Children and the Realities of the War on Terror

This is it. It's finally happened. The paradox of our War on Terror has finally crystallized today. For some reason it's not being reported on any of the major 'net new sites, but I just saw a report on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC that the US launched an air strike on a "high-value" Al Qaeda target in Pakistan and destroyed the compound he was living in, KNOWING that there were at least seven innocent children inside the building.

I say it's a paradox for the following reasons: My first thought is one that I've had before. At this point, what is the difference between us and the Terrorists? If we knowingly murder innocents in the pursuit of our military goals, how are we different than they? The answer is we are not.

My second thought is that the Terrorists knowingly put children in harm's way when they have them inside of a Terrorist compound. Because the fact is that the logical conclusion of my argument means that all Osama bin Laden has to do is strap a kid onto his back, and he is invulnerable. I mean, according to my own premise, if Osama constantly has a child within a twenty foot radius of his person, we can NEVER attack him without sinking to the Terrorists' level.

Now let me say that I am all in favor of finding and killing Osama bin Laden. If I had the chance I would pull the trigger on him myself. He is a truly evil, destructive man, and the world would unequivocally better without him.

So the real paradox is not with the Terrorists, but with us. America has set itself in an impossible position of needing to fight a war, but also needing to maintain the ethos that the death of innocents is totally unacceptable. This is a paradoxical position, because the prosecution of a war always involves the death of innocents, just as it always involves the kinds of abuses we saw on display at Abu Ghraib.

We have in this country the paradigm that the ultimate good is zero deaths. Our goal is that everyone should live forever, and nobody should suffer pain for which they do not recieve compensation. That paradigm is antithetical to the concept of warfare, which involves senseless death and the infliction of pain for which there can be no compensation. That's just the way it is. And the sooner we allow ourselves to percieve this paradox, the sooner we can start making sense of our situation, and start trying to find a way to extricate ourselves, either by deciding to get out, or by deciding to do what's necessary in the service of a greater goal. Just as they did in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and both World Wars, and just as we have failed to do in The Vietnam War, the Iraq War, and countless other, smaller conflicts in between.

Audobon Society Report and the Paradigm of Consumption

I woke up this morning and read the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/opinion/19tue4.html?em&ex=1182398400&en=7d44618606a080ac&ei=5087%0A

The article talks about the disappearance of some of the most common bird species in N. America, with an average population reduction of 68%. It isn't so much that this comes as a surprise, but I was feeling really good this morning, until I read this and a pit settled in my stomach at the spectre of what is actually the most important issue facing humanity today. The article puts a fine point on the real problem:

"The trouble with humans is that even the smallest changes in our behavior require an epiphany."

The fact is that the only "solution" to the environmental problem is a total paradigm shift in human behavior across the board. We don't need a percentage reduction in fossil fuel emissions. We need a reduction by half of the amount people drive and fly in airplanes. We need huge and stringent controls on land use and air quality. And we can't even approach that in this country, much less developing countries.

What I refer to when I say paradigm shift is the fact that people are so resistant even to small changes. It take a national fight and a huge amount of political will to get a five percent reduction in fossil fuels. The first thing that has to happen is we are to save ourselves is people have to stop scoffing at the idea. Maybe that will take a few more Hurricane Katrinas, a few more Ritas, and even a few uprisings by the third world, whose access to basic services and potable water will be totally gone within the next few decades. It's a sad fate, but one we have earned, and one we are laughing in the face of. It scares the hell out of me.