Some conservative pundits are dismayed that the UK-Iran standoff has ended peacefully. They seem to believe it better to have taken take up arms, however implausible and destructive, than accept a deal, perhaps even a prisoner swap of some sort. They wanted war, to prove the resolve of the "West," or at least the US-UK portion of it; to "teach the Mullahs a lesson;" to revel in the martial virtues.
How debased. They are blind to the consequences of military action, the virtual inevitability that innocent people will die, however "surgical" the strike. Beyond the immorality of killing, they cannot see that the death of innocents invariably creates political backlash. How many Iranians would stand and cheer if the UK had killed women and children? The hawks who call for war have learned nothing from Iraq.
Better to follow Mencius. He is quite clear about killing: "If you kill a single innocent man, you are not Humane." And Humane government is his ultimate aim. He does not renounce all killing: there may be moments when war is just and tolerable, though still inhumane. But those are moments of the most dire threat and crisis, something well beyond what the UK faced.
War seldom accomplishes what its purveyors seek; so, we should resist their desire for war.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.