McCain and Ayers
An interesting point of view in the letters section of the NY Times.
You quote John McCain, “How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?” He was referring to Barack Obama’s acquaintance with the former Weatherman Bill Ayers, but the same question might be put to his own supporters.
A Vietnamese friend once described to me the scene of carnage he witnessed as a child after a United States bombing in Hanoi. He and his family fled through a landscape strewn with the body parts of innocents.
An argument could be made that the pilot who flew 23 bombing sorties over Vietnam and the former radical were both doing what they believed right — one in support of a war and the other in protest of it — and that both were wrong.
Not sure how I feel about that sentiment, but it’s worth noting, not to bash McCain or defend Ayers but merely as reminder that the result of war is inevitably inhuman destruction. There are no clean hands. War might sometimes be necessary, but when weighing the costs and justifications of waging war, we should stop lying to ourselves that this time it will be different, that this time our innate goodness as Americans and the justness of our cause will somehow prevent atrocities. Too much evil has been done in the name of doing good.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
i don’t think equivocating a soldier’s actions in a war to some hippie setting a bomb is valid. nor is it convincing with respect to some sort of moral equivalency.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Not in the least bit.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I have to agree with Uncle here — the Weather Underground was responsible for bombing police stations and a judge’s residence, and these are hardly the targets of an anti-war protester but rather the targets of an anarchist.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Worlds apart.
It all has to do with intent. The police officer who is shooting at a criminal and hits an innocent by accident is vastly different than the criminal who purposefully shoots an innocent.
Both shot an innocent, but only the criminal deserves scorn.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Are we back to soldier’s eating babies yet? I want receipts.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Ayers is a hero only in the eyes of the NVA.
Obama is not running for president of Vietnam.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I agree there’s no moral equivalency. I don’t read it for that point. What struck me was just a palpable sense of how horrible war-torn nations must be.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
If you would know a mans’ character, look to his friends.
October 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Here is why the deaths of civilians in Hanoi, due to US bombing, are not morally equivalent to the deaths of police, judges, and civilians in the US at the hands of the Weathermen:
1. Legitimate, legal targets of war in North Vietnam were purposefully located amid civilian structures by the North Vietnamese military. Thus the civilian deaths that occurred while the military targets were attacked by the US are war crimes committed by the NV authorities, not the US bomber crews.
2. Civilians, judges, and police (not legitimate military targets) were purposefully attacked by the Weathermen Underground to cause anarchy, and allow them to promote their sick ideology. There was no military purpose in the attacks, except for the murder of innocents, which is the antithesis of a military action.
3. There were no legitimate targets of a declared war targeted. There were no attempts to follow the recognized rules of warfare between states, such as the wearing of uniforms allowing combatants to be distinguished from civilians, the separation of the military groups from civilians, the creation of a heirarchy of command to allow responsible orders to be promulgated and those who made orders identifiable within the command structure, and so on.
There was no moral equivalence between the limnited and legal war waged against the North Vietnamese, versus the immoral, illegal, guerrilla warfare waged against civilians by the Marxist/Anarchist Weathermen Underground.
A strong kick in the nuts should be the proper response to anyone making such an argument of moral equivalence. When the recipient of the kick asks why, say that the kick was the moral equivalent of their argument’s effects on your brain’s logic center.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I was under the impression that for all the danger and property damage presented by the weathermen, the only physical human injury was the death of one of their own members. I don’t think they were trying all that hard to avoid killing people, but I don’t think they actually killed anybody except their own.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Well, if the NVA’s TORTURE of John McCain was “justified” because the mean ol’ USA was bombing North Vietnam, then we should step up our torture of the prisoners in GITMO. Perhaps hanging them up by their wrists with their hands behind their back for 6-8 hours a day would be “justified”. Ain’t moral equivalencys great? They can work both ways.
October 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
The “Days of Rage” involved several physical human injuries caused by the Weatherman’s activities and, in some cases, Weathermen themselves. Brian V. McDonnell may also beg to differ with your impression.
I’d argue the inverse.
[i]Shit happens[/i]. You can argue that there’s no moral obligation to help those who are having shit happen to them, although I’ll call you a bastard for doing so. But can you honestly sit back and look at places like Darfur (murders), Zimbabwe (intentional food supply collapse), or a half-million other places, it’s easy to see where a relatively very small amount of evil could prevent a whole lot of people from dying in really, really unpleasant ways.
October 12th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Uncle – thanks man for being real about war. It’s sad that a lot on our side refuse to acknowledge the reality of it unless they’ve pulled the trigger on another human.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Where the hell am I, DailyKos? The comparison is an absurd one.