Careful with analogies

03.22.2003

Analogies are dangerous. They need to be valid to stand the test.

I've seen arguments comparing the 9/11 attacks w/ cruise missile strikes on Baghdad. That's not a valid analogy. Unlike 9/11, the Iraqis know the attacks are coming. They have the advantage of air raid sirens and anti-aircraft artillery. They had months of public announcements that a war might start, and that Baghdad would be a target. Unlike 9/11, the aggressors are not specifically targeting civilian buildings or installations.

Military action does not equal terrorism. Aside from the similarities - people die or are injured, weapons are used, political causes are used as rationalization - there are differences. Yes, they're very fine distinctions - but they're monumentally significant.

Soldiers don't specifically target civilians and other non-combatants. Terrorists specifically target civilians and avoid direct confrontation w/ enemy troops. Soldiers take prisoners, and take care of them according to the Geneva convention. I don't remember any Palestinian suicide bombers giving fellow bus passengers the chance to surrender. But I do remember captured Israeli soldiers physically dismembered, their bloody body parts tossed around by a cheering crowd of jackals. Impressively enough, Israeli soldiers - no doubt friends, comrades of the victims - stood and watched. And didn't fire a single shot in anger. Because children were around.

If you oppose the war, that's fine. There are good moral issues to raise in regard to the war. But don't call proper war terrorism. The two are dramatically different.

Posted by Miguel at 03:05 PM

Comments

This post is good.

Posted by: Stephanie at March 23, 2003 09:44 PM