Death of Uday & Qusay
and other thoughts at random

There's literally no escaping this news. Even anti-war blogs are reporting — some noting that they're glad these guys are dead. Reports suggest that these were bad guys, and the Iraqis are reportedly very glad that they're dead. But I believe there's a little, tiny, problem with us anti-strike folk cheering the deaths of these "evil" men:

By implication, it supports the Administration's "bad guy" justification for the strike. This is an argument the Administration posed prior to the attack, and is trying to emphasize now (to drown out controversy about unfound WMD): a pre-emptive strike was justified because Saddam was a Baaahhhd Maaahhn. Our Fearless Leader, doing his best imitation of Marvel Comics, posed a classic "What If" question: if you could travel back in time & kill Hitler before the worst of WWII and the Holocaust, wouldn't you?

Well, I hope anyone who has studied history at even a superficial level can list the differences between the situation with Hitler in the '30s and the situation with Hussein without my assistance. Just as a beginning, Hitler invaded a number of his neighbors, and ultimately attacked our long-time ally, Britain. Hussein, by contrast, has been more of a threat to his own people (since the end of GW I) than to any neighboring state, much less the U.S. or a U.S. ally.

The "Baaahhhd Maaahhn" justification for pre-emptive strike is pretty shaky. There are plenty of Bad Guys out there, and there are times when American foreign policy looks pretty bad when judged by the moral code we would impose on others. And others have more cogently made the point that the terrorists of 9/11 perceived their action as a pre-emptive strike against the "Bad Guy" America.

Heck, even Tim McVeigh may have bought into the argument that it's best to strike before things esculate to concentration camps, etc. Evidence suggests that McVeigh perceived "the government" as the bad guy enemy, and he considered civilian casualties as "collateral damage".

I'm not preaching moral relativism here. Nor would I argue in favor of isolationism. Assistance to Great Britain during the Blitz was probably the right thing. Standing up to Hitler as he tried to create a new German empire might have been a good idea. This logic might apply to Allied defense of Kuwait as well. In all these cases, however, there was overt external aggression by the "bad guy", and the world community was fairly agreed the agression needed to be met with force.

Back to Uday and Qusay, I wonder about their deaths. This CNN report indicates they "resisted arrest", but I wonder what efforts were made to capture them alive. Didn't our troops have tear gas handy? Imagine what intelligence we might have received from these guys if we had captured them. Might have even led us to their dad.

Hate to sound cynical, or like a conspiracy theory nut, but maybe these guys were worth more to the Administration dead than alive.

Thus, I cannot rejoice in their deaths.

---

Here's another story about a son's death sent on to me by Brother Dave. The story concerns a Marine, given the name John, who loves his country, but did not support the war. Yet, being a man of integrity, John fought in a war he believed unjust. As the article states, he foresaw negative repurcussions to the pre-emptive strike; quoting from the article:

He said it was unlikely that Iraqis would cheer the arrival of a U.S. occupying force, and that long-term urban combat could be a likely outcome.

---

The good Dr. Omed has this intriguing parable at his tent show. Well worth pondering. Reminds me a little of an on-going series of mine I call Hagiopoeia; who knows? Might post one of my faves up here in the near future.