How Innocent are 'Innocent' Civilians?
How Innocent Are “Innocent” Civilians?
One hears the phrase “innocent civilians” a lot these days, especially in regards to the victims of “terrorist” attacks. It goes something like, “how can these terrorists rationalize the wilfull killing of innocent civilians…” or “Terrorist target innocent civilians because they have no value for human life…” …”Terrorists are evil and they only want to kill innocents…” For some reason, state violence against another state (such as US Shock and Awe campaign which opened the current US war against Iraq, or our support of Sadam Hussein prior to 1992) which over the years has killed infinitely more civilian don’t often solicit the same condemnation…However, this double standard is not the focus of this post, rather how innocent are “innocent” civilians is.
First of all, are these civilian’s innocent as in not being guilty of a crime, as in not being corrupted, or as in being ignorant of something? This more than likely than not depends on the context. Of course, children who get killed in state authorized bombing campaigns or via a suicide bomb are innocent in all three areas. However, to use a particularly loaded example, in what ways were the victims of 9-11 innocent? Are civilians by definition “innocent”? Of course, the people who where murdered that day did not deserve that fate, but that does not necessarily mean that they are “innocent.”?
The main gripe of those who carried out the attacks of 9-11, was US intervention in Muslim, (often oil-rich countries). They do not hate (or particularly embrace) our freedoms, rather they “hate” US foreign policy—political, economic, and military intervention both overt and covert that has been ongoing since the end of WWII. Intervention, by the way, that has resulted in much civilian suffering and death, via sanctions and US fueling of civil and other strife in (see Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Indonesia), US support of un-democratic regimes and rulers as long as they were “friendly” to our Oil interests etc in their countries, US bases in Saudi Arabia, the US’s carte blanche support of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories (Israel receives more US aid than any other country, most in military grants, and US consistently vetoes any UN resolutions that are critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians…), and the US’s media and intelligencia’s continuous construction of Muslims and Muslim society en masse as backward , barbaric, infantile, and in need of “civilizing.”
Now, normally in today’s neo-realist dominated international relations ideology, a country’s foreign policy is structured to promote the country’s self-interest, however currently constructed, by limiting as much as possible actions of other States that are seen as possibly negatively impacting that country’s pursuing its self-interest. Now, whether or not this self-interest is actually for the benefit of the public in general, or in fact more about imperial expansion which benefits primarily the power elite at the expense of both the majorities within and without the borders, while in need of more critical engagement, is not within the scope of this post to address here (See Noam Chomsky, Lilly Ling, Howard Zinn, Cornel West, Robert Frisk, bell hooks, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Francis Fukoyama etc). The question is how culpable are the citizens for their country’s foreign policies? Again, this is context specific. One should not hold the citizens, of say Afghanistan, North Korea, or Columbia to account the same way we would the citizens of say the USA, Great Britain, or Israel. Actual functioning democratic societies whose population enjoy a relatively good standard of living and who enjoy historically unprecedented access to information (if one bothers to look for it), in my opinion, can and should be held to greater account for the actions of their governments then those citizens who are mostly impoverished and repressed with little or no access to information and who have no institutionalized way of holding their rulers to account.
By this standard, the US populace of voting age, especially those who are either aware of the underside of their government’s policies and opt for either nihilism, support, or feigned ignorance, or those who don’t bother to Socratically engage the myths spun by (most ) politicians and pundits and continue by either participation or non participation in the democratic process to support these actions (which in part construct this “terrorist” threat we are so freaked about) cannot be correctly labeled as innocent.
The current rationale for Iraq is that by fighting there the US is safer. So by this rationale our security is being in large part paid for with Iraqi (mainly civilian) blood and well-being. Are those who go along (either willingly or with resignation) with this rationale innocent? Would it not be fair for Iraqis (or others) to hold US citizens’ accountable for the price they are paying?
Much of the West’s wealth and power has been cultivated by the oppression and exploitation of the rest of the world for the past 400 plus years and this continues and it continues to breed resistance that is becoming more and more radicalized and violent and more dedicated to share with the civilians of the West what many of the civilians of the Rest have and continue to experience by the hands of Western powers and their foreign client regimes…insecurity, instability, and yes, terrorism.
If one benefits, in anyway from the injustice born upon others, and does nothing in work or deed to change the status quo can they be said to be innocent? This is a philosophical and moral question that needs to be addressed, especially by citizens who enjoy relative freedom and the ability to hold to account those who inflict injustice in our name and with our resources.
One hears the phrase “innocent civilians” a lot these days, especially in regards to the victims of “terrorist” attacks. It goes something like, “how can these terrorists rationalize the wilfull killing of innocent civilians…” or “Terrorist target innocent civilians because they have no value for human life…” …”Terrorists are evil and they only want to kill innocents…” For some reason, state violence against another state (such as US Shock and Awe campaign which opened the current US war against Iraq, or our support of Sadam Hussein prior to 1992) which over the years has killed infinitely more civilian don’t often solicit the same condemnation…However, this double standard is not the focus of this post, rather how innocent are “innocent” civilians is.
First of all, are these civilian’s innocent as in not being guilty of a crime, as in not being corrupted, or as in being ignorant of something? This more than likely than not depends on the context. Of course, children who get killed in state authorized bombing campaigns or via a suicide bomb are innocent in all three areas. However, to use a particularly loaded example, in what ways were the victims of 9-11 innocent? Are civilians by definition “innocent”? Of course, the people who where murdered that day did not deserve that fate, but that does not necessarily mean that they are “innocent.”?
The main gripe of those who carried out the attacks of 9-11, was US intervention in Muslim, (often oil-rich countries). They do not hate (or particularly embrace) our freedoms, rather they “hate” US foreign policy—political, economic, and military intervention both overt and covert that has been ongoing since the end of WWII. Intervention, by the way, that has resulted in much civilian suffering and death, via sanctions and US fueling of civil and other strife in (see Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Indonesia), US support of un-democratic regimes and rulers as long as they were “friendly” to our Oil interests etc in their countries, US bases in Saudi Arabia, the US’s carte blanche support of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories (Israel receives more US aid than any other country, most in military grants, and US consistently vetoes any UN resolutions that are critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians…), and the US’s media and intelligencia’s continuous construction of Muslims and Muslim society en masse as backward , barbaric, infantile, and in need of “civilizing.”
Now, normally in today’s neo-realist dominated international relations ideology, a country’s foreign policy is structured to promote the country’s self-interest, however currently constructed, by limiting as much as possible actions of other States that are seen as possibly negatively impacting that country’s pursuing its self-interest. Now, whether or not this self-interest is actually for the benefit of the public in general, or in fact more about imperial expansion which benefits primarily the power elite at the expense of both the majorities within and without the borders, while in need of more critical engagement, is not within the scope of this post to address here (See Noam Chomsky, Lilly Ling, Howard Zinn, Cornel West, Robert Frisk, bell hooks, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Francis Fukoyama etc). The question is how culpable are the citizens for their country’s foreign policies? Again, this is context specific. One should not hold the citizens, of say Afghanistan, North Korea, or Columbia to account the same way we would the citizens of say the USA, Great Britain, or Israel. Actual functioning democratic societies whose population enjoy a relatively good standard of living and who enjoy historically unprecedented access to information (if one bothers to look for it), in my opinion, can and should be held to greater account for the actions of their governments then those citizens who are mostly impoverished and repressed with little or no access to information and who have no institutionalized way of holding their rulers to account.
By this standard, the US populace of voting age, especially those who are either aware of the underside of their government’s policies and opt for either nihilism, support, or feigned ignorance, or those who don’t bother to Socratically engage the myths spun by (most ) politicians and pundits and continue by either participation or non participation in the democratic process to support these actions (which in part construct this “terrorist” threat we are so freaked about) cannot be correctly labeled as innocent.
The current rationale for Iraq is that by fighting there the US is safer. So by this rationale our security is being in large part paid for with Iraqi (mainly civilian) blood and well-being. Are those who go along (either willingly or with resignation) with this rationale innocent? Would it not be fair for Iraqis (or others) to hold US citizens’ accountable for the price they are paying?
Much of the West’s wealth and power has been cultivated by the oppression and exploitation of the rest of the world for the past 400 plus years and this continues and it continues to breed resistance that is becoming more and more radicalized and violent and more dedicated to share with the civilians of the West what many of the civilians of the Rest have and continue to experience by the hands of Western powers and their foreign client regimes…insecurity, instability, and yes, terrorism.
If one benefits, in anyway from the injustice born upon others, and does nothing in work or deed to change the status quo can they be said to be innocent? This is a philosophical and moral question that needs to be addressed, especially by citizens who enjoy relative freedom and the ability to hold to account those who inflict injustice in our name and with our resources.
posted by Green Tara at 3:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home