|
With
the rubble hardly even settled in the aftermath of the recent
7.6-magnitude earthquake that appears to have claimed some
20,000 lives in northern Pakistan, India and parts of Afghanistan,
I was taken aback to hear a commentator rasping on television
today that perhaps now was the ideal time for the United
States to take advantage of rival elements in the so-called
'war on terror' crippled from effective action because of
their current predicament.
This
was the kind of spiel that shouldn't have been unexpected
from such a firebrand right-winger. That said, I imagine
that even in a tactical military sense he was talking hot
air anyway, as it seems most of the Al Qaeda operatives
the U.S might be able to target along the Afghanistan-Pakistan
border really are, as reports indicate, living in caves
and settlements far enough from real civilisation that the
earthquake may have left them unaffected, plus it is unlikely,
even if relief aid was used as a bargaining chip, that Pakistan's
President Musharraf would allow a covert intervention to
enter into an already stressed and difficult situation.
Even more, it's worth considering that any potential individual
or group targets for the U.S military in the region might
well now be even harder to find at the moment anyway given
the extent of the devastation and obvious confusion and
disarray now in play.
 Still,
even for a commentator who was no doubt merely stirring
the pot, his suggestions raised the question of exactly
wherein ethics might play a role in war, and I've little
doubt that this is such an age old question there wouldn't
be enough space to even attempt to adequately answer that
question here. I'm sure it's not just conspiracy theorists
who would freely admit that there's likely far more morally
objectionable activity going on at the hands of governments
-and especially by way of their special forces divisions-
than we'd perhaps even care to know about, that is certain.
But exactly how much needs be weighed into the argument
before we can deem that it is 'okay' under a certain set
of circumstances to act upon a situation?
The
simple answer surely lies in determining whether or not
pursuing a particular course is valid so long as it can,
regardless of being deemed objectionable, allow for greater
good, and end loss and suffering in the long term (as the
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no doubt considered,
leading as they did to the end of World War II).  Yet
the problem in all this is that there is never a clear,
black or white answer that can be definitively given as
to whether or not we've correctly chosen the lesser of two
or more evils, and I've little doubt that most military
men have time for entering into philosophical debates about
what truly is the meaning of 'just'.
No,
the real, limited conclusion we have to accept is something
we already knew: that war is ugly, never clean, and terms
like 'collateral damage' and 'friendly fire' have become
far too readily accepted in the mainstream as adequate explanations
for action.
Whether
a tragedy like a shattering earthquake can be used to advantage
in times of war may well be a decision some are seriously
addressing this very week in the interests of that greater
good.
Ezy
Reading is out every Monday.
|
