Maybe it was the fresh morning air in the nostrils. Maybe it was the thrill of being a mile high above the earth. Or maybe it was an act of respect being played out between two antagonists.
Whatever it was, when fighter pilots on opposing sides decided to give it up for the day, they waved to each other and flew home.
If one pilot lost the dogfight and was shot down, his adversary saluted him as his flaming plane headed toward the ground.
Enemy pilots did that in World War I. Maybe they’ll even do that some day in World War VII. Funny. You spend agonizing moments trying to blow your enemy’s brains out, then as he’s going down you wave at him, as if he’s off to some amusement park.
How these two diametrically opposed actions can possibly be compatible, especially in time of war, is beyond me.
It doesn’t, however, seem to be beyond the grasp of Jacob Hornberger founder of The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, VA. Although his article is titled, “War Crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki”, it brings to light that although Hornberger recognizes the savagery and brutality of ANY war, there “should be limits on the behavior of combatants.” Otherwise they risk being in the category of war crimes.
Hornberger also makes the point that while a nation is doing its best to slaughter its enemy, its soldiers are expected to abide by what is called the “civilized rules of warfare.” Wash off the blood and finish opening your mail, so to speak.
Civilized warfare. That’s no less oxymoronic than “honest government.” Or no less unrealistic than a Cesar’s thumb down, and a gladiator’s refusal to kill his opponent—-out of compassion.
An illusion of civilized warfare is required because if one side commits war crimes such as raping or torturing, the other side will be tempted to reciprocate. And if he does, all bets are off and everything goes to hell.
Another rationale for constraint is the consideration of moral principles. It goes like this: even with the horrors of war a civilized person will (or should) exercise a sense of moral judgment. Carried to its conclusion, even if acts of barbarism are committed by the enemy, a civilized nation would refuse to do likewise. Which is a lot of hogwash.
Well documented atrocities committed by “civilized” soldiers on unarmed civilians as well as armed troops, occurred in Vietnam, the My Lai massacre, the No Gun Ri slaughter in Korea, on noncombatants and troops alike; and as we’re beginning to find out, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in all other wars, past and present.
The rationale for any such action, in time of war, can wind up being a massive abrogation of justice, a moral abomination, and a collapse of common humanity.
As when we dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.
These mega-bombs, targeting two cities, were dropped with the objective of killing a large portion of the Japanese population, thus shortening the war, and saving American lives by not having to invade the Japanese mainland.
Both of those objectives were achieved. I know, because I was part of the American occupation force in Japan in 1945 and saw what large bombs can do to a city and its citizenry.
Estimates have it that 200,000 Japanese people, including women and children, were either blown off the face of the earth, or lie in the streets, screaming and on fire.
But, Hornberger asks, since when is killing 200,000 unarmed civilians to save American lives justification for what would ordinarily be considered a war crime?
“When a government commits a nation to war,” contends Hornberger, “it means that soldiers are going to have to fight, and some of them will die. But the intentional sacrifice of defenseless women and children and other noncombatants in order to save the lives of military personnel is cowardice, pure and simple. And it’s a war crime as well.”
Hornberger calls it the “nature of war”. I’ll go a step further. I call it the nature of Man.
By the insane rules in which this ghastly game is played, there is no such thing as a “war crime.”
War IS the crime. And we are the perpetrators.
The sooner we recognize that we ourselves are both the victor and the vanquished, the sooner we will stop trying to see war for anything but what it really is: human beings killing other human beings, without ever being quite sure why.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”