- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Our moral bearings about what is justifiable and unjustifiable killing in war were set more than three centuries ago in the aftermath of the 30 Years War bloodbath. Back then, no weapon existed that gave anyone the ability to kill with impunity if the other guy was also an armed combatant. Musket volley fire created a battlefield crapshoot in which the odds of killing and getting killed were roughly balanced. Either you killed a man face-to-face with pike or sword, or you blazed away in ordered ranks and hoped that your number didn't come up.
Today, we have weapons and training that make a mockery of the moral order of war that those earlier impliments bequethed to us. America has crossed the threshold of turning war into de facto murder. Worse, we embraced the opportunities technology gave us to kill without risk to ourselves. It's not just terrorists and insurgents who have thrown out "the rules" and fail to "fight fair." What honor or glory to those who kill without risk? And why would we expect men so armed and trained to fight honorably?
