You'll recall that Amos' indictment of the kingdoms adjacent to israel cited four areas in which "war crimes" took place:
- Slaughter of civilians
- Genocide
- Flagrant treaty violations
- Desecration of the dead
Slaughter of Civilians
According to Eric Hobsbawm, an eminent British historian, the 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history:
"The total number of deaths caused by or associated with its wars has been estimated at 187m, the equivalent of more than 10% of the world's population in 1913."
Among the more gruesome aspects of the 20th century warfare, Hobsbawm singles out the erosion of the distinction between combatants and non-combatants:
"The two world wars of the first half of the century involved the entire populations of belligerent countries; both combatants and non-combatants suffered. In the course of the century, however, the burden of war shifted increasingly from armed forces to civilians, who were not only its victims, but increasingly the object of military or military-political operations. The contrast between the first world war and the second is dramatic: only 5% of those who died in the first were civilians; in the second, the figure increased to 66%. It is generally supposed that 80 to 90% of those affected by war today are civilians. The proportion has increased since the end of the cold war because most military operations since then have been conducted not by conscript armies, but by small bodies of regular or irregular troops, in many cases operating high-technology weapons and protected against the risk of incurring casualties. There is no reason to doubt that the main victims of war will continue to be civilians."
Hobsbawm's article can be read in full here.
It must be remembered too that, in large measure, "civilians" = women and children. It is these who suffer most, even when there is no overt war on the ground in a region. Remember that conversation back in 1996 when Leslie Stahl, with reference to the sanctions against the Saddam regime in Iraq, asked Madeleine Albright: “We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” The then U.S. Secretary of State did not argue with the figures, but replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”
Half a million CHILDREN? It was worth that?
"Well, sure it is," replies the U.S. government, whether the administration happens to be Republican or Democratic, "It's … (wait for it) … unfortunate (ah yes, there it is) … that these terrible things happen (notice the passive voice) … but collateral damage (I'm feeling better already) is unavoidable in these situations (another passive voice … now were getting somewhere). (Time now to shift the blame …) If only Sadam (the Taliban, Hamas, the Sudanese government, etc., etc.) would only see it our way (God's way?), then things might be different (note the use of the third person, as if it had nothing to do with us … US … US! or, even worse - me … ME … ME).
We Americans had every justification in the world to have been devastated by the violent deaths of 2,873 non-combatants in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. What we're NOT entitled to is to value these civilians astronomically higher than, say, those civilians who have died as a result of the "war to bring democracy to Iraq." Speaking of whom, have you noticed the wide variation in the estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq in the last 3+ years - anywhere from 40,000 to 150,000 or higher? As we all know (i.e., if we listen to Fox News) that simply means that there are those in our midst who will go to any lengths to criticize this Administration's handling of the war. But the deeper meaning of any argument about how many civilians have died in Iraq since 2003 is that THEY'RE NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO COUNT.
(More tomorrow … MT)
Comments