American hands.” (See: NSC 5401, quoted in Mohammed Heikal,, Cutting the lion’s tail; Suez through Egyptian eyes, Andre Deutsch, London, 1986, p. 38).

So... what the Downing Street Memo demonstrates is that the UK-USA bullshitted their way through an artificial public debate to invade Iraq in 2003, adding further fuel to the fire.

The governments of those countries (and AUST) have been interfering in this region for almost a century - for oil. All I'm suggesting is that the terrorism that we are now seeing in our countries has a direct link to these activities.

It's cause and effect, and there is an old saying about the definition of insanity being continuing to do the same thing but expecting different results...

[Trevor Cook]

Cameron, the concept of "evil" is derided by many modern political philosophers and commentators. Yet, we know that it exists and we what it is.
Do you think the holocaust was evil or just another point on a continuum of known political tactics.
Perhaps, the holocaust is understandable because the west stuffed up germany in the Versailles agreement.
Do you think the current genocide in Darfur is understandable because the west got the national boundaries wrong?
Most of us accept that these actions (and there are a lot of them) are evil.
They are beyond just bad.
Nothing, ever, justifies or excuses genocide.
Rape in war (as in civillian life) is wrong. But there is something evil about its use as a weapon of war.
Similarly, slavery to most of us is evil. It is not just wrong or bad in the sense that not returning your library book is bad, or killing your next door neighbour during a fit of rage over a boundary dispute is very wrong but it is not evil.
Evil has a charater of pre-meditation about it. Someone plans those raids in Darfur, someone built those gas ovens to achieve 'maximum efficiency' just as Al Queda planned bombing attcks to maximise the damage.
We know that people who can sit quietly devising and implementing something that will kill as many people as possible are evil.
(BTW, the accepted international rules of engagement require defence forces to use the minimum, not the maximum, force required to secure success)
We know that Kruschev and Kennedy may have lots of flaws but they were not evil because they acted to minimse the damage not maximise it.
Secondly, people who are evil and who do evil things do not recognise others as innocent. They do not assess the validity of their own actions.
This is another reason why terrorism is evil and is different to warfare or to assasination, for instance. If they killed political leaders and generals and so on they might be bad and wrong but we would not properly consider them evil because they had recognised the distinction and tried to act on it.
The reason why the distinction is vitally important is because of a central point in western philosophy (or the reviled judeo-christian tradition if you like) is that people must be treated as ends and not means.
Terrorists see murder as a way of achieving their goals but they are not only wrong to do so - they step over the line into evil when they cease to think of their victims as people.
Innocent people get killed in wars. It is evil to intentionally kill innocent people. It is not evil to kill them if you do not intend to kill them and you take reasonable steps to avoid killing them and to minimise the impact of military operations on civilians.
There are famous examples of the west transgressing this principle of forseen but unintended consequences among them are the atomic bombing of japanese cities, the dresden firebombing and the Nixon/Kissinger bombing of Vietnam and Cambodia. All of these actions have the quality of evil about them because of the reasons I have cited above.
The only hope for any of us is that we continue to make these distinctions and argue their importance.
I'm sorry if your psych course didn't alert you to this reality.
A great book to read initially is Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. Anscombe's discussions of the decision to bomb japan is also worth the effort.
Hope this helps.

[Cameron Reilly]

Trev

Thanks for the lengthy explanation. But I still don't see where you've defined "evil" and, yes, I do think the Holocaust was a political outcome, though it was. It was "the final solution" because the USA and the UK refused to accept the Jews that Hitler wanted to deport. Hitler believed the Jews were "evil". We think of Hitler as "evil". The Holocaust was as terrible as what the European settlers did to the indigineous populations of Australia and the Americas. Were they evil as well in your book?

I'm also confused as to how you differentiate between the actions of the Islamic terrorists and the USA.

For example, you say:
"Evil has a character of pre-meditation about it."

Well we know without doubt now, thanks to the Downing Street Memo, that the unjustified invasion of Iraq in 2003 was pre-meditated. Does that make its architects evil? To deliberately invade a sovereign nation, launching a pre-emptive attack, KNOWING there are going to be huge humanitarian consequences (read Wilkie), all to secure rich oilfieds (or whatever their primary motivation was)? This doesn't fit your definition of "evil"?

Unfortunately, whether or not you want to use evocative Judeo-Christian terminology from the Dark Ages, the bottom line is this: the Queensbury Rules of warfare do not apply when dealing with these "terrorists". They do not consider what they do "evil". They consider it the pathway to heaven. And our political leaders are approaching this with a "might equals right" rationale. And it's going to get a lot more of us killed. The more Islamic fundamentalist terrorists we imprison, the more come in their place. It's the Hydra. They are going to heaven by fighting the "evil" Westerners.

Which, funnily enough is that same justification that the Christians used in the Middle Ages when they brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and childred in the name of the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Witch Hunts. The first of these was supposedly about killing the "evil" Muslims as well.

How little some of us have evolved in the last 1000 years. It depresses the hell out of me sometimes and I can't wait for the machines to take over. :-)