Reply to Jeffrey Tucker

"It is wrong to care more for the lives of innocent civilians on the other side of the world who may be killed unintentionally than for the lives of innocent civilians among one's family, community, and nation who may be killed deliberately. I say it again: it is wrong. It is not the moral high ground: it is the moral swamp...."

Mr. Tucker has replied, very briefly, to my e-mail. He surmises that I am for the "slaughter" and wonders if I will be able to hold pro-life and pro-war positions consisently when reports of civilian deaths start "pouring in". I just sent this reply:

I don't know very much about your writing or thinking. I will extrapolate from your brief remarks, and thus may reach further than your own position may warrant.

The "reports of civilian deaths" started pouring in, Tuesday, September 11, 2001. Those were deaths inflicted deliberately on innocent, unsuspecting civilians. To appropriate a phrase, it was an act of unconventional warfare.

Because of its horrifying suddenness and magnitude, we are tempted to view it in isolation. I believe that doing so is a catastrophic mistake: we viewed the bombing of the WTC, the bombing of this or that embassy, the hijacking of this or that cruise liner, the attack on the USS Cole, etc. as isolated events. Wrong. They are manifestations of a clash of civilizations: one in which deliberately targeting civilians for violence is considered to be wrong and is vociferously condemned, both in theory and in practice; in the other, deliberately killing civilians for violence is a primary tactic in an overall strategy of terror which may, in theory, be accounted wrong among them but which is, in practice, tolerated if not encouraged. (There are other differences, of course, but I am attempting to be brief.)

After a decade or more of continual bluffing and hem-hawing — all of which encouraged those of malicious intent to consider us to be weak, thus encouraging them to plan and stage more and more bolder acts of violence — the US and its allies are finally serious about preventing further deliberate attacks on innocent, unsuspecting civilians.

Referring back to your original reply, slaughter there has been, slaughter there is, and slaughter there will be. The real situation is this: Will it be deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians, anywhere around the world, for who knows how many years or decades, where terrorists have planted themselves to strike when and how they can? Or will it be unintentional slaughter of innocent civilians, in as short a time as possible, with as few victims as human foresight, planning, and action can manage?

I think those are the only real choices.

Throughout the early and mid-1930s, the choices were similar. Warnings from Churchill and (a very few) others went unheeded; had they been listened to, and acted upon, the tremendous horrific slaughter of World War II could have been prevented.

Do I know what's coming, with certainty, so I know for sure that we must act to prevent it? Of course not. Neither do you, so you cannot know for sure there is no greater evil than we have already seen that needs to be faced, faced down, and destroyed before it can come to pass.

Recent history, specifically of Saddam Hussein and more generally of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, lead me to conclude that those who oppose war against him (not against Iraq: against Saddam Hussein and his regime) to prevent a greater evil are embracing an unreality. They are free to do so.

They are not free to claim, without dispute, that they care more for the innocent than do those who support military action, and that they have taken the moral high ground.

It is wrong to care more for the lives of innocent civilians on the other side of the world who may be killed unintentionally than for the lives of innocent civilians among one's family, community, and nation who may be killed deliberately. I say it again: it is wrong. It is not the moral high ground: it is the moral swamp, where both rational thought and proper feeling have been abandoned. Our first (not the only, but the first) obligation is to those closest to us, not to those farthest away. And it is especially so for our leaders and our defense forces.

When military action against Saddam Hussein continues (it was begun in 1991), I will do what I did when I heard that our military campaign in Afghanistan had begun. I will always remember the day, Sunday, October 7, 2001, because I was recovering from surgery, Friday, October 5. Still medicated, I drifted out of sleep, heard the news, then prayed silently, "Protect our fighters, and keep the innocent safe", and drifted back to sleep.

When the next phase of the war begins — to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein, to free the Iraqi people, and to help to prevent further terrorism around the world — I will pray for our fighters and for the innocents. And I will pray for those who will have died, whether combatants or civilians.

Enough of that. Allow me, however, to refer you to my "Black is Gray is Yes is Maybe is Left is Up is Down is Across: The Dearth of Necessary Distinctions":

http:// theviewfromthecore . com / 20020513 / column . html

"... How long can a nation last, that is built upon and must be continually sustained by, individuals who participate in public life — be it by holding public office, by involvement in political campaigns, by membership in civic organizations, by writing to influence public opinion, or by no more than voting in every election — how long can that nation last when public discourse and policy-making is influenced, if not dominated, by people who cannot think straight because they will not — cannot? — make necessary distinctions?"

I understand that you are a Catholic. Channel surfing one day, years ago, I caught a snippet of a talk by a priest on EWTN. I do not know who he was, and this is all I heard him say: "Being Catholic means making necessary distinctions". I said to myself, "Ain't that the truth". And I went on.

That thought is, ultimately, the genesis of my May 13, 2002, column and of much of my thinking with respect to public policy, both in the Church and in the world.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. I would still appreciate the source(s) of information from which you derive your assessment of George W. Bush's personal faith.

I do want to emphasize that I'm not necessarily replying to Tucker's position; I have made some inferences from his brief remarks, and I am replying rather broadly.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 02/17/03 11:25:40 AM
Categorized as Most Notable & Political.