I sometimes find ex-military folks analogies between their wartime service and situations in civilian life rather forced, but this analysis is exactly right. I used to ask myself why the Israeli Defence Forces would risk innocent palestinian civilian lives to kill the terrorists who hide among them by using drones or airstrikes instead of the kind of techniques they would no doubt use if the terrorists were surrounded by Israeli civilians. The simple answer is that the life of an Israeli civilian is considered (by the IDF) to be worth more than that of a palestinian civilian.
The same was clearly true in the United States' early approach to counter-insurgency in Iraq, as described in this piece, where the life of an American soldier is clearly much more valuable to the US Government than those of the Iraqi civilians we went to 'save'.
The sad thing is the comparison I would always quote was "what would the police do in the United States, if you had a dangerous criminal surrounded by civilians?" They probably wouldn't use an airstrike, they would probably use some other technique with a higher risk to the police, but a lower risk to the civilians they are sworn to 'protect and serve'
This article (and lots of other data) suggests that is changing: if everyone is a suspect until proven innocent, there is no need for police restraint. The worse that can happen is a dead 'perp' I guess...
> The simple answer is that the life of an Israeli civilian is considered (by the IDF) to be worth more than that of a palestinian civilian.
It's important here to draw a philosophical distinction between the claim that the lives of some groups are more important than the lives of others, and the claim that a particular person or organization has a greater duty to some groups than others. It's perfectly consistent to think that each parent has a greater duty to protect their own children (possibly at the expense of other lives), and that each military has a greater duty to protect its own civilians, without actually thinking that anyone is more intrinsically valuable than anyone else.
I think that's a reasonable analysis, but incomplete. If a nation state occupies territory that does not belong to them (for whatever, possibly well-founded reasons), and therefore controls, by force, the lives and freedoms of the inhabitants, then I would argue that along with the authority that force gives them, comes a 'duty of care' towards the civilians of the occupied territory, at least equal of that owed their own citizens.
[EDIT] -----
To quote Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State regarding the possible invasion of Iraq:
'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.' Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.[1]
------------
I agree that a parent has a greater duty of care to protect their own children than someone else's children. However, to extend your analogy, if I have someone else's children staying at my house, then I am literally 'in loco parentis' ("in place of a parent") for those children. I would argue that I have a duty of care to those children and their parents that is AT LEAST equal to my duty of care towards my own children.
A better analogy might be that of a school. Maybe the kids don't want to be there, maybe their parents don't want them in that school either, but once the children are there with the teachers 'in loco parentis', surely it is unacceptable for teachers in that school to take actions that make it safer for the teachers by making it less safe for the children? For example, would it be ok for the teachers to carry tasers to protect themselves in case a child attempts to assault them?
> I would argue that I have a duty of care to those children and their parents that is AT LEAST equal to my duty of care towards my own children.
Well, first this would only plausibly apply to dangers that have to do with you taking responsibility for the children. Is there is some exogenous risk that has nothing to do with where the children happen to be at a given time (a condition that is not analogous to the middle east) then you probably don't have duty to them above and beyond the normal case.
Second, and more importantly, if a choice really must be made then parents are empirically always going to choose their own children, and this is perhaps something you need to weigh when you let your children leave. Even in the extreme case where I am a parent directly responsible for putting my own and other's children at risk (e.g., I take them on a dangerous hike), I'm going to save my child before others. Note sure if that's moral, but that's the way it is.
> would it be ok for the teachers to carry tasers to protect themselves in case a child attempts to assault them?
Here I think there's a risk of conflating the outside-group/inside-group distinction we've been discussing with the adult/children distinction. I agree that teachers need to err on the side of putting themselves at risk rather than children, but this comes more from the fact that we all have greater duties to all children (regardless of relation) than we do to adults, because children are both more vulnerable and more innocent (in the sense of being less responsible for their predicament).
And I would argue that in a trade-off between police or military safety vs civilian safety, civilians are similarly "both more vulnerable and more innocent (in the sense of being less responsible for their predicament)" than the military or police that interacts with them.
It's a common but mistaken way of thinking. If the IDF instead resolved that its remit was to protect both Israelis and Palestinians from harm, then conflict would be reduced and more Israeli lives would be saved.
weak ass downvote. It is not perfectly consistent, nor logical, to say that violent actions toward people by other people in favor of particular people don't assign intrinsic value to all of those people.
But it is something a lot of people tell themselves because it makes it easy to sleep perfectly consistently, every night.
Disclaimer: Not my native language, I might miss nuances and misinterpret things - and I certainly come from a different belief system, a different culture.
For me though, this article raised important questions - but those were nearly impossibly hard to read due to the constant 'I served in Iraq' analogies. I flagged the submission for that.
I don't believe that Iraq was a 'Good Idea™' and I have zero respect for someone that was there. I did like the parts about his unit being somewhat less disconnected from the local population, but .. if you start at -100 you can't get too high, really.
For me, these analogies were, while probably important for the author, utterly distracting, annoying and disgusting. If you want to talk about the police in the USA, do that. The time served in Iraq is not relevant and - at least for this person right here - doesn't lend you credibility or sympathy either.
For me, those things don't belong together. It feels like a cheap "I'm a veteran, here's what I say" thing (and the notion of "veterans" is already quiiiiite hard to get over here).
> I don't believe that Iraq was a 'Good Idea™' and I have zero respect for someone that was there.
It isn't like members of the armed forces get a vote or a choice on the matter of whether they got to go to Iraq. I have coworkers that went into the National Guard to help out their home state in cases of natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, etc), but unwillingly wound up in Iraq. Blindly holding such a large group of people with zero respect because of a reason out of their control seems to toe a moral line that would make even racism seem reasonable (hence why you may draw extremely negative responses for saying this).
> For me, these analogies were, while probably important for the author, utterly distracting, annoying and disgusting. If you want to talk about the police in the USA, do that. The time served in Iraq is not relevant [...]
Then you are honestly missing the entire point of the article:
1) That the domestic police force's mode of operation is just as bad as the military force's mode of operation at its worst, and
2) The military force wizened up and changed tactics to better succeed in its larger strategy; so while the domestic police force is not currently changing, it should not be impossible for the police force to follow suit.
It seems entirely reasonable that a group of people allowed to use force on their own community would do so with more caution than a group of people using force on other/external communities. I would argue that drawing comparisons between the two is relevant and not distracting. Having someone like Alex Horton do so is insightful even if not a statistically representative sample size.
It seems like you did miss the main point of the Iraq angle.
The author was drawing an explicit parallel with the failed tactics and attitudes used early on in Iraq with the same tactics and attitudes now being copied by police in the US. The US military learnt it's lesson and changed its approach - he's wanting police to learn the same lesson.
He thought it worth mentioning not for bragging rights but because he'd personally experienced being both sides of a raid, as well as experiencing the relevant long term effectiveness of both sets of tactics.
I felt it was a useful insightful contrast for someone like me who lives somewhere far removed from the US, Iraq, armed police, veteran worship culture, or anything military at all.
Serving isn't for everyone, and I don't expect you to understand it if you haven't. But either way your attitude is as discourteous as it is pretentious, and you have added zero value to the conversation by shooting your mouth off on the subject.
America's fighting forces will continue to carry out their mission, day in and day out, just like they always have. I have a feeling they'll do just fine without the backing of the German nerd contingent.
It changes over time, and ranges anywhere from the use of force to achieve an objective all the way to simply humanitarian. Sometimes a mix. (delivery of supplies + security) The world is not in a steady state, so as our needs change over time, so does the mission.
> I used to ask myself why the Israeli Defence Forces would risk innocent palestinian civilian lives to kill the terrorists who hide among them by using drones or airstrikes instead of the kind of techniques they would no doubt use if the terrorists were surrounded by Israeli civilians
Generally, the former occurs in places where the IDF has no access other than by air or by long range shelling. If the latter occurred, it would likely be in a place where the IDF has full surrounding access and so could use techniques like snipers that can be directed more specifically at an individual.
The same was clearly true in the United States' early approach to counter-insurgency in Iraq, as described in this piece, where the life of an American soldier is clearly much more valuable to the US Government than those of the Iraqi civilians we went to 'save'.
The sad thing is the comparison I would always quote was "what would the police do in the United States, if you had a dangerous criminal surrounded by civilians?" They probably wouldn't use an airstrike, they would probably use some other technique with a higher risk to the police, but a lower risk to the civilians they are sworn to 'protect and serve'
This article (and lots of other data) suggests that is changing: if everyone is a suspect until proven innocent, there is no need for police restraint. The worse that can happen is a dead 'perp' I guess...