The life of William S Burroughs was shaped by the choices he made, which ultimately revealed him to be a venal, self-centred, and nonhumanist man.
Unfortunately, as a libertarian, Burroughs impinged on the lives of others through those affected by his writings. One of his tracts advocated random assassination, as a force to destabilise a society. As a disaffected product of a wealthy nation, he had the freedom to do that.
It is possible but doubtful that Indonesian jihadists have read his writings. But they come from exactly the same place, albeit being disaffected products of a poor nation.
Which some of them just made poorer. Every time the indiscriminate bombing of a western target splashes death tolls across world headlines, Indonesia's economy tanks. And it's not just tourism - one of its prime industries - that suffers; it's also trade, and in particular the foreign investment that lifts a poor country up into the developing world. And if you don't hold much stock in that, you don't live in poverty in a poverty-stricken country.
Those latest bombers can be excused for feeling disaffected, at the receiving end of a number of potentially crushing power disparities. But there can be no excuse for the stupidity and selfishness of their action, which ultimately have the opposite effect of whatever their intention was.
And those who expect to get rewarded in an afterlife would find, if you could model such an afterlife, that they are excluded for that very selfishness and stupidity.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Rationality on war
A fascinating interview with a counterinsurgency expert, David Kilcullen - an Australian who advised the Bush administration in its later times.
He's actually quite the opposite to what you'd expect - ex-army, but a doctoral graduate in anthropology, and an ethical expert on war, terrorism, and counterinsurgency.
You can listen to it here.
He's actually quite the opposite to what you'd expect - ex-army, but a doctoral graduate in anthropology, and an ethical expert on war, terrorism, and counterinsurgency.
You can listen to it here.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Death of a Tamil brutaliser
Recently, both sides finally agreed that the leader of the Tamil Tigers is now dead. He had been killed in the recent action by the Sri Lankan army that, amidst a great deal of civilian anguish, elimanated the remnants of the Tigers as a (current) fighting force.
Velupillai Prabhakaran was apparently a rather obsessive man, at one time saying he'd instructed his people to shoot him if he ever deviated from their goals.
Prabhakaran is arguably credited with instigating the modern phenomenon of suicide bombing, the unpleasant rash sweeping the world.
It is easy to understand the level of desparation running through the populace in arenas of greatly uneven conflict: decades of brutalisation and privation, for example, have brought the Palestinians to where they are today. Motives of suicide bombers are the subject of much disagreement in a range of wildly conflicting studies, but it is clear that oppression - or its perception - is a key factor in most cases. And this directly equates to uneven conflict, which is where the suicide bomber's victimhood lies.
It is such an insidious, indifferent weapon. The prime perpetrators are those who consign the bombers to death, and there should be no sympathy for them. They are - in general - far too willing to murder people whose culpability in the conflict is negligible to none. Indiscriminate killing brutalises all sides: if there emerges any victor in such a conflict, they would have to preside over further decades of a violent society that they inflicted on the collective psyche.
The worst I've heard was reported by Owen Bennett-Jones, a BBC journalist with a strong reputation. He told of a family (in Pakistan, I believe) who recruited a 13-year-old boy to be a suicide bomber, who duly followed his orders. Although the boy was led to understand he would become a religious martyr, the root intention was far more prosaic: a single personal dispute.
All it takes is people who are too easily led (lack of education certainly helps, but it's not a prerequisite), plus someone who is lacking enough in humanity to propel someone else to certain death rather than do it themselves.
And this is not to neglect the greatest victims: those many civilians whose only crime is to try to live out the life they found themselves in.
Velupillai Prabhakaran was apparently a rather obsessive man, at one time saying he'd instructed his people to shoot him if he ever deviated from their goals.
Prabhakaran is arguably credited with instigating the modern phenomenon of suicide bombing, the unpleasant rash sweeping the world.
It is easy to understand the level of desparation running through the populace in arenas of greatly uneven conflict: decades of brutalisation and privation, for example, have brought the Palestinians to where they are today. Motives of suicide bombers are the subject of much disagreement in a range of wildly conflicting studies, but it is clear that oppression - or its perception - is a key factor in most cases. And this directly equates to uneven conflict, which is where the suicide bomber's victimhood lies.
It is such an insidious, indifferent weapon. The prime perpetrators are those who consign the bombers to death, and there should be no sympathy for them. They are - in general - far too willing to murder people whose culpability in the conflict is negligible to none. Indiscriminate killing brutalises all sides: if there emerges any victor in such a conflict, they would have to preside over further decades of a violent society that they inflicted on the collective psyche.
The worst I've heard was reported by Owen Bennett-Jones, a BBC journalist with a strong reputation. He told of a family (in Pakistan, I believe) who recruited a 13-year-old boy to be a suicide bomber, who duly followed his orders. Although the boy was led to understand he would become a religious martyr, the root intention was far more prosaic: a single personal dispute.
All it takes is people who are too easily led (lack of education certainly helps, but it's not a prerequisite), plus someone who is lacking enough in humanity to propel someone else to certain death rather than do it themselves.
And this is not to neglect the greatest victims: those many civilians whose only crime is to try to live out the life they found themselves in.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Ossetia, the political football
"Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to - and it does want to."
With those words relating to the conflagration in South Ossetia between Georgia and Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has raised the stakes in rhetorical warfare that increasingly resembles a poker game. Neither side knows how far the other is prepared to go, what cards they will play, but so far is willing to test the other.
Earlier, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev had given the US a very direct message to keep out of the situation, saying that US intervention would endanger the current Russia-US relationship. In that light, Russia may see any escalation in NATO involvement as simply US-by-proxy. Concurrent with Merkel's declaration, Condoleezza Rice was referring to Russia's reputation as in "tatters".
Ossetia is a region that straddles the Greater Caucasus mountains that separate Russia from Georgia. North Ossetia is clearly a Russian territory, while South Ossetia is ostensibly part of Georgia, although strong irredentist pressures have kept Georgia from maintaining control of the region and resulted in a breakaway government in South Ossetia that is not recognised internationally. Over the past twenty years, tensions between Georgians and Ossetians (who speak a language originating in Iran, although they are predominantly Orthodox Christians) has resulted in violence, refugees, and claims of ethnic cleansing on both sides.
The Georgian army is pathetically small compared to the Russians, which is why Russian forces have blithely traversed parts of Georgia since the latest conflagration began, and still do, despite a ceasefire agreement that stipulated withdrawal of Russian forces from non-Ossetian Georgia. Overnight, a BBC correspondent asked some Russian soldiers when they would be leaving, but of course the soldiers didn't have a clue, and seemed entrenched. Russian calls its forces "peacekeepers", however there does not appear to be any international sanction of this, and Georgia refers to them as an army of occupation.
The current turmoil erupted between Georgian and Ossetian separatist forces on August 1, with both sides claiming ceasefire violation by the other. Russia stepped up rhetoric after Ossetian refugees streamed into Russia, then despite another ceasefire agreement, Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili vowed to wrest control from the Ossetian "criminals".
Saakashvili, who has in his background US legal training, arose from the ruins of the notoriously corrupt Georgian administration of ex-Soviet Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. Young, pro-Western, and very popular (96% of the vote in 2004), Saakashvili has reduced corruption a fair bit. But from that mandate (down to 53% this year) he's proved himself capable of being as much an autocratic firebrand as any of the ex-Soviet leaders.
In probing the origins of the current hostilities, I could find nobody blameless. Russian, Georgian and Ossetian leaderships all have their own agendas, and in pushing them, cause people to suffer.
Update 21-Aug-08: Overnight BBC news added a couple of pertinient points to the above. First, Poland has agreed to host US missile bases (that purport to be strategically placed for Middle Eastern, rather than Russian, threats. As if). This is a salient development because a) talks had stalled prior to the current Ossetian conflagration; and b) Polish public opinion was against it, now is for it - again, possible to sheet home to the Ossetian issue.
The other development was Human Rights Watch reporting that whereas Russian had claimed genocide due to indiscriminate Georgian shelling of Ossetia, all evidence points to deaths being numbered in the dozens rather than thousands. This comes from ground reports such as hospitals, burials, etc.
Still it remains that no side has clean hands.
With those words relating to the conflagration in South Ossetia between Georgia and Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has raised the stakes in rhetorical warfare that increasingly resembles a poker game. Neither side knows how far the other is prepared to go, what cards they will play, but so far is willing to test the other.
Earlier, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev had given the US a very direct message to keep out of the situation, saying that US intervention would endanger the current Russia-US relationship. In that light, Russia may see any escalation in NATO involvement as simply US-by-proxy. Concurrent with Merkel's declaration, Condoleezza Rice was referring to Russia's reputation as in "tatters".
Ossetia is a region that straddles the Greater Caucasus mountains that separate Russia from Georgia. North Ossetia is clearly a Russian territory, while South Ossetia is ostensibly part of Georgia, although strong irredentist pressures have kept Georgia from maintaining control of the region and resulted in a breakaway government in South Ossetia that is not recognised internationally. Over the past twenty years, tensions between Georgians and Ossetians (who speak a language originating in Iran, although they are predominantly Orthodox Christians) has resulted in violence, refugees, and claims of ethnic cleansing on both sides.
The Georgian army is pathetically small compared to the Russians, which is why Russian forces have blithely traversed parts of Georgia since the latest conflagration began, and still do, despite a ceasefire agreement that stipulated withdrawal of Russian forces from non-Ossetian Georgia. Overnight, a BBC correspondent asked some Russian soldiers when they would be leaving, but of course the soldiers didn't have a clue, and seemed entrenched. Russian calls its forces "peacekeepers", however there does not appear to be any international sanction of this, and Georgia refers to them as an army of occupation.
The current turmoil erupted between Georgian and Ossetian separatist forces on August 1, with both sides claiming ceasefire violation by the other. Russia stepped up rhetoric after Ossetian refugees streamed into Russia, then despite another ceasefire agreement, Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili vowed to wrest control from the Ossetian "criminals".
Saakashvili, who has in his background US legal training, arose from the ruins of the notoriously corrupt Georgian administration of ex-Soviet Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. Young, pro-Western, and very popular (96% of the vote in 2004), Saakashvili has reduced corruption a fair bit. But from that mandate (down to 53% this year) he's proved himself capable of being as much an autocratic firebrand as any of the ex-Soviet leaders.
In probing the origins of the current hostilities, I could find nobody blameless. Russian, Georgian and Ossetian leaderships all have their own agendas, and in pushing them, cause people to suffer.
Update 21-Aug-08: Overnight BBC news added a couple of pertinient points to the above. First, Poland has agreed to host US missile bases (that purport to be strategically placed for Middle Eastern, rather than Russian, threats. As if). This is a salient development because a) talks had stalled prior to the current Ossetian conflagration; and b) Polish public opinion was against it, now is for it - again, possible to sheet home to the Ossetian issue.
The other development was Human Rights Watch reporting that whereas Russian had claimed genocide due to indiscriminate Georgian shelling of Ossetia, all evidence points to deaths being numbered in the dozens rather than thousands. This comes from ground reports such as hospitals, burials, etc.
Still it remains that no side has clean hands.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
World: Iraq and ethical minefields
Bush invaded Iraq without international approval. Motivation? Pick one:
- weapons of mass destruction: not found; evidence was always dodgy
- terrorism: only very minor links found; no links to the world trade centre attacks
- get rid of Saddam Hussein: problematic; see below. Unlikely to be a direct motivation
- vengeance: wanted to attack someone: tenuous
- secure oil supply: far and away most consistent with Bush’s past stated aims.
Invasion to secure energy supplies is clearly not ethical.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo Bay, and the practice of “rendition” are probably in large part a direct response to the World Trade Centre attacks. Understandable in the context of a small child’s reprisals, but certainly not the hallmarks of an ethical administration, or leader.
I suspect that there’s an inherent difficulty in maintaining ethics as a world power. I suspect it would be quite difficult applying personal ethical standards to world politics. However, I'd say some are better at it than others. Scandinavian countries, for example.
What do you think of the ethics of the European Union? In toto, are they significantly better than the US? Discuss.
I also suspect that using power unethically will only, in the long run, exacerbate problems.
Bush is not ethical. Are you? Did you want to get rid of Saddam? Well, of course. He was a butcher. But world politics doesn’t work that way – otherwise we’d all be invading each other on the slightest pretext. So, what would have been the most ethical thing to do in Iraq?
More difficult: what's the best thing to do, now that we're in the current situation? Leave? Then by default leave things to the Sunni 'insurgents'? They were, after all, funded by the billions looted in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, before the US decided to try to exert some control.
Murdering thousands of innocents, and brutalising a whole populace, is certainly about the lowest you can get. And I'm talking about these 'insurgents', never mind what the US is doing.
And what ethical yardsticks should we apply to nations as a whole? Should different standards apply to world powers? In my heart, I'd say we should all purvey the same standards, but I get the feeling this is not really possible. In practice, I think smaller players in world diplomacy - Scandinavia, EU, UN - tend to try for more achievable goals rather than absolutes.
- weapons of mass destruction: not found; evidence was always dodgy
- terrorism: only very minor links found; no links to the world trade centre attacks
- get rid of Saddam Hussein: problematic; see below. Unlikely to be a direct motivation
- vengeance: wanted to attack someone: tenuous
- secure oil supply: far and away most consistent with Bush’s past stated aims.
Invasion to secure energy supplies is clearly not ethical.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo Bay, and the practice of “rendition” are probably in large part a direct response to the World Trade Centre attacks. Understandable in the context of a small child’s reprisals, but certainly not the hallmarks of an ethical administration, or leader.
I suspect that there’s an inherent difficulty in maintaining ethics as a world power. I suspect it would be quite difficult applying personal ethical standards to world politics. However, I'd say some are better at it than others. Scandinavian countries, for example.
What do you think of the ethics of the European Union? In toto, are they significantly better than the US? Discuss.
I also suspect that using power unethically will only, in the long run, exacerbate problems.
Bush is not ethical. Are you? Did you want to get rid of Saddam? Well, of course. He was a butcher. But world politics doesn’t work that way – otherwise we’d all be invading each other on the slightest pretext. So, what would have been the most ethical thing to do in Iraq?
More difficult: what's the best thing to do, now that we're in the current situation? Leave? Then by default leave things to the Sunni 'insurgents'? They were, after all, funded by the billions looted in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, before the US decided to try to exert some control.
Murdering thousands of innocents, and brutalising a whole populace, is certainly about the lowest you can get. And I'm talking about these 'insurgents', never mind what the US is doing.
And what ethical yardsticks should we apply to nations as a whole? Should different standards apply to world powers? In my heart, I'd say we should all purvey the same standards, but I get the feeling this is not really possible. In practice, I think smaller players in world diplomacy - Scandinavia, EU, UN - tend to try for more achievable goals rather than absolutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)