Speaking Truth to Nicholas Kristof

Guest poster, Donald Johnson at Body & Soul writes:

I'm antiwar, but I recognize that the world is a complicated, messy, morally gray place, where it's not always clear what the best course of action is going to be if you want to save the largest number of lives.  So I don't know if the withdrawal option is right. Iraq might plunge into worse chaos -- something withdrawal advocates should think about before being too judgmental of the motives of the military intervention types.  But if Kristof favors the US going around using the military in an alleged effort to do good, the very least he can do is to insist that when war crimes are committed as a result of policy decisions, then high-ranking American officials (not just sergeants and lieutenants) should face long prison terms. That would provide strong incentives for political and military leaders to plan carefully and really think things through before they start dropping bombs on cities  and favoring torture. It would also firmly impress on the world that we really mean what we say.


As it happens, I don't think we mean what we say and don't expect to see anything of the sort done and don't for one second think that the Bush Administration really cares about humanitarian issues in any serious way, but Kristof is probably serious and if so, then he ought to point it out when we commit war crimes. The use of aerial bombing as a form of collective punishment, or to drive wedges between civilians and insurgents, is a war crime.  So is torture.  So is the targeting of civilian infrastructure necessary for public health, whether done by insurgents in 2003-2004 or Americans in 1991. And invading a country under false pretenses is criminal. Taking the most benign interpretation possible, dropping bombs on cities seems like a dumb way to win hearts and minds.  So why doesn't he say something about this?

Speaking half-truth to the powerless