Skip to main content

The war with Iran: Part One, Killing schoolchildren is wrong

 


Killing schoolchildren is wrong.  Let's start with that for today's comment on this war. 

(This is the first of a set of four comments on the US and Israeli war with Iran this week, looking at it from four different points of view: economic, political, constitutional and, today ... human. ) 

As the war began, children at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School were already in the two story building dedicated to their education, a building in the town of Minab, one with walls painted with pink flowers. A missile slammed into that building midmorning, leaving rubble and dead bodies. 

Survivors of the first strike gathered in a hall, and there became victims of a second strike. In  all there were apparently 175 people killed, 108 of them children. 

The first response of the President of the United States was,  "In my opinion and based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran. They're very inaccurate, as you know, with their munitions." 

The second of those sentences reads like an important qualification of the first.  POTUS was not saying that Iran deliberately bombed and killed its own schoolchildren as a false flag operation. He was saying, rather, that they intended to hit something else, but they are bad shots with missiles. Every accusation is a confession with this crowd.  On a very generous reading of the situation, someone in the US was actually a very bad shot.

Within days, The New York Times was reporting, and the administration was pointedly not denying, that the strikes were US initiated, and that they happened because the US Central Command was relying on target coordinates on outdated data provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency. 

How can one defend this sort of 'collateral damage'?  One could, I suppose, in principle make a 'runaway trolley' argument, i.e. one could say that Iran is akin to a runaway train and the US/Israel alliance is a bystander who sees that the trolley is about to runover a large number of people, so they are entitled to pull a switch that will re-route it, even if pulling a switch results in the killing of a smaller number of people.

Personally, I think this sort of event shows what is wrong with that sort of argument.  Let us just stay with this:  killing schoolchildren is wrong.  The defense/war department people responsible must be identified and punished.  For now the Supreme Court has decided that a sitting President can't be punished for such things.  But it hasn't extended that immunity to anyone else.  That opinion serves as no shield for War Secretary Pete Hegseth.   

 

Comments

  1. It doesn't matter who did it. It would not have happened but for Trump's illegal war. He, and the Republicans in Congress who allow it, are responsible for every death on both sides of the war.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

The Lyrics of "Live Like You Were Dying"

Back in 2004 Tim McGraw recorded the song "Live Like You were Dying." As a way of marking the one-decade anniversary of this song, I'd like to admit that a couple of the lines have confused me for years. I could use your help understanding them. In the first couple of verses, the song seems easy to follow. Two men are talking, and one tells the other about his diagnosis. The doctors have (recently? or a long time ago and mistakenly? that isn't clear) given him the news that he would die soon. "I spent most of the next days/Looking at the X-rays." Then we get a couple of lines about a man crossing items off of his bucket list. "I went sky diving, I went rocky mountain climbing, I went two point seven seconds on a bull named Fu Man Chu." Then the speaker -- presumably still the old man -- shifts to the more characterological consequences of the news. As he was doing those things, he found he was loving deeper and speaking sweeter, and givin...