The West's Civilian Fetish

Jim Geraghty wonders whether we aren't becoming desensitized to civilian casualties. Speaking for myself, I know I've become somewhat desensitized to them, and I imagine quite a few others have as well. What's more, I don't think this is an entirely negative development. Certainly since Vietnam, and arguably since the end of World War II, the number of civilian casualties has been the almost exclusive moral barometer by which the actions of Western militaries are judged. This combined with the West's unwillingness to take casualties of any sort has put civilians in grave danger. Unprincipled foes place legitimate military targets behind civilian shields to either protect them from attack or try to gain the moral high ground (many times with the complicity of Western media) if they are attacked. Furthermore, terrorist organizations attempt to force political or military concessions from the West by deliberately attacking civilian targets, and they have been successful far too many times, most recently on 3/11 when the train stations in Madrid were bombed.

Both of these tactics are used because they seem to work, and as long as the West continues to emphasize civilian causalties above all else, they will continue to be employed to great effect by terrorists in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and beyond. Only when these tactics are shown to be ineffective will they cease to be used, and while we should always deplore and punish the deliberate killing of civilians (as opposed to killing civilians unavoidably in strikes on legitimate military targets) by those on our side, our becoming demonstrably desensitized to civilian casualties essentially renders these tactics ineffective because their effectiveness rests not on actually taking and holding territory, but on the reactions of populations to their tactics. If the populations of countries view the deaths of civilians in wartime with the shrug of a shoulder, terrorist tactics are thus rendered ineffective, and they will be forced to do things like actually take and hold territory. This plays into the hands of traditional militaries like those of the United States and Israel and, just as importantly, makes civilians low-value targets once again.

Hail Mary

Even though I think the United States and its allies were right to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a democratic state in Iraq, and I continue to support our efforts there, I've always harbored doubts as to whether the United States would be able to build a democratic Middle East that could last more than, say, ten years after the United States military ceased to be the guarantor of the new democratic order. Nothing I've seen has alleviated my doubts,* and I've wondered whether the United States should continue to expend blood and treasure on democratizing the Middle East. A government elected by its citizens is merely the capstone of a successful democracy. More important is a robust civil society dedicated to individual liberty, meritocracy and the rule of law under a government strong enough to maintain order and obliged to control itself. Without these, I can't see democracy succeeding in the Middle East. Is this effectively being built in Iraq? Only time will tell, but the cosnervative in me says that you can't completely remake a society overnight, or even over the course of a few years. Add to this the problem of rebuilding a civil society all but wiped out by a totalitarian dictator, and things only look bleaker. Still, despite the monumental task at hand, I am once again convinced that democratization of the Middle East is the only way to save the West from the doom that threatens to descend upon it.

Fjordman has written a piece for The Brussels Journal about the demographic situation facing the developed world. Essentially, he argues that mass-immigration from failed states is threatening to bring about the end of most European societies because these immigrants come from failed states and bring with them the cultures of these failed states which then threaten to become major political and cultural driving forces in the countries to which these immigrants immigrate. Ultimately, he concludes that European elites lack the will to do anything about this and that this will lead either to extreme civil unrest or the collapse of Europe or both. Now, the United States can't compel Europe to deal with its immigration problem. Heck, it can't even deal with its own immigration problem. Instead, the United States is promoting the ideal of democracy and individual liberty to the failed states that most threaten the West in order create the incentive for those who would otherwise leave their country in search of material well-being to remain and seek their fortunes in their own lands. This was and is supposed to be a way to stop terrorism at its source, but it also looks like the only way save Europe from itself.

It's a long shot, a Hail Mary, but I can't see any better alternatives at this point.

*However, the Iraqi insurgency may turn out to be just what is needed to instill long-term faith in the Iraqi government.

Whose Side Is He On?

It appears that Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has sidelined one of his his nuclear inspectors at the reqwuest of Iran. Apparently, he found things the regime in Tehran didn't want him to find, and so Tehran asked El-Baradei to remove him from the IAEA inspection team responsible for inspecting Iran's nuclear activities and forbid him access to documents pertaining to said activities. El-Baradei complied.

It's possible that I'm overreacting, but it seems to me that this kills any possiblity for an acceptable solution being reached through current diplomatic efforts. If Tehran can get El-Baradei to remove inspectors who get too close to discovering something Tehran doesn't want them to find, then either the Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, or the United States and selected allies will have to act outside the U.N. to prevent this happening, thus increasing the likelihood of a military altercation between the United States and Iran. This is because, absent clear evidence that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power*, Russia and China have no incentive to act to bring the Iranian crisis to a resolution, and the U.N. cannot take concrete action** without assent from Russia and China, who have automatic vetoes on the Security Council.


*It's possible that Russia and China have decided that Iran having nuclear weapons is in their best interest as it creates more problems for the U.S. and more opportunities for them to increase their own influence. Heck, Russia may figure that a war between the United States and Iran helps them because it will drive up the price of oil, meaning more oil for Russia. China could also take advantage of the situation may invading Taiwan and increasing its influence in East and Southeast Asia.

**There's been a fair amount of talk about how the U.N. Security Council is ready to take concrete action against Iran should it refuse the package of incentives offered by Europe in exchange for abandoning its uranium enrichment program. The problem is that there is no talk of what such action would be. Would it be a strongly worded resolution condemning Iran and calling on them to give up their enrichment program? A strongly worded resolution condemning Iran and calling on them to give up their program with the threat of "grave consequences" should they fail to comply? Would it involve economic sanctions? Surgical air strikes? A full-scale invasion? There are so many possibilities that the simple threat of "concrete action" in the Security Council is an empty one unless "concrete action" is clearly defined and demonstrably harsh.

Never Buy Your Airline Tickets in France

France has just imposed a tax on airline tickets "to help the world's poor." Leaving aside the question of whether foreign aid programs work (They don't. Just look at Palestine.), this policy violates the principle that the duty of a government is to serve its people. However, this policy also strikes me as following naturally (though not necessarily inevitably) from a belief in international progressivism. According to the progressive philosophy, it is the responsibility of the state to improve society. Furthermore, the justness of society is not determined so much by the conduct of its people as by the policies of the state (irrespective of their effectiveness or their unintended consequences). It thus follows that the state becomes the chief moral agent* in a society, as opposed to the individual. If the state is the chief moral agent, then, in a globalized world, the state becomes responsible for helping other states make their societies more just, as opposed to individuals from wealthier societies helping those from impoverished ones through altruism or businesses investing in these poor communities and providing economic opportunities for them. And if the state is responsible for providing aid to poorer states, then there is no reason it cannot tax its people for just such a purpose. It's not as if they have the duty to provide for themselves and their families: The state has already taken care of that. Thus, people have no right to their own money because spending it cannot possibly fulfill any moral imperative.

This policy is a reductio ad absurdum of progressivism, and it illustrates why I cannot embrace it as a morally serious political philosophy.

*Getting back to my debate with Josh, it is this enshrinement of the state as the chief moral agent, as opposed to the individual, which renders Progressivism incompatible with Christianity, in my view.