War, Morality, and Sending In the Drones

[donquixote99]

The question isn't who will drive the drones, but who will drive the 'policy.' That's the question Dondilion keeps skipping over. No one can argue so well against the 'necessity' of some level of 'toughness' when fighting, so he feels on firm ground. The necessity of fighting in the first place, though, is a more difficult matter, and there are dangers in caring not enough about the destruction of little girls, as well as in caring too much.

We are programmed to hate enemies, and want to kill them, and to disregard whatever stands in the way of that. But we bathe too much in blood if we have no other values, as well.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The question isn't who will drive the drones, but who will drive the 'policy.' That's the question Dondilion keeps skipping over. No one can argue so well against the 'necessity' of some level of 'toughness' when fighting, so he feels on firm ground. The necessity of fighting in the first place, though, is a more difficult matter, and there are dangers in caring not enough about the destruction of little girls, as well as in caring too much.

We are programmed to hate enemies, and want to kill them, and to disregard whatever stands in the way of that. But we bathe too much in blood if we have no other values, as well.

Compare the level of care we have taken in Syria to avoid civilian casualties to that taken by Russia.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The question isn't who will drive the drones, but who will drive the 'policy.' That's the question Dondilion keeps skipping over. No one can argue so well against the 'necessity' of some level of 'toughness' when fighting, so he feels on firm ground. The necessity of fighting in the first place, though, is a more difficult matter, and there are dangers in caring not enough about the destruction of little girls, as well as in caring too much.

We are programmed to hate enemies, and want to kill them, and to disregard whatever stands in the way of that. But we bathe too much in blood if we have no other values, as well.

You bring a weak article to support your preamble.

To some extent the article is not even dealing with your introduction.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Compare the level of care we have taken in Syria to avoid civilian casualties to that taken by Russia.

Quite so. It points to a contrast in chief executives, who do nothing if they don't set values for the organization.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

You bring a weak article to support your preamble.

To some extent the article is not even dealing with your introduction.

Oddly enough, I found the Leonard Pitts essay very powerful indeed. The point is not whether you have to blow the girl up, in the case as given. You do.

The point to is know you will have to do it, and give it due weight, before starting, and never forget it.

And the point of my preamble is the leaders have to be good persons making good policy, for the policy to be good enough to justify blowing up young girls. Not tough guys who consider it a badge of honor to not care.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

And the point of my preamble is the leaders have to be good persons making good policy, for the policy to be good enough to justify blowing up young girls. Not tough guys who consider it a badge of honor to not care.

The "have to be good person, making good policy" was not clear, explicit. One would have to really work to get to that.

What was clear and center: War is about the rivalry and struggle of political elites for power and wealth largely to satisfy their ego.

[donquixote99]

Well, this is what dialog is good for, to clarify things.