Kamakazis = 9/11 attackers = US military sacrifices

[PropStop]

I would have posted this in the War Zone section, but I thought that it was something very military and something worthy of discussion at a level above the War Zone.

Linked is an article from my home town newspaper discussing a journalists visit to a museum for Kamikaze pilots. I don't believe this writer has ever served a day in the military. He offers a very interesting perspective on suicide in battle and draws some conclusions that I have a hard time stomaching. I thought though, that it would be interesting to find out how a group of warriors (or to be warriors) views the writer's conclusions. The OpEd isn't very long.
LINK

For my own thoughts - I think the writer is out to lunch. There is no moral equivalent between bombing civilian targets in WWII, the Kamikaze attacks, or US service members sacrificing in battle and the 9/11 highjackers. I can sorta buy that the Kamikaze pilots were noble in their sacrifice, targeting military targets with the belief that they were protecting their country. I honestly believe that if things got so bad in a war that the US was facing a real possibility of invasion, that there would be men and women lining up to make the ultimate sacrifice if it would protect their families. We have numerous stories of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who willingly throw themselves on live grenades to save their comrades (or equivalent action), so I believe that the willingness to sacrifice one's life, with the certainty that you will die, for the betterment of all runs deep in the American heart. I do not believe that the pure motivations of US service members willingly doing something that is certain to kill them is in any way, shape, or form, like the misguided or even evil motivations of the 9/11 attackers.

Discuss!

 

[KBayDog]

This line set me off:

Like the kamikazes, the actions of so-called suicide bombers rarely stem from hatred, "but rather from love of their own group and culture that they believe is threatened and requires protection."

On what does he base this statement?

 

[C420sailor]

Discuss!

This guy is an asshole.

 

[Jim123]

It's safe to say that we all (on AW) agree that deliberately targeting civilians is immoral, but that is a separate issue from the article. I think there is moral relativism here: it depends on where you choose to draw your line- what if I said the only moral choice is a pure and complete commitment to pacifism? (Not that I would, just throwing it out there as food for thought.) I am confident in what I believe in but I can also understand the other points of view.

Anyway, the writer seems to be drawing parallels and comparing similarities and differences between everyone who is willing to make the "ultimate sacrifice" for something they believe in so I don't see any new philosophical ground being broken there... his message is fairly simplistic but that might be a case of "know your audience..." the op-ed seems like a college weekly writing assignment on a topic that is better suited for a graduate term paper.

 

[Jim123]

This line set me off:

Like the kamikazes, the actions of so-called suicide bombers rarely stem from hatred, "but rather from love of their own group and culture that they believe is threatened and requires protection."

On what does he base this statement?

It's a "chicken or the egg" argument and it's not a very good argument. It's like saying 'I love my group/culture/country and when it is threatened and requires protection I don't hate the people threatening it."?? That doesn't make sense.

If you take out the "rarely stem from hatred" and rephrase it as "hatred" being the logical progression of "threatened and requires protection" well then we might be getting somewhere. But the author didn't write it that way...

Or to put it kindly this is where a college prof would hand-write "What were you trying to say here???"

 

[picklesuit]

I don't see the drama. We all fight war different, in ways suited to our abilities. The Japanese lacked the ability to defeat us in head-to-head combat as we had developed the superior air and naval forces...they resorted to a tactic designed to inflict the maximum damage for the minimum investment of limited resources. 5 planes were a good trade for 1 Destroyer.

The Muslims lack the equipment, logistics, and manpower to defeat us in a frontal armed conflict such as was seen during WWII. They would be stupid to do so and resort to the tactic that suits them best. They have expendable units willing to fight for what they believe in (whether what they believe in is right/wrong is based on perspective) and die doing so...even at their own hands. If they can destroy 200 Infidels by strapping some C4 to the chest of one skinny dude wearing a Burkha on a moped, that would be considered a good trade for manpower purposes.

We have been suckered into this concept of a "Fair War", one where nobody gets their feelings hurt and the only people killed volunteered to be there. That has never been the case, and will continue to be a flawed way of thinking. We fight wars in the way that suits the attacker best. If that means civilians die, so be it. If killing a shocking amount of civilians is a way to quickly and effectively get your point across in order to save your own military from excessive losses, then that is the way to fight.

This moral relativism we have been engaged in has only one purpose, and that is to handcuff ourselves in an already difficult battle. Do I get offended by being compared to a Kamikaze pilot, or a suicide bomber? No. Do I think strapping a bomb to my chest and killing women/children is abhorrable? Yes. Would I change my mind if I was outnumbered, outgunned, and hiding in the mountains above Washington Pass, with my wife/son living in some shithole because the Muslims had managed to wade their way into our country in an effort to fulfill the teachings of their Koran? Probably (although I would more than likely have to sucker some young, disillusioned kid high on rhetoric and adrenaline to do it for me)

It's all a matter of perspective people...

 

[Pepe]

I don't see the drama. We all fight war different, in ways suited to our abilities. The Japanese lacked the ability to defeat us in head-to-head combat as we had developed the superior air and naval forces...they resorted to a tactic designed to inflict the maximum damage for the minimum investment of limited resources. 5 planes were a good trade for 1 Destroyer.

The Muslims lack the equipment, logistics, and manpower to defeat us in a frontal armed conflict such as was seen during WWII. They would be stupid to do so and resort to the tactic that suits them best. They have expendable units willing to fight for what they believe in (whether what they believe in is right/wrong is based on perspective) and die doing so...even at their own hands. If they can destroy 200 Infidels by strapping some C4 to the chest of one skinny dude wearing a Burkha on a moped, that would be considered a good trade for manpower purposes.

We have been suckered into this concept of a "Fair War", one where nobody gets their feelings hurt and the only people killed volunteered to be there. That has never been the case, and will continue to be a flawed way of thinking. We fight wars in the way that suits the attacker best. If that means civilians die, so be it. If killing a shocking amount of civilians is a way to quickly and effectively get your point across in order to save your own military from excessive losses, then that is the way to fight.

This moral relativism we have been engaged in has only one purpose, and that is to handcuff ourselves in an already difficult battle. Do I get offended by being compared to a Kamikaze pilot, or a suicide bomber? No. Do I think strapping a bomb to my chest and killing women/children is abhorrable? Yes. Would I change my mind if I was outnumbered, outgunned, and hiding in the mountains above Washington Pass, with my wife/son living in some shithole because the Muslims had managed to wade their way into our country in an effort to fulfill the teachings of their Koran? Probably (although I would more than likely have to sucker some young, disillusioned kid high on rhetoric and adrenaline to do it for me)

It's all a matter of perspective people...

Totally agree. Let's not forget that we wiped 2 cities off the map in Japan and firebombed the fuck outta one in Germany. How many civilians did WE kill then?

 

[scoolbubba]

How many civilians did WE kill then?

Enough to end a world war in 4 years less than the one we're fighting now.