If our geo-political adversaries were isolationist, we could be too. But they are not. Ergo, etc. Or is this the fallacy of Denying the Antecedent?
*
You may seek to withdraw from politics, but it won’t return the favor. So a certain measured engagement is unavoidable out of self-interest if for no other reason. Retreat routes include suicide, burying oneself in a monastery, and losing oneself in the private life of bourgeois self-indulgence. None of them can be recommended without reservation, but of the three the monastic route is the best. There are of course other ways of avoiding the political.
*
It is reasonable to hold that the power stations and other infrastructure of a rogue state that exports terror and credibly threatens to nuke the USA and Israel are legitimate military targets, despite their civilian use. But then the same goes for oil refineries, sewage disposal plants, reservoirs and water delivery systems, roads, and so on. All of these elements of infrastructure are necessary for the health and safety of the civilian population many of whom oppose the rogue regime and play no role at all in supplying them with materiel. This fact puts serious pressure on the distinction between combatants and noncombatants, and the related judgment that it is immoral always and everywhere to target noncombatants, a judgment one would surely like to uphold.
Of course, noncombatants are humans whereas the elements of infrastructure are not. But destroy enough of that infrastructure and you seriously harm and eventually bring about the death of the majority of noncombatants. And that amounts, albeit indirectly, to a targeting of noncombatants. The attackers know, after all, what the likely consequences of their actions will be.
But if we re-think the natural but facile combatant-noncombatant distinction along the foregoing lines, where will that lead us? Not to a total collapse of the distinction, but to its blurring, a blurring so messy as to make impossible any assured judgments in these matters.
One thing is clear. The current pope, Leo the XIVth, is a simple-minded fellow as he demonstrates here.
*
Communism and Islamism have in common their expansionism and totalitarianism. They are as little content to stay within their geographical boundaries as they are to allow a private life for those under their control. A sane political ideology stands for the rights of segregation and self-determination.
Another thing these disastrous ideologies share is contempt for truth.
Bill,
Yes, targeting decisions, other than those on classical fields of battle, are always “messy”. Speaking of this matter, the war scholar John Spencer calls attention to the knowledge/time constraints with which even the most careful military leaders must contend:
“But being legal is never automatic. Every strike has to meet military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions. Leaders/Commanders decide based on what they know at the time whether the target is really a military objective that gives a definite military advantage. They weigh whether the expected harm to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive compared to that advantage. They also take all feasible steps with the target to minimize civilian harm. These choices happen in real conditions with limited information and get judged on what was known then, not later” (https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/2040877782566346994).
Vito
P.S. While I managed to lay a hyperlink in Word, I am unable to copy and paste it is, so I have no choice but to use the parentheses. I know that link contained within them works because I tried it twice to check.
Spencer writes on X:
>>Yes, despite all the Xperts on the law of armed conflict, targeting bridges, power plants, oil and gas facilities, airfields, and other dual-use infrastructure like factories, communications nodes, and rail lines that serve both civilian and military needs may be lawful. The law does not decide targets just by calling something civilian infrastructure. It looks at what the object actually does. An object counts as a military objective when by its nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and its total or partial destruction, capture, or disabling offers a definite military advantage in the circumstances at the time.<<
I like his sarcastic coinage, 'Xpert.' By the way, when I write about these matters, I write as a concerned citizen whose aim is to clarify and develop his own thoughts on these matters. I am not 'pontificating' or posturing as someone who knows what he doesn't know. I put my thoughts on line in order to attract a few like-minded people who may help me clarify and correct my thoughts, people like you, Vito.
What Spencer says makes good sense to me, unlike what all Dems these days except Fetterman are saying.
By the way, Vito, are you composing you comments in your word processer and then pasting them in here? As opposed to composing them here? That's a good idea if you want to keep copies of your comments. But you can still lay in a link without asterisks or parentheses simply by typing the URL after you have pasted in your comments.