You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig, But It’s Still State Sanctioned Violence
The suspected assassination of senior Hamas military commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai by the Israeli Mossad on January 19 has caused me a good deal of consternation from the outset. But this latest story from the Daily Caller showing a “soar” in the Mossad’s popularity and a run on paraphernalia bearing the slogan, “Don’t Mess with the Mossad” is just too much (h/t: Sullivan).
I’ve been going back and forth with myself for the past few weeks about why the assassination bothers me so much. Especially as someone who has reconciled himself, however unhappily, to the reality that in some instances state sanctioned violence will be a necessary evil in combating certain geo-political players.
One can’t deny how controlled and contained the whole thing was. As Andrew himself said in his original post on the matter,
In fighting murderous Jihadist terrorists, I have to say I find this kind of surgical execution, however awful, to be morally superior to the collateral deaths of so many innocent children and civilians, as occurred in the Gaza war under the rules of conduct the IDF allowed. It’s also morally more defensible than the US drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where civilian casualties are both morally deeply troubling and strategically terrible in a war that I continue to believe is essentially unwinnable.
I can’t disagree with Andrew on any of that, per se. I mean, I’m not prepared to completely forgo the conclusion that this man deserved to die and that the Mossad, if they did indeed carry out the operation, were the right people to make that happen. I can’t disagree with the idea that a method avoiding civilian casualties, innocent children amongst them, is preferable to one that does not.
But it is precisely the “surgical execution” of this operation that gives me pause and makes me shudder. Though I think it is sometimes necessary to use precisely this kind of state sanctioned violence towards certain ends, I correspondingly think that we have a moral obligation to reckon in an unflinching manner with the ramifications of our decision. I believe that no matter what form it happens to take, the use of state sanctioned violence is an ugly thing that ought to cause us grief no matter the seeming righteousness of our cause.
The ugliness of military activity, whether it is in Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq, or elsewhere, is always easy to spot. It is, essentially, inescapable. These more traditional forms of military might and use of force are honest insofar as they force us to grapple with the implications of our decision.
But the cool and almost bloodless efficacy of this type of operation — and assassination of this kind — it seems almost designed to lull us into a false consciousness of complacency about the tactics we choose to engage in dealing with, admittedly, unavoidable conflict. And in providing such a respite from the penetrating eyes of innocent children, we morally short change ourselves and others by willfully choosing a path of cognitive and ethical blindness and dissonance.
The natural outcome of such cowardice is a kind of self-serving bravado that cultivates slogans like, “Don’t Mess with the Mossad” and Marty Peretz’s borrowed line,
The Mossad did it. And, as Carly Simon sang about James Bond, “nobody does it better.”
Bravado of the like isn’t just offensive in the cavalier dismissiveness of its attitude, it is, in fact, anathema to the character, disposition, and fortitude required to actually bring an end to the generations old warring into which it faces. Bravado of this variety isn’t ultimately aimed at ending one of the world’s most horrific conflicts; indeed, it not so subtly feeds into it, prolongs it, sustains it.
And those penetrating eyes, we don’t lift them from our conscience, nor scrub their blood from our hands. Deep down we all know that, at best, we put them off to another day.
28 comments
I don’t disagree. Certainly Israel is at a pretty hard right swing of its political pendulum at the moment. While it is understandable considering how badly their peace initiatives of the 90′s and early 2000′s turned out it isn’t an excuse for their behavior now, particularly with those wretched wretched settlements. Oh if only Sharon hadn’t had that stroke (watching my left wing Jewish friends say things like that is hysterical, Sharon was once such a bugaboo to them) or if we could only match up the Israel polity of the late 90′s with the PA of today.
Still, the fact remains that Hamas is avowedly at war with the Israeli state and jingoism is an inevitable byproduct of war. Hamas isn’t a state exactly but they are unambiguously at war with the Israelis and it’s not like there was much doubt about the role of the target concerned. So I can’t muster up much indignation about the surgical strike (though I imagine Britain and Australia have every right to be furious).
So the take-away from this is that all war is bad, but it’s better to wage war in plain sight than to do it in the shadows, because covert murder is less morally-accountable? Am I understanding that right?
Assuming I am – let’s not forget that this is war. It’s not a game of soccer. War has been increasingly sanitized for the last 500 years with more and more rules created to try and make it less ugly and less brutal. But at the end of the day it’s still men killing men. Whether it’s a surgical strike from a predator drone, or a Mossad assasination or an American sniper taking a head shot…it’s all death.
Obviously we don’t want to go back to indiscriminate firebombing of civillians like we had in WWII but it’s silly, in my opinion, to suggest that a targeted killing of an opposition leader is worse than lobbying grenades into a Taliban HQ. Something tells me Scott that if you saw Valkyrie you walked away wishing that bomb under the table had been more successful. How then can you condemn Israel for killing someone they also see as dangerous?
Rufus Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 7:51 am
What I took away from the post was more that this is war and perhaps, yes, much of that ugliness is ugly but unavoidable; but there’s no reason to celebrate it.
Mike at The Big Stick Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:21 am
If shouldn’t ‘celebrate’ those kinds of things, Hollywood is in for a serious revenue shortfall.
Scott:
You seem to be assuming from the public support of the killing that the people actually involved don’t or won’t consider the moral or other ramifications of what they are doing. So what are you trying to say, that every terrorist needs to be killed in a pitched battle on TV for people to understand the moral implications? Sorry, I believe you are putting too much thought in this.
First: Yes, it is a war. Premise granted. Is our squeamishness at assassination a product, then, of its uncanny similarity to a judicial execution? I think it might be, and this does make me squeamish as well.
So how do we untangle them, particularly when every trend in our current politics and jurisprudence seems determined to confound war with ordinary life? Why not just assassinate known murderers and drug dealers? Sending them to trial would be such a bother…
North Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:43 am
True Jason, though the Israeli government has obligations to its citizens that it doesn’t have towards foreigners who are in a state of war with them whereas murderers and drug dealers are citizens and of course are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I’m not aware of any line of argument suggesting that the Israelis killed an innocent when they performed this assassination.
It strikes me that this is pretty much part and parcel with asymmetrical warfare. Now it’s perfectly understandable that Hamas or Islamic militants choose to engage in this form of warfare, they’d get whipped in a conventional military struggle, but by choosing to imbed themselves among and primarily target non-soldiers they are pretty much signing up for targeted assassinations and the like.
Jason Kuznicki Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Let’s not forget that this line, too, has been obscured in recent years.
North Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I don’t know if it’s been obscured except by Bush minor apparatchiks who try to assert that if someone isn’t a citizen there is no limit to what the government can to do them. My own position is that there are certain basic things that all humans are entitled to with regards to treatment by governments but that governments obviously have even higher level responsibilities to their citizens that they are not obligated to offer to hostile foreigners.
This might (probably will) sound bizarre, but I see tee-shirts like this not necessarily as vulgar bravado about war, but a small part of a generalized, horrible glibness that seems to be everywhere now.
PatrickKelley Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:38 am
I think it’s more of an expression of disgust that there is no apparent end in sight. When they see something like this happen, it brings out all of the inner resentment, which manifests as expression of support for an organization that is seen as the lone vanguard in the battle to finally write finis to what seems otherwise to be a permanent state of affairs.
Mark Thompson Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:43 am
I’m not so sure that this is entirely a new, modern thing (says the generalist to the resident classicist). I mean, is it all that different from the way in which societies have historically glorified warriors?
It may well be an expression of glibness about war, but I guess I’m wondering whether that glibness hasn’t always been there.
North Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:52 am
It strikes me as a kind of cultural backlash Rufus. In the 1990′s the up and coming parties in Israeli were Peacenick parties and the Peace camp in Israel politics was very strong. Rightly or wrongly (probably a combination of both) they peace parties came to be viewed as being played for fools by Arafat and the PA and were discredited. The peace movement kind of evolved into a more hard nosed Separation Now movement personified by the wall building, Kadimah and Sharon. The Gaza withdrawal was supposed to be the first step of their great detachment from the Palestinians but that movement took a terrible blow under the incessant rain of rockets from Gaza. Yes they were, strategically speaking, harmless but they prevent any form of normalized life and the concept of a similar rain coming from the West Bank upon major Israeli urban centers was intolerable. Which brings us to the Gazan invasion and the current state of affairs where the peace movement is pretty much bereft of answers. The right wing and the Setters of course have their tune and have been playing it all along and since theirs is the only song on the go that brings us to where we’re at today.
There was a group of distinctions made a while back but it was far enough back that I don’t feel bad about making them again (and they were originally made by a guy called “Boonton”… hey Boonton, if you’re reading this…)
There are about seven choices that one can make to the relationship between “military” and “civilian” and violence towards either/both.
1) Targeting only military targets and avoiding civilian casualties entirely. That is to say, every effort to eliminate civilian targets is made up to and including willingness to abort a mission if civilian casualties might be included in the outcome.
2) Targeting military targets only and going out of one’s way to reduce civilian casualties if possible (e.g., saying that we will strike the car containing the high-value target when it is on the highway rather than when it is in the marketplace).
3) Targetting only military targets but not really caring about creation of civilian casualties around it. (e.g., if you’ve got an open shot on the car in the marketplace, take it.)
4) Indiscriminate targeting of military and/or civilians. (Body count is the goal, here.)
5) Targeting only civilian targets but not caring whether military casualties are incurred.
6) Targeting only civilian targets but doing what one can to reduce military casualties if possible (if one has a choice between targeting a bus with 50% military folks and 20% military folks, take the 20% one… less chance of being shot before you can complete your mission, after all).
7) Targeting only civilian targets and going out of one’s way to completely avoid military casualties entirely to the point where one is willing to abort if military casualties would be part of the equation.
Those seven cover pretty much everything, right?
What’s interesting about the dynamic is that Israel tends to keep it to #3, if not #2, and this particular case was a #1.
It’s a pity that we live in a world where people can’t get along, etc… but if we must kill each other, surely doing one’s best to keep it above a #4 is preferable, no?
North Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Makes sense to me Jay.
trizzlor Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Doesn’t this make a pretty big supposition that we can tell apart the two types of targets?
If Hamas were to assassinate an Israeli cabinet member in retaliation, would that be another battle in the ongojng war, or would that be further evidence that they’re brutal terrorists?
Jaybird Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Personally, I’d see it as a refreshing change from blowing assassins up in university libraries.
Mike at The Big Stick Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 8:49 am
I’d say another battle. Hamas gets the reputation for being terrorists because they blow up pizza shops and markets…not because they target Israeli leadership.
Mike Schilling Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Could be, though I recall the horror that greeted the IRA’s attempt to assassinate the British cabinet.
Mike at The Big Stick Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Maybe in Britain. I think in the US there were thousands (millions?) of Irish Americans that said, “Serves ‘em right.”
Barry Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I’d also say that it’s a lot harder to hit Israeli leadership than Hamas leadership.
You know in the old days they killed all the men and bred the women and live in peace for a couple of generations (maybe)…now, because we’re “civilized” it’s constant war?
Well, now that’s “progress!”
trizzlor Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Progress always sucks when you’re on top.
bred the women
Yes, we’ve moved past that sort of ritual cannibalism. (And BTW that’s spelled “breaded”.)
Let’s get this straight. Mabhouh was in Dubai clandestinely arranging to acquire missiles to fire at Israelis. And you have qualms about Israel killing him?
At what point in the process is it legitimate for Israel to take action to stop the firing of weapons at its citizens.