Moral inversion
Posted by aogSaturday, 08 January 2005 at 15:36 TrackBack Ping URL

I was reading yet another knee-jerk whine about Alberto Gonzales when I realized a key difference in the occupation of Iraq vs. other occupations in military history.

The normal state of affairs is that partisans are constrained by the occupiers via civilian reprisals. I.e., if the partisans strike then the occupier detains, tortures or kills civilians.

Yet what is the situation in Iraq? It is the partisans who constrain the occupiers via civilian reprisals. It is the occupiers who strive desperately to protect the occupied citizens, sometimes stepping over the line as in Abu Ghraib, but with the purpose of preventing civilian atrocities. On the other hand, the caliphascists deliberately commit massacres on their own fellow citizens to punish the occupiers (aid and abetted by Old Media).

If that doesn’t make clear which is really disdainful and uncaring about the Iraqi people, then you’re obviously not part of any reality based community.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Dave Sheridan Monday, 10 January 2005 at 17:13

Absolutely true, and in this light lots of critics are using the wrong framework to evaluate interrogation techniques. In many of these cases, the paradigm should be akin to one I read some time ago: What are the moral guidelines for interrogating a kidnapper known to have his victims hidden away, and in danger of death if not found soon?

End of Discussion