“Their Martyrs, Our Heroes”
Matttbastard tweeted the link to an article in Le Monde, by John Feffer, that is sure to raise conservative hackles, but there is a lot of truth to it, in my view. The gist of the piece (it’s long) is that there is a fine line between “their” suicide bombers and “our” military heroes — and that line can get very blurry. Here is the opening:
The actor Will Smith is no one’s image of a suicide bomber. With his boyish face, he has often played comic roles. Even as the last man on earth in I Am Legend, he retains a wisecracking, ironic demeanour. And yet, surrounded by a horde of hyperactive vampires at the end of that film, Smith clasps a live grenade to his chest and throws himself at the enemy in a final burst of heroic sacrifice.
Wait a second: surely that wasn’t a suicide bombing. Will Smith wasn’t reciting suras from the Koran. He wasn’t sporting one of those rising sun headbands that the Japanese kamikaze wore for their suicide missions. He wasn’t playing a religious fanatic or a political extremist. Will Smith was the hero of the film. So how could he be a suicide bomber? After all, he’s one of us, isn’t he?
As it happens, we have our suicide bombers too. “We” are the powerful, developed countries, the ones with an overriding concern for individual liberties and individual lives. “We” form a moral archipelago that encompasses the United States, Europe, Israel, present-day Japan, and occasionally Russia. Whether in real war stories or inspiring vignettes served up in fiction and movies, our lore is full of heroes who sacrifice themselves for motherland, democracy, or simply their band of brothers. Admittedly, these men weren’t expecting 72 virgins in paradise and they didn’t make film records of their last moments, but our suicidal heroes generally have received just as much praise and recognition as “their” martyrs.
The scholarly work on suicide bombers is large and growing. Most of these studies focus on why those other people do such terrible things, sometimes against their own compatriots, but mainly against us. According to the popular view, Shia or Tamil or Chechen suicide martyrs have a fundamentally different attitude toward life and death.
If, however, we have our own rich tradition of suicide bombers – and our own unfortunate tendency to kill civilians in our military campaigns – how different can these attitudes really be?
I urge you to read — or at least skim — the entire article before commenting. Feffer does much to support his argument.
19 Responses to ““Their Martyrs, Our Heroes””
Read it. Don't buy it. To claim that a suicide bomber going into an Israeli cafe or blowing up a bus, the 9/11 conspirators or their like is equivalent to what happened during a full blown war is a false equivalency, IMO.
This post is repulsive to me. Soldiers on the battlefield in sacrificing their lives to not intentionally target civilians. You should be ashamed for posting such rubbish Kathy.
The article mentions suicide bombers are increasingly going after military targets, I guess I can see an equivalency to someone sacrificing themselves in battle in that sense. Still, the article doesn't make a very good moral distinction between military and civilian targets and seems to praise groups that “mostly” don't go after civilians.
Suicide bombings that intentionally target civilians are against the Geneva Convention and international law, and should raise the hackles of liberals as much as conservatives. I realize collateral damage is a moral gray area, but the articles authors seem to regard the whole topic as a moral gray area.
I agree with the sentiment but I just don't remember 'conservative hackles' raised over the Cheney/Bush torture and waterboarding policy.
When brought to conservatives attention that torture was against the Geneva Convention and international law the position of the right was our (the United States) law isn't, and shouldn't be, bound by either.
Some (not aimed at you DaGoat) on the right seem to only want to be bound by Geneva and other international law when it suits their views and agenda.
Some (not aimed at you DaGoat) on the right seem to only want to be bound by Geneva and other international law when it suits their views and agenda.
Judging by this article you could say the same of some on the left.
Would you please show me where anyone from the left is suggesting we shouldn't honor Geneva or international law? I read the entire article Kathy linked to, her remark and all comments so far and either I missed it or you misspoke.
Steve maybe I read too much into it but the overall tone is sympathetic to suicide bombing and I don't believe the fact that it's against the Geneva convention or international law is even considered. I would say the silence by the authors on that aspect is telling.
Gen. Confirms Afghan Civilians Wounded
How many civilians have we killed in Afghanistan?
I could take issue with your substantive points, but I'm going to pass on that this time. Your comment is civil and you obviously put some thought into writing it. These days I'm finding it more and more important to make these distinctions.
Not true, DaGoat. The article does not condone suicide bombing or other acts of violence that target civilians. The author does not suggest or state that these acts are moral. In truth, in my view at least, the whole point of the article is that suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism that kill large numbers of civilians are wrong. If that were not his position, he would have had no reason to write this article. He is saying that we in the West delude ourselves if we believe that suicide missions are the sole province of Islamists, and that in general the line between military and civilian targets in modern warfare for all practical purposes does not exist anymore, and that we have to consider that in our moral calculations. You can disagree with the sentiment, but I wish you could at least see that he is trying to get us to confront our own comfortable illusions about war and terrorism — not saying suicide bombers are moral actors.
With respect, DaGoat, the tone is *not* sympathetic to suicide bombing. It really isn't. In my view, you are perceiving the tone to be sympathetic because the author is presenting suicide bombing and other such acts as specific military or battle tactics that are used to gain advantage when dealing with large disparities in military power — and as such have been used throughout human history by many different countries or armies or groups whenever such an imbalance in power exists. He is not approving of them. He is simply saying that we bomb because we can; at other times in our history, or in other instances in various people's history, when that military advantage did not exist, or where it does not exist, fighters use tactics that Westerners now, in the 21st century, think are so different on the morality scale from what we do. They aren't. That's all he is saying.
At one point aerial bombing was considered a war crime, but then the allies needed it in WWII and attitudes changed and not a lot of thought was paid during Dresden or Nagasaki about how horrified the world was when it was happening to Brit's or the French. Rocket attacks were considered a war crime until the allies could out gun the axis and it was deemed “needed” and now of course we watch the rockets land with accuracy via their nose mounted cameras as we eat dinner.
Morality and war and morality and power do not go together in any way that I have found. There are however good ways and bad ways to approach a situation but you do need to ask who your enemy truly is. If you think they are a foaming at the mouth insane person you are not only an idiot, you are a dead idiot.
Before 911 the US had a strong group of IRA backers all over the nation, I being one. In discussing terrorism with them the explanation always boiled down to “terrorism is an act of war from the weak against the strong.” If your enemy can make you extinct you hide and become “terrorists” which is what the revolutionary war soldiers of our own nation were called. They are no different than we were, they are the weak that wish to become strong enough to protect themselves. Once you understand and embrace that and let go of why you think they are “evil” and understand why they think you are “evil” you can crush them rather quickly by stopping or slowing their recruitment which historically has been the death of the movements(that or them winning). What they want to create is an abomination to all that believe in liberty just as liberty is an abomination to them but painting them as cartoon bad guys dripping with evil is childish and the best way to lose the fight.
Fetter is wrong, Kat. The main theme here is sacrifice.
Jihadists sacrifice themselves to CAUSE harm.
Heroes, conversely, sacrifice themselves to PREVENT harm.
That is a fundamental difference. Like I tell my children…. It's not what you say it's how you say it.
Likewise here…. It's not that you sacrifice, it's WHY you sacrifice.
Motive means EVERYTHING!
When I was a kid I loved the movie Red Dawn. I have been reminded of it often over the last ten years. Two scenes in particular, the first is the scene where they decide to kill the Russian soldier and when asked why that is ok “because we live here” and I still find it hard to disagree with the sentiment. The second scene is more related to suicide bombers though. Its the scene where the girl goes in and plants a bomb in the cafe blowing up a few soldiers and a whole lot of civilians that were their fellow towns people. When these acts are committed they think it will eventually bring an end to violence(I to see the comedy here but I also see the comedy in invading Vietnam for “peace and security”). My point is that they are using the “one life for many or a few lives for many” mathematics whether you agree with their results or not.
By your definition soldiers would sadly fall into the causing harm bucket which I think is unfair and peace protesters(whether right or deluded) would be the only true heroes we have to look to. From our point of view we are trying to stop them to prevent further harm to people and the region, from their point of view they are trying to get America out of the middle east so we will stop propping up the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan among others. They actually make some good points as does our side but again looking at them as frothing at the mouth insane people does not fix the issue in any way although it does make it easier to kill them. They are a small minority that believe in a Muslim home land(some believe in more extreme versions) where Islamic law is the law of the land. In the US we have a small minority that feels the same way about the bible and making(or keeping depending on their rhetoric) the US a Christian home land ruled by Christian laws. The difference between the two in my opinion is that the recruiting base for the extremists in this country is a good deal smaller because our country is a lot better off then the countries in which these groups operate(this also makes them less likely to bomb unless you are an abortion clinic of course). If we give them solutions(the people not the jihadists) and try to help without looking like we are on another Christian crusade they will continue having trouble recruiting which is the current boat they are in. One of the most amusing ironies is that the political right in this country dislikes Obama enough that they are missing that he is our best bet to actually win this fight short of turning the middle east into a glass desert or actually letting them have their Islamic home land(with nukes since Reagan gave them to Pakistan). As someone that hopes they do not get such a place I hold out hope that the Repubs will support Obama strongly on his middle east policies because I can tell you right now a good deal of Dems will not.
I do see the point you are trying to make, MagicalSky.
When two governments go to war, the combatants are clearly known.
This was the case until Vietnam. Instead of fighting ONLY the NVA, we fought communist funded guerillas, and the Viet Kong. The enemy was not well defined.
Likewise, in the present War on Terrorism, the enemy is not well defined, and organized much like the Viet Kong – very hard to fight to prevent harm in that kind of war. Hard to define heroism as well.
However, the girl in Red Dawn, performed a terrorist act – a cowardly act. She was no hero by any standard, except perhaps, to the extremist.
Any warrior who commits an act of cowardice, or knowingly kills an innocent – is no hero. Conversely, he or she is a traitor. This standard applies to the abortion clinic bomber, the suicide bomber, the cafe bombers, the highway shooters, and even those that throw red paint on those who decide to wear fur.
Yes, there is a fine line. But until it's crossed, there is a distinction.
A true warrior has honor, courage, commitment, and an undying since of purpose.
Ok Kathy I read the WHOLE thing.
The points are there and are eloquently made. One problem: That is the difference between tactical goals and strategic goals. Not much was given to that.
Tactically, we are every bit as “bad” as our enemy. Strategically we must. in the long run, win or kill them all. Period.
Why? Because it is war and we cannot give in to bands of criminals that have no government nor can we trust them should they form a government. They want to kill our socially liberal arses. We are a threat to their socially rigid way of life because we want to bring them out of the dark ages.
We occupied Japan, Germany and Italy without all this terrorism “resistance”. Why? Because the enemy was utterly defeated and our enemies then were not as backward. This time, we haven’t utterly defeated anybody yet. Though I must say in Iraq it seems they are well on the way to utterly defeating themselves.
This is why I am a proponent for leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that we are playing into their hands by fighting their insurgency war on their terms. It is breaking the bank and THAT will certainly defeat us in the end.
However I am not a military expert, but I am willing to consider expert military opinion if I could source it without the usual political crap. It seems our intelligence agencies are considerably tight lipped and will not share with me information for my scrutiny. Apparently they have shared this information with our elected leaders and our newly elected leaders say STAY and continue to fight it out.
So Kathy, political pressure on our elected leaders to leave, (as I would wish), seems self defeating since WE elected them and they advocate continuing these wars.
War is just sht Kathy. I have seen so much of it that I cannot enjoy the fourth of July because I cannot stand the booms and bangs anymore. I flinch and jump and act silly. Though none of that is a millionth as horrible as the pictures that reside in my head from war. You just have to accept the fact that war is sht and that war will never change into antyhing less than sht but we must eat the sht or watch our nation die.
Thats how I see it.
P.S.
Red dawn was childishly stupid movie. Want a sick one? Torpedo Run with Glen Ford. He blows his own family to bits for God and Country. What stirring patriotism.
Blaahhh
Red Dawn ruled when I was 9, otherwise I can't really defend it but when I was 9 it was the paranoid bee's knees.
The terrorists are trying to kill and maim the innocent. We are not; we try to avoid accidental casualties among the innocent (crippling ourselves at times, in the process).
The terrorists or other guerrillas (like Soviet proxy forces in Central America during the 1980s) aren't honorable.
I didn't expect the intellectual level to rise to where it would involve this, but while we were not routinely engaging in “suicide bombing,” in World War II, our Japanese adversaries sometimes were. These included not only the famous kamikaze pilots, or the suicide submariners, but also, for example, the “human mines” who would carry mines with them under enemy vehicles or positions, and detonate them (and kill themselves). A similar role was played by those who attacked enemies fanatically with the expectation that they would be killed, but would kill enemies before that happened.