|
From the author of Globally Rational The differences between the “bad guys” and the “good guys” in recent wars have been clear. The bad guys recklessly bomb innocent civilians, while the good guys drop targeted missiles on military hotspots. The bad guys oppress their people, while the good guys fight for freedom. Above all, the bad guys have no respect for the sanctity of life, while the good guys maintain that their first priority is the protection of human rights. So we can only assume that most of the world’s human rights groups share NATO’s views on the latest developments in the Middle East… right? We are the good guys, so we must not be targeting civilians. If we accidentally kill some innocent villagers in Pakistan, they are just collateral damage; that doesn’t give Pakistan the right to defend its borders. If Israel sprays Lebanon with cluster bombs, which cover wide areas (and, consequently, kill many civilians) rather than specific targets, it is just a necessary evil; that doesn’t give anybody the right to call them “aggressors.” If Georgia drops illegal cluster bombs on Russians, then they are freedom fighters; when Russia allegedly drops them on Georgians, then they are oppressors. Why do we allow countries like Russia to spread large clusters of bombs over Georgia? We all know that only American allies are allowed to circumvent international treaties, so why is it that our only reaction is to condemn the Russians for ignoring basic human rights? Is there something that we want to hide? Right now, there are thousands of unexploded bombs lining the ground in villages and cities across Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. Young children are often injured or killed when they unsuspectingly pick up an explosive that has been sitting undisturbed since the day that it first fell out of an American or Israeli or Soviet plan. Lebanon, for instance, found itself on the receiving end of over a million deadly explosives during their 2006 war with Israel – one for every four people in the entire country. Israel’s official statement effectively summarized the world’s justification for using such horrible weapons, which have caused about 300 innocent civilian casualties after the end of their war with Lebanon (in addition to the hundreds more in Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan), by eloquently stating that “International law does not include a sweeping prohibition of the use of cluster bombs.” Others have made statements along the lines of “everybody does it; why can’t we?” Several countries – including the US, Israel, Russia, and China – have declined to join the new treaty that forbids the use of weapons that aim to destroy broad areas rather than specific targets. What was that old saying about the company you keep?
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (2)
![]() written by Tiffany, January 07, 2009
when the United States, which holds itself out as a world leader, refuses to lead (or even follow) with regard to an issue like this.
written by Greg, October 20, 2009
I agree that such munitions should eventually be banned, but I also believe that the reasoning behind nations using these munitions is not simply "we use it because they do or would." Modern cluster munitions, unlike mines, are not designed to lie in wait to harm soldier and civilian alike. These weapons are designed to be wide-area bombs, similar to a big smart bomb but with a large area of coverage. These weapons are essential for use on soft targets (not just human beings, but cars, trucks, and light buildings). It could take thousands of pounds of conventional bombs to do what one cluster bomb could do. Given that we are still bound to end up in conflicts that require the elimination of enemy targets, would you rather bomb en masse in an incredible display of overkill -- cratering landscapes and risking incredible collateral damage -- or one bomb that actually leaves most structures intact? I don't believe that first-world militaries want to fight fire with fire in that way. It seems most likely that they want to use the appropriate weapon for the appropriate circumstance, so that they don't destroy more than they have to. Could this always be true? No. But cynicism can mask the alternatives.
Write comment
|




