Walzer dedicates an entire chapter to explaining the pros and cons of the guerrilla tactic and questioning its morality. He doesn’t necessarily come to a concrete conclusion, but makes it very clear that civilians become much more at risk during guerrilla wars than they would in traditional battle. This was displayed in Iraq on Monday, March 5, 2012, when insurgents came into the city of Haditha and killed 25 police officers. Officials say the band of rebels came riding into the city in vehicles disguised as the vehicles of city officials and captured many policemen using false arrest warrants. Several killing sprees occurred at various times and places throughout the city.
I don't know how Walzer would feel about this specific attack. It’s been stated in previous chapters that combatants are always liable to be killed while noncombatants are never liable to be killed. Although it is stated that no civilians were killed, can policemen really be considered combatants in this situation? I’m not exactly sure about that. Of course they knew the dangers of signing up for the job, and maybe even therefore lost their right to life, but the fact that the insurgents deceived everyone by creating false identities as officials creates a new side of the argument. Also, I’m not entirely sure that there is a war going on between the Iraqis and the insurgents to begin with. I mean obviously there is conflict there but has the Iraqi government declared war against Al-Qaeda? If not, then their behavior is mere terrorism, which is exactly what the United States accused them of. I feel that Walzer would insist that this attack wasn’t at all justified. Civilians of this city are now living in total fear and are completely upset over the loss of their loved ones, which is to be expected. The insurgents have accomplished very little, it seems. They have probably recruited more people to the opposition (those who are upset over the loss of innocent lives) and have angered an entire population.
No comments:
Post a Comment