Letters to the Editor
-
At least since Henry IV threatened Harfleur
Attacks against civilians as a matter of policy rather than as "collateral damage" have a long, honored and dishonorable history. In the West, after the fall of Rome (no bulwark of humane behavior), the slaughter of peasantry was the strategy of choice used by one manor-lord against another. No peasants, no food, fuel or stores, and the "donjon" became a dungeon! Henry IV spared Harfleur only when the mayor agreed to open the gates of his town to succor the invaders. In the Thirty Years War, peasants and other civilians died by the hundreds of thousands as their villages were sacked, crops burned, first by one side then the other. So it continued until the most flagrant examples of WWII bombings by the NAZI Luftwaffe and the US Army Air Force. Thenceforward, the destruction of Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian villages was a no-brainer. That Americans favor violent attacks against civilians is particularly to be expected, because before 9/11 we never suffered an air attack directed against us at home.
Pertinent questions: If only 13 percent of US Muslims favor - under some circumstances - attacks against civilians, is that substantial though small percentage what really is of concern or is it that they are among us and we are the potential targets? Is it that fewer than 1 out of 10 said "yes" or that so many of them (like Bush) hear the voice of God? Is it just their lack of identification with the rest of America or their indifference to life in the here and now as opposed to the Paradise they believe will be the reward?