A former roommie playfully gave me the title, “master of the obvious.”  What I am about to say makes me more that deserving of this designation.  Our technology has far outpaced our morality.

The current war between Israel and Hamas places this statement in all caps yet again.  I haven’t educated myself enough to intelligently comment on the multi layered twisted macro moral morass of Israel/Palestine.  The clinched feeling in my gut is a autonomic response to the virtual global acceptance that civilian deaths, “collateral damage,” is just part of war. 

Since the inception of the city state and weapons of mass destruction the ethics of war have been complicated exponentially.  “About 300 of the more than 670 Palestinians killed so far are civilians, according to Palestinian and U.N. figures. Of those killed, at least 130 are children age 16 and under, says the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which tracks casualties.”   

I’m not singling Israel out, they are just the latest example being featured on the worldwide media canvass.  Most if not all countries armed with modern bombs and missiles have succumbed to the seduction of technology trumping morality.  It’s not difficult to make the case for the United States being the chief of sinners in this arena.  Need I say more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the same mold but on a smaller scale.

Nations that wear uniforms and fight “fair” have claimed the high moral ground over terrorists who indiscriminately “target” civilians.  Yet, even highly respectable people don’t bat an eyelash about dropping big ass cluster bombs to kill one terrorist.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the most wanted man in Jordan and Iraq in 2006.  The U.S. government offered a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture, the same amount offered for the capture of bin Laden before March 2004.  Zarqawi was killed on June 7, 2006, while attending a meeting in an isolated safehouse.  A United States Air Force jet dropped two 500-pound guided bombs on the building where he was staying.  Six others, three male and three female individuals were also  killed.  Among those who died were his spiritual adviser, wife and their child.

The U.S. government distributed a gruesome image of Zarqawi’s corpse as part of the press pack associated with the press conference.  President Bush stated that through his every action al-Zarqawi sought to defeat America and its coalition partners by turning Iraq into a safe haven for al-Qaeda. Bush coldly commented, “Now Zarqawi has met his end and this violent man will never murder again.”  Major media outlets and the general public were cheering like their team had just won the Super Bowl.

My mom was visiting me at the time of this event.  She is a retired school counselor and a dedicated Christian woman in the best sense of the term.  Mom is not a violent person and practices high integrity with her values.  Upon hearing the details of this incident I began to vigorously ask, “Couldn’t the most powerful nation in the world have found a more precise way to kill one person than dropping two 500 pound bombs on his house, killing 6 innocent people in the process?  Don’t we have Special Forces who are trained to capture or kill individuals like this?  Why did his minister, wife and kid have to die too?”  I’m satisfied her response was typical of the average American.  “They shouldn’t have been hanging around with a terrorist.”

Yesterday NPR interviewed Colonel Jim Hellis, Chairman of the Department of National Security and Strategy, with the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.  He stated, 

“The law of war lays out certain structures, facilities as off-limits, such as medical facilities, religious shrines and so on. If a combatant uses one of these protected sites for military purposes - as an observation post, as a firing point, as a storage facility for weapons - then it does become a legitimate military target.”

The reporter asked “If we set aside the law of war for a moment and just look morally at waging war, are there things that might be legally acceptable that would not be morally acceptable in terms of civilian deaths?”

Colonel Hellis responded, “I would argue that the legal test is the first test that you have to go through in engaging a target, but then you have to go through the moral and ethical factors. You also have to couch it in a political and a strategic perspective.”

Why is this perspective morally superior to that of a terrorist?  Does wearing uniforms and having lots of money to employ weapons of mass destruction put us in a different moral category?  Can we stretch the rules because we are “fighting for the  good?”

I propose this agreement as an ethical foundation for international law.  The moment one innocent civilian is killed in a war the military is required to scale back their battle tactics to the lowest form of fighting even if that means hand to hand combat.  Our moral commitment for the loss of one blameless soul outweighs our admiration for advanced war technology.

Age old wisdom from the east is still instructive to us today.  The I Ching teaches, “If you are too adamant, action is unlucky, even if you are right.”  The great Chan Buddhist Fushan warns, “Courage without humaneness is like knowing how to reap but not how to sow.”     

The venerable Taoist “Art of War” is certainly no bleeding heart liberal pacifist text.  Here are a few timeless guiding principles found therein.  “When you do battle, it is necessary to kill people, so it is best to win without fighting.  “The superior militarist foils enemies’ plots; next best is to ruin their alliances; next after that is to attack their armed forces; worst is to besiege their cities.”

Zhang Yu exhorts, “The siege of cities and butchering of towns not only ages the army and wastes resources, it also has a lot of casualties, so it is the lowest form of attack. When you besiege a city, then your power will be used up in that, so you do it only if it is absolutely necessary, as a last resort.”

At the core of all healthy religion is the intrinsic dignity of all beings.  Not even “just wars” exempt us from this elemental truth.  A spiritual blindness has led the “civilized” world into a dignity deficiency disorder.  There is no prescription drug touted in a one minute commercial that can cure us.  This sacred remedy from Wang Xi can lead us in the “paths of righteousness.”

“Nation, army, division, battalion, unit - great or small, keep it intact and your dignity will be improved thereby; destroy it, and your dignity will suffer.”

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: