Welcome sir on TPS

As for some of the *other* comments…, Alas, I *was* discouraged by some of them! I knew in advance that any discussion of Iraq that did not *entirely* focus on American fault and blameworthiness, and what *America* should do differently, would likely be controversial, but I guess I was unprepared for what that controversy would feel like on my own end. If Pakistanis are touchy, as you say, Professor Kahn, Americans can be, as well; a discussion among some of my commenters who seemingly argue that killing random, personally-blameless Americans, whether they are in uniform, or not, is a good idea, or perfectly OK, and nothing I should have the nerve to try to discourage or regret, well, I guess that goes into an area that would make most Americans, like myself, rather touchy, too!

Like so much tragedy in this world (including the *tragic mistake* of the invasion of Iraq in the first place!), so much of this mess, I think, boils down to a confusion regarding the nature of blame and justice! *Individuals* are responsible for evil acts, and those individuals should be punished severely for consciously committing evil acts. *Individuals* are responsible for *mistakes*, and those individuals should be punished proportionally to the magnitude of those mistakes and also the magnitude of their negligence that led to those mistakes.

“Group guilt” is a *false concept*, I firmly believe, that has led to untold suffering!

When innocent civilians die in Iraq for the mistakes of those who carelessly kill them, and the mistakes of leaders who started the war unnecessarily in the first place, and for the evil acts of terrorists that helped Bush “sell” the idea of war in Iraq to (some of) the public, this is *not* “group justice” justified by “group guilt,” it *is* a *travesty* of justice, and a human tragedy. It is no less a tragedy and no less a travesty of personal justice, however, when a random American soldier, who is following orders, who has personally made every effort to do the right thing, who may well hate the American presence in Iraq as much as anyone, is killed by an insurgent in Iraq, for the mistakes or crimes of leaders thousands of miles away, or for the acts of *other* soldiers who *may* be blameworthy, against the wishes of the Iraqi government, which wants and needs peace to rebuild the country. This is true regardless of how we feel about how wrong the initial invasion was in the first place, and how much American leadership bears the blame for the initial problem! Yes, in war, tragedy and injustice are as common as flies, and this is an excellent argument for staying out of war in the first place, and why war was an American mistake in the first place! This does not make propagation of that mistake by fighting an insurgency that the government of Iraq does not even want, any better, however – that is just wrong added to wrong! (Yes, I realize very well that the government of Iraq is far from perfect, and is likely not seen as particularly legitimate by many, but it is surely no less legitimate than the government of the former, unlamented dictator, and there is a roughly democratic process by which the government of Iraq can and will grow better, if there is just enough peace for that process to operate!)

Regarding Iran and nuclear questions, about which commenters frequently ask, I may have a future post on the subject, but can’t do it justice in a comment. I also might *not* touch the subject in a future post, because my wife is Iranian, and we may wish to visit her homeland, together, someday, and I am selfishly reluctant to complicate that possibility by saying anything controversial on Iran.

Lt. General Ashraf: Thank you so much for your encouragement, which is very helpful at the moment. I am honored.

Dave: Please see my remarks above on personal guilt, versus the false concept of “group guilt.” If I correctly read your comment as making excuses for anything more than an attack focused to the maximum possible extent on *individuals* *directly* responsible for attacks on the US, I think you just don’t “get it”!

Mr. Zuberi: I responded at length in comments on a much earlier post on TPS regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories: I just don’t “buy” these theories at all. I won’t rehash those long comments, here, but the short version of my argument is that while in any complex event there are bound to be things that are nontrivial to explain, the test of a good theory is that it explains more mysteries than it creates, that the *sum* of the facts makes more *sense* with the theory than without it, and none of the many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 comes even *close* to meeting this test! Regarding your response to my discussion of various scenarios involving guilt and punishment, I’m not sure I read your response correctly, but it seems as though it uses the false concept of “group guilt.” Although I think I disagree with you (if I am reading you right), I appreciate the reasoned, constructive tone of your discussion, though – I have no objection to a calm, reasoned discussion of the pros and cons of group guilt as a concept. As for whether it is “natural” to react as people in Iraq have, well, I do have some understanding of human nature, too; my argument is not for what is natural, it is for what is *best*, for both sides. If what was best was also easy and natural, I wouldn’t *need* to make the argument!

“Bush sought vengeance for the fallen sons and daughters of 9/11, but Bush was unable to locate those responsible, so instead he went after Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government and military, because he saw them as belonging to the same general *group* as the murderers of 9/11!)”

I am just saying that it is but natural for these people to react. Nonviolence can be started, but what will it acheive. If they (US) were not right in coming to the Iraqi soil in the first place, then the thinking in the minds of affectees won’t be as simple as simply henry killed john’s family member deliberately.

Then, the scenarios you gave
that if Henry killed John’s brother deliberately…..then John would be justified in killing Henry ?
I think he should be given to the proper authorities. But in the US - IRAQ case which authorities?
Secondly, by mistake: well even then he is responsible for the consequences after a fair trial. But, I don’t see that being carried out in the above mentioned case.
Thirdly, if he doesnt know who henry is and cant go near him, takes vengeance on an innocent individual. The facts here do not correlate, how; i shall tell you
Fact 1: Firstly they are wrong to have come to iraq.
Fact 2: Secondly, it is not an individual who is targeting, but a whole force of allies.
Fact 3: Thirdly, the targeted is not one single entity, they are a group of people, who are not civilians.
Fact 4: Fourthly, the mistakes have not just occurred once or twice, they are numerous.
When there is no justification of an occupation, and still there are mistakes being made, I dont think there is any point in carrying out any kind of movement, regardless of violence or not.
In my opinion, these are barberous acts, and there is no reason for continuing them whatsoever.
killing of innocent civilians is condemnable by all means, but saying this that they should just stop reacting to another barberous act which took place first and is still continuing , i don’t quite swallow this, and I am quite sure you agree with me .
If you have seen the documentary on 9/11 by a few physics teachers, I am sure you have doubts in your mind as I have as how could these things have happend with so much precision. I have not as yet heard of any fair trial taking place for that….as the prime suspects turned to terrorists and now the term is joining with extremist and fundamentalists, are nowhere to be found.
I am in favour of non violence movment, but isn’t it asking a bit too much from those oppressed?
the first rule to a peaceful arguement is to agree to disagree.
No hard feelings I hope.
peace
Mr. Dave’s comments are …well beyond my comprehension in light of the ongoing topic.

This article compelled me to read your other works here, and I am, yes, mesmerized by the depths of these blog posts. They are the best.

regards

Lt. Gen (retd) Qazi Ashraf

If Iran keeps on saying that no Uncle Sam we will not make atomic bomb, and will just produce energy, and Uncle gets more and more enraged and then attack Iran, then will US public rally behind innocent people of Iran?

1) With no proper reason, Henry deliberately attacks John or his family, with deadly force; does John have a right to kill Henry, if that is the most likely way to stop the attack? This is simple, direct self-defense, and few systems of ethics would blame John for defending himself or his family. I am not so saintly, or foolish, or cowardly, depending on your point of view, that I would fail to defend myself or my family from direct attack, and I would not ask anyone else to resist such self-defense, either.

2) With no proper reason, Henry deliberately kills a member of John’s family; does John have a right to kill Henry *after the fact,* when it is now too late to prevent the death of John’s family member? This is really two questions; should Henry be killed (is the death penalty right for such a case?), and should John have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner, killing Henry personally, without a legal trial? I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind about the virtue or evil of the death penalty, but I would say that if any real system of justice is available, justice through a fair trial is better than personal vengeance, being far less likely to result in *further* injustice, if, for example, John should happen to be *wrong* about who killed his family member.

3) Henry *accidentally* kills an innocent member of John’s family; does John have a right to kill Henry after the fact, when it is now too late to prevent the death of John’s family member, and when it was never Henry’s intent to do anything wrong? Members of the US armed forces realize that they can face very serious legal charges if they knowingly kill innocent civilians, or if they issue improper orders that lead to such innocent deaths. Soldiers and military leaders have very much to lose, and nothing to gain, by such actions, so I expect that the recent tragedy involving the 9 Iraqis, mentioned above, was a case such as this, a tragic, unintended mistake. In response to Mr. Zuberi, I would say that of course, I do not expect such a mistake to be rewarded with love from the victim’s families. As it happens, I am not entirely unfamiliar with how such family members must feel, because my own father was killed, in 1986, by another person’s mistake. No, I did not love the individual responsible, but I also did not seek revenge. The person responsible faced significant consequences for her negligence, as was proper, but she did not face death. I do realize, though, that in my situation the tragedy was likely easier to handle rationally than it would be in the midst of armed occupation of my country.

4) Henry kills an innocent member of John’s family. John cannot get anywhere near Henry, and in fact has no idea of exactly which individual is to blame for his family member’s death; does John have the right to find and kill someone who works in the same organization as Henry, or who shares Henry’s nationality, or who wears a similar uniform? Here, I hope you agree, all possibility of personal justice has vanished! John’s unfortunate victim, if John takes such revenge, is personally as innocent as John’s family member was! John’s victim is *also* someone’s family member, and, as Mr. Zuberi puts it, (and here I surely agree!): “Violence only begets violence.” In the case of the US in Iraq, all I am saying is this: America is far, far better armed. If we are purely, heartlessly evil, and have purely evil motives, with no concern for international opinion, Iraq has no chance at all. If we are not purely evil (as I submit), America must eventually withdraw, and since (I agree!) “Violence only begets violence,” violent resistance only makes it *harder* for America to withdraw, as Americans, too, seek misguided “justice” for their *own* fallen sons and daughters. (In fact, the whole Iraq mess can be described as a giant example of this Case #4, as Bush sought vengeance for the fallen sons and daughters of 9/11, but Bush was unable to locate those responsible, so instead he went after Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government and military, because he saw them as belonging to the same general *group* as the murderers of 9/11!) I hope with all my heart that the next president of the US has the wisdom and strength to withdraw *whether or not* violence diminishes in Iraq, proving that occasionally the cycle of violence *can* be broken; I am simply saying that such violence, while understandable surely in cases where someone has tragically, personally lost a loved one, does not help *either side* at all, and leads to no sort of personal justice, only more murder of more innocents!

Now I admit that there is really a tragic fifth case, where two sides are truly at war, and justice is simply a luxury that neither side chooses or can afford. When the French resistance fought the Nazis, in occupied France, it was such a case. Defeating the Nazis at any cost, including the murder of millions of poor German soldiers who likely bore no personal responsibility for the war, was necessary. The Nazis had no self-image as merciful bringers of justice, only as the master race taking the world that was rightfully theirs to take. Except in the narrowest tactical sense, they had no concern for their international image. They surely had no free press and no democracy, only ruthlessly false, calculated propaganda. Nonviolent resistance would not have changed their minds, as apparently even Gandhi acknowledged. It is also true that the French resistance was not a futile gesture against an overwhelming enemy force; the resistors were backed up by allied force that was strong enough to beat the Nazis in the end. Even if you believe (as I do *not*) that the Iraqi government that does *not* favor resistance is completely illegitimate, and that Iraqis have some moral right to violently resist as an act of ongoing war, as the French resisted the Nazis, is it a sensible tactic, or just pointless, counterproductive bloodshed in a battle that can only be won in the hearts and minds of international and American publics, a battle that could be better fought with nonviolent resistance?