Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

I am quite certain that America has, at times, represented a force that, if not entirely good, was at least nominally in league with the angels.  World War II was such a time.  Though that war included horrific death -- including such now incomprehensible events as the internment camps for citizens with Japanese heritage and bombing the civilian population of Dresden -- still I have no doubt that we were wearing, metaphorically, the white hats.  It may have been possible to win The Big One with less bloodshed, but we did all that fallible human beings could be expected to do.  And triumphed.

Just as clearly, there have been times in the past where America was guilty of pure "adventurism."  Truth is, I hate that term.  To me, it summons up trips I've made into caves, or night diving a deep wall, or climbing some crumbly 5.7 route on sandstone.  But the adventurism that nations engage in (Spanish-American War, anyone?) is of the sort that applies bullets to human bodies, leaves families homeless, and wastes funds that might have gone to less deadly pursuits.  To quote from Eisenhower , This world in arms is not spending money alone.  It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

From what I can tell, when it comes to Iraq, most people jumped into either the "nobel cause" or "sheer adventurism" camps well before the bombs started to fall over Baghdad.  Some were absolutely faithful to the idea that we were using our energy to uphold the right (as in moral, not the political right).  Others were just as certain that we were being "boys with toys" and using Iraq as a testing ground for both our military and political ideas.

I have to admit, that of these two ideas, I leaned toward the former.  Oh, I was completely against the war, but for reasons much more pragmatic.  Saddam was defanged back in Desert Storm and there were inspectors tromping all over his country.  My thought was to let them keep looking.  So long as Saddam was in the spotlight (and his military was coasting along on spare parts from the 1950's), he was no threat to anyone.  That Bush was lying about the danger Saddam posed was absolutely clear from the outset.  

Besides, we had Afghanistan to deal with, and Bin Laden to find.  If the political wonks of Bush's crew wanted to make a shining example of a Muslim democracy... well, I didn't see any reason why it couldn't be centered in Kabul as easily as Baghdad.  If they really needed to shoot someone, the Taliban had already volunteered for the job.

I thought Bush was lying, and I thought Iraq was a mistake.  At the same time, I did not doubt that, even if we went into Iraq, our moral position was infinitely superior to those men who turned commercial jets toward the Twin Towers.

That was then.  Now... I find that my views have taken a unsettling shift.  The solid ground under my feet seems as soggy as Wonder Bread left out in the rain.  I fear that I may have become a radical while I wasn't looking.

While listening to a radio interview, I heard the host repeatedly ask the same question of the only Muslim member of the UK's House of Lords.  The question was "is what the bombers did in London moral?"    When this solicited the expected condemnation, the host went on to ask the same thing about events in Israel and Iraq.  Would this English Muslim also condemn events there?  After some attempts to sidestep, it turned out that he would.  There was a point in the conversation where the lord tried to go into idea that "when people are being attacked by F-16s and tanks..." but he let it drop when pressed.

I'm not so certain I can let it drop.

In this conversation and others, the idea came round again and again to one thing: intent.  The bombers in London carried out their acts with the express intent of killing civilians.  The United States forces in Iraq don't really mean to kill thousands of civilians, it just happens.  It just happens over and over again.

I've often wondered why we view intent as such an important point in legal proceedings.  The worst punishments are reserved for those who acted "with malice aforethought."  But why?  Is the person who schemes to kill his own family really more dangerous than the person who hits someone while driving drunk?  The person who acts out of rage or ignorance is much more likely to do so again, but somehow we are more willing to forgive their actions.

Is a nation that kills thousands as a by-blow, really better than one that does it intentionally?  

Compare these events.

Saddam in Iraq:

Saddam and his co-defendants are charged with retaliating against the small, mostly Shiite village of Dujail after an attempt on Saddam's life there in 1982. They are charged in connection with the deaths of more than 140 villagers and face death if convicted.

The US in Iraq:

U.S. troops fearing a car bomb attack fired on a crowded minivan and killed at least three civilians including a child north of of Baghdad on Monday.  The U.S. army's 3rd Infantry Division said its troops had opened fire after first trying to wave the minivan to a stop and then firing warning shots.  "These tragedies only happen because Zarqawi and his thugs are out there driving around with car bombs," said Major Steve Warren, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Baquba.

The cause and results here are the same: armed and powerful men acting out in fear and killing the innocent.  Yes, the US body count in that incident is lower than Saddam's, but is that all that makes morality?  If it is, what about the 24 people killed by air strikes in Baghdad on the first of April, the 33 people killed by cluster bombs the next day, or any of the more than 5,000 women and children killed by air strikes over the last two years.

To compare another couple of events, take a look at these:

Terrorists in Jordan:

Three apparent suicide attackers detonated nearly simultaneous explosions Wednesday night at hotels in downtown Amman, Jordan, killing at least 67 people and wounding more than 150 others, the deputy prime minister of Jordan said.

The US in Afghanistan:

US forces dropped a B-52 bomb on an Afghan wedding party early Monday morning, killing scores of civilians. This according to Afghan officials and area residents. US military officials have acknowledged that a bomb dropped in southern Afghanistan missed its target, but they would not confirm that a wedding party was attacked.  The London Independent says estimates put the number of deaths at more than 120, though one unconfirmed report said up to 250 had been killed.

Many in the US were outraged over the incident in Jordan.  Were they equally outraged at the wedding we destroyed in Afghanistan?  If not, then why not?

I'm not at the point where I wish for the failure of the US in Iraq or elsewhere.  Frankly, I don't think I'll ever be at that point.  I never want to be.  But I am at the point where I'm not only heartsick over our actions, I'm disgusted at what we've learned to ignore, justify, or dismiss.  I'm pretty darned old to be losing my innocence, but these days, when I see the flag waving, it stirs emotions more complex than the admiration I've felt all my life, and I'm not the person I was three years ago.