Blessed are the peacemakers. From Laurie Calhoun at libertarianinstitute.org:
It has become fashionable once again for regime apologists to denounce as “simpleminded,” even immoral, any assertion or intimation of moral equivalence between government killers and the factional fighters who undertake violent retaliation against them. Throughout the emotionally fraught dispute engendered by the events of October 7, 2023, and its aftermath, there has been a reigning confusion regarding what “moral equivalence” actually means.
The classical concept of “invincible ignorance,” which derives from the “just war” tradition, is closely related to the question of moral equivalence in killing because the soldiers on both sides of every conflict have been told by their commanders that they are acting in the name of justice. What’s more, the soldiers of formal military states are dutybound to obey what they themselves take to be lawful orders. They may of course be mistaken, but the question of objective justice is not the appropriate measure to use in analyzing what is happening during wartime, because the intentions acted upon inhere in individual actors, not the collective groups or institutions to which they belong. The truth is that in every war, whether symmetrical or asymmetrical, a number of strict moral equivalences obtain between the participants, whether killers or their material and moral supporters, on both sides:
- Both sides believe that they are right, and their adversaries are wrong.
- Both sides believe that their coveted end justifies the means which they choose to deploy in achieving that end.
- Both sides claim to be aiming for justice and assume that violence must be met with more violence in order to avenge the wrongs already done.
- Both sides have already decided, in advance of deploying any weapons, that they are willing to sacrifice innocent civilians, should that become necessary.
- Both sides tend to regard the adult inhabitants of the enemy group as responsible for the crimes committed in virtue of the material and moral support which they have provided. This is true even in cases where one side is governed by a ruthless despot who makes it impossible to resist without risking severe consequences, up to and including death.
- The fighters on both sides are willing to kill for their cause. (When the soldiers are coerced to fight under penalty of death for failure to comply, it is unclear that are freely choosing to do so, but they are still acting as they do in order to achieve a more modest aim: to avoid military execution.)
- Because they believe that their cause is righteous and just, both sides act in good conscience and stigmatize their enemy as evil, even while knowing, on some level, that their adversaries, too, embrace the very same Manichean dichotomy: “We are good, and they are evil.”
I appreciate your presenting the argument so well that there is no moral side to a war. I was in the Marine Corps from 1968-1972, and there were many questions about what was happening and what the US was responsible for. So many times, military advantage was voluntarily given up in Vietnam after the sacrifice of American men and civilians, only to return and do it again. It was always justified that American lives are valuable, but the Vietnamese lives are not. Most people are unaware that the chemical warfare prosecuted in Vietnam was against the farmers in South Vietnam, a price of destroyed health, which they continue to pay. The reasoning was not to prevent the ‘enemy soldiers’ from benefiting from the food of the small farms but to motivate the farmers to move to the city and refugee camps where they could be ‘protected’ (contained).
Attacking the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos seemed like the strategic thing to do until reasoning that a jet screaming along at 700 mph over a dense jungle had no way of determining if those observed were ‘enemies’ or Laotian civilians who had no way to leave the area, they were tied to their land and farms and just hoping to survive, it was their fault for being in the wrong place. They still pay the price when they find unexploded munitions and accidentally annihilate themselves, trying to remove them from their farm.
When questioning the tactics used, I was usually just told that I didn’t have the information that made our decisions moral in the attempt to defeat the enemy, and I was not able to view the ‘secret’ information lest I accidentally reveal our strategy, I just had to accept what information I was given. Some just were in the way, and if they didn’t want to get killed they should have gone somewhere else if they didn’t want to get killed.
It took a long time to sort out what had been done and realize that killing 3.2 million people got in the way of preventing 1 million who would be killed by their ‘immoral government’ and didn’t realize America was morally killing them and that was the difference.
I regret my part in this and cannot excuse it I was young. I had questions and yet submitted to authority because they claimed our ends justified our means and believed myself to be too ignorant to make the connection between behavior and morality of killing to make a point.
I have since concluded that there was never a ‘moral’ war. There are always nefarious dealings at the top levels of both sides and the dragging along of the little people who will do the killing and getting killed. The moral comfort given by those who lead is, well, at least we were morally right.
Chad
Chad
Vietnam was just before my time (I graduated high school in 1976), but I’ve read a lot about it. Kill Anything That Moves by Nick Turse had a lot of material and statistics about the issues you raise. What impresses me about your comment is your honesty. I don’t know, if I had been involved with the Vietnam War, if I would have done anything differently than what you, and so many of your fellow soldiers, did. However, you’re willing to acknowledge what was done and to talk about it. I haven’t talked to that many Vietnam vets, but it appears that some, like you, can candidly talk about their experiences, but many cannot. Not having been in Vietnam, I’m not prepared to condemn those who were, but I do respect those who are honest with themselves and everyone else. Thank you.