In order to bring this back to the extremely fine line between what is lawful (within the context of armed conflict) and what is moral (within the context of right v. wrong) I’d like to add some history upon which most of this is based. Add to that we should be careful to separate the currently leading idea of “what is lawful” from the social media idea of what is “click worthy.” (I feel that Biden’s views are shifting because of a popularity contest, not genuine concern for one side or the other, and I would likely accuse a republican POTUS of the same).
Winston Churchill launched Operation Gomorrah, the bombing of the city of Hamburg on July 24, 1943. Five days later more than 50,000 civilians were dead. Two-and-a-half years later, when victory was practically guaranteed, the city of Dresden, crowded with refugees and of little strategic importance, was devastated by Allied bombers making it a symbol to the world of the cruelty of modern warfare. A month later, on the other side of the globe, the U.S. firebombing of Tokyo killed some 80,000 citizens. After the raid, U.S. Army General Curtis LeMay declared, “There are no innocent civilians.” Yet noncombatant immunity was the bedrock of the just war doctrine enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and Curtis LeMay did not go to jail.
The deaths were, without a doubt, indiscriminate, but that was countered with the idea that since the combatant state (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and by the Cold War the Soviet Union) are totalitarian societies all of its citizens were, in effect, combatants. Interestingly, a similar argument is being used by all sides - recognized state and terrorist organization - in the “long war” of terrorism as each struggles to find a a justification (or morality) for killing of civilians to achieve war aims.
If you are looking for a great read I recommend Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombings of Civilians in Germany and Japan, by A. C. Grayling. I don’t agree with Grayling as a whole, but he offers a lot to think about especially as we currently imagine “just war” theory. I am a ground combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’ll openly say that where I once sought to aid the cause of “proportional response” and “soft war” I now wonder if a demanding, cruel, and devastating “hard war” might not have been kinder and more moral in the long run. That is the question I think Israel is dealing with now.
Really I think George Orwell hit the nail on the head way in 1944 in an article titled “As I Please,” where he noted that there is “something very distasteful in accepting war as an instrument and at the same time wanting to dodge responsibility for its more obviously barbarous features.” Remember, at this time the Associated Press called the allied air campaign “terror bombing” because, well, it was. Orwell felt that limiting war (or trying too) was “sheer humbug” while he condemned those who “parrot cry” against “killing women and children” while interestingly noting that “It is probably better to kill a cross section of the population than to kill only the young men.” Sounds harsh, but it is worth considering if one is being honest in the very difficult debate.
