Click
here for info on the Print Journal
(and to purchase your copy)!
Just 32 Weeks Left: Advice for Kerry on Collateral Damage
By Mark Grueter
---------------------------------------
Wednesday’s New York Times features a rather grim story on how the U.S. military goes about “compensating” its civilian victims in Iraq. Evidently, one gentleman, who watched his wife and three kids burn to death, received a check for $5,000 and an apology. That sum may sound magnanimous to those inclined to think either along the lines of the dollar ‘going a long way’ in third world countries or the much more reactionary ‘they’re lucky to be getting anything at all.’ And in a way, these sentiments are not without merit. Something is better than nothing and the overall approach to conducting war is improving. But let us first acknowledge that this and other related issues have been forced upon our stubborn military as a result of domestic complaints regarding human rights over the years. Openness begets scrutiny begets progress.
Just think about how terribly condescending it is to treat Iraqis as ignorant peasants, as though five grand actually is a large sum relative to what is being spent to fight the war. As the Times piece points out, Iraqis are aware of how rich America is - Iraqis know that the cash sums being offered are something less than generous, not to mention insufficient. Apparently, “maximum sympathy payments” (important to draw a distinction here with empathy) are set at $1,000 per injury and $2,500 per life.
This obviously raises several provocative questions. Firstly, who calculated these figures and what are they based on, if anything? Furthermore, the military only doles out funds if a claim “matches” their incident report record. For instance, in one region, 540 claims have been made but only 261 have been paid out. Tough luck, I suppose, for those hurt off the record. From the Times piece we learn that those funds usually don’t even cover all hospital bills, never mind betray any true emotional sympathy.
My support for this war has always been conditional (is there any other way to take a side?), and it continues to wane in light of the evidence. Inadvertent civilian casualties from war can potentially be justified if it is well argued that the overall cause of the campaign is Good. But the simple fact that the main reasons cited by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq were unfounded seriously complicates any possible justification or rationalization of these casualties. And even if we still ‘believe’ the cause is good, are we then not supposed to care how the effort is undertaken? Could anything dissuade the ardent supporters of this war, even those of a more liberal persuasion? Non-partisan estimates put the civilian death toll in Iraq at around 3,500. Doesn’t this matter?
Whether or not Bush lied or “misled” us into war, as John Kerry is so fond of repeating, is borderline irrelevant at this point. Our positions on the war were not formed from our opinion of President Bush. I thought he and the people around him consciously issued - and continue to utter - half-truths, but I still favored the invasion. Indeed, Benjamin Schwarz recently argued that presidential lying can be justified if it’s done in the interests of national security. So one could stipulate that, theoretically, the war in Iraq, all lies assumed, can still be justified. But then Schwarz goes on to argue that Iraq is not an example of this. That, not only were we and others lied into war, but that the carnage will not result in a greater good, only more misery.
What matters is this: has U.S. intervention in Iraq been a success or has it not? But also, will it achieve a net positive or not? It now seems to me that the “means” are intricately related to the “ends” in perhaps all matters. In other words, precisely how this war and its transition are conducted will determine whether or not it could ever be justified.
Currently, John Kerry speaks about the war in platitudes. But to defend the nuanced position he takes, he should speak in greater detail, alluding to the concerns I’ve just brought up, along with many others. Perhaps by demonstrating a profound fluency with such tough subjects, his somewhat ambiguous perspective on the war will be forgiven by the short-attention spanned American public. Bush is lauded for his “moral clarity,” but if Kerry can present himself as possessing a remarkable intellectual edge over Bush, this should compensate for his “unclear” moral point of view and apparent waffling.
There is much more to leadership than making clear, quick decisions. But also, effective leaders are not always wise people engaged in improving the lives of others. I hope American will think about this.
Click here for last week's column.
---------------------------------------
Mark Grueter is a writer living in New York City. He may be contacted at [email protected].
©
2004 Me Three