On the downfall of our enemy
May. 4th, 2011 12:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtivepatachPeople have been quoting things about not seeking revenge, not delighting in the downfall of your enemies. And I think there is something to that -- sort of. I think that it is bad to seek revenge, and praiseworthy to carefully avoid even the desire for it. I think it is praiseworthy to avoid joy in the suffering of another.
It would have been better for all concerned had Osama bin Laden repented, of course. That would have improved the world far more than his death did, because if he had repented he would be in a unique position to fight evil. His death is second best (or third best -- it would have been better if he was captured alive and interrogated). But let us not lose perspective about this -- his death is a hell of a lot better than his life as it was. He committed mass murder. We were (and remain) intended targets. He would have been happy to kill any of us. He tried to destroy our civilization (not hyperbole. His letter to America and his actions say so -- and in any case, when someone says he intends to kill you, believe him. Especially if he's already killed people who you were interchangeable with in his eyes.). He failed. He's dead. We're still here. That is a good thing, and it is appropriate to be happy about it. Even though the war is not over. Even though there's still evil in the world. There is less than there was a few days ago. That's the ikkar.
It is important to keep perspective about this. When we're talking about serious enemies, avoiding vengeful thoughts and delight in suffering of another is a matter of piety. It is something to strive for but it is not something to expect of people as a basic standard of decency. And, as in all matters of piety, it's really, really important to have perspective about it or you end up having contempt for good people -- and that defeats the purpose. Piety is not appropriate if it is at the expense of the ikkar.
I think that the sentiment going around that recent celebrations are similar to our enemies celebrating the attacks of 9/11 is an example of this. There is a fundamental difference. Osama bin Laden was a mass murderer. When he died at the hands of those he was still attempting to murder, he lost the opportunity to ever do such a thing again, and the organization that carried out such atrocities was weakened. His intended victims celebrated that. On September 11th, 2001, our enemies celebrated the brutal murder of innocent people -- for instance, those who jumped to their death rather than be incinerated alive. Those were good people. We are diminished by their absence; we lost a lot when they died. We the world, not we the west, not we the Americans. Celebrating that is an unmitigated evil. Osama bin Laden was an evil man, and the world is better off without him in it. Happiness on the part of his intended victims that the world no longer contains Osama bin Laden is entirely appropriate, and celebrating his demise is at worst indulgence in minor impure thoughts. That sort of impurity is not something worth being disturbed over -- it's something to sort out within one's own mind or with one's own musar chevruta, not something to worry about in other people.
The war is not over and all the evil in the world is not yet ended, but this is a good development. Let us hope that evil people turn away from their paths of wickedness and become good; let us until then keep sight of what must be done to protect ourselves from their current intent. Let us not lose sight of the reality of our enemies and their intentions toward us and their reasons; let us not lose sight of what we are that makes us better than that. And when we win one, let us notice and remember what it was for.
It would have been better for all concerned had Osama bin Laden repented, of course. That would have improved the world far more than his death did, because if he had repented he would be in a unique position to fight evil. His death is second best (or third best -- it would have been better if he was captured alive and interrogated). But let us not lose perspective about this -- his death is a hell of a lot better than his life as it was. He committed mass murder. We were (and remain) intended targets. He would have been happy to kill any of us. He tried to destroy our civilization (not hyperbole. His letter to America and his actions say so -- and in any case, when someone says he intends to kill you, believe him. Especially if he's already killed people who you were interchangeable with in his eyes.). He failed. He's dead. We're still here. That is a good thing, and it is appropriate to be happy about it. Even though the war is not over. Even though there's still evil in the world. There is less than there was a few days ago. That's the ikkar.
It is important to keep perspective about this. When we're talking about serious enemies, avoiding vengeful thoughts and delight in suffering of another is a matter of piety. It is something to strive for but it is not something to expect of people as a basic standard of decency. And, as in all matters of piety, it's really, really important to have perspective about it or you end up having contempt for good people -- and that defeats the purpose. Piety is not appropriate if it is at the expense of the ikkar.
I think that the sentiment going around that recent celebrations are similar to our enemies celebrating the attacks of 9/11 is an example of this. There is a fundamental difference. Osama bin Laden was a mass murderer. When he died at the hands of those he was still attempting to murder, he lost the opportunity to ever do such a thing again, and the organization that carried out such atrocities was weakened. His intended victims celebrated that. On September 11th, 2001, our enemies celebrated the brutal murder of innocent people -- for instance, those who jumped to their death rather than be incinerated alive. Those were good people. We are diminished by their absence; we lost a lot when they died. We the world, not we the west, not we the Americans. Celebrating that is an unmitigated evil. Osama bin Laden was an evil man, and the world is better off without him in it. Happiness on the part of his intended victims that the world no longer contains Osama bin Laden is entirely appropriate, and celebrating his demise is at worst indulgence in minor impure thoughts. That sort of impurity is not something worth being disturbed over -- it's something to sort out within one's own mind or with one's own musar chevruta, not something to worry about in other people.
The war is not over and all the evil in the world is not yet ended, but this is a good development. Let us hope that evil people turn away from their paths of wickedness and become good; let us until then keep sight of what must be done to protect ourselves from their current intent. Let us not lose sight of the reality of our enemies and their intentions toward us and their reasons; let us not lose sight of what we are that makes us better than that. And when we win one, let us notice and remember what it was for.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-04 06:06 pm (UTC)But for me the cost is just too high. The world may be slightly better without bin Laden in it, but it's vastly worse for the death and suffering of more people than I can really hold in my mind in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other places affected by a decade of military devastation in the name of revenge for 9/11. OK, they weren't deliberately murdered, it was "only" collateral damage, but they're still just as dead. Not to mention that more Americans have died fighting the war than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Even if bin Laden's killing ended the war, the damage would be felt years, decades, probably generations into the future. And honestly, at this late stage I don't think bin Laden's death will have any measurable effect in bringing the end of the war closer.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-12 08:12 pm (UTC)"All that is needed for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing".
Osama bin Laden was an evil man. He was a general actively leading a war against us, not a symbolic figure. Preventing him from doing this was a moral imperative, and it remains a moral imperative to stop the others who are carrying on his work. (And one reason this *will* help is that US forces seized his hard drive.)
These people aren't imaginary; it's not safe to ignore them. This war isn't about revenge, it's about stopping evil people from destroying good people. We didn't start the war; we can't end it unilaterally; and refusing to fight would mean accepting our own destruction and the destruction of many other innocent people.
I don't want anyone innocent to be harmed, and neither do those who set policy. I wish we knew how to fight evil without harming any innocent people, because as you've said, they're just as dead whether they were killed on purpose or by accident. But it's not just the innocent people we've killed who matter. The guilty people we've captured and/or killed also matter -- not for revenge, but because of all the people who are alive and free as a result of this.
There have been no more successful large-scale terrorist attacks within the United States. That's not because our enemies have changed their minds; it's because they are being forcibly prevented from killing us. The lives that have been saved can't be tallied up in the way that deaths can be, but they matter. We are not fighting for revenge; we are fighting for those lives.
There are also thousands of people who haven't been killed because Saddam Hussein was unable to re-develop chemical weapons and never obtained nuclear weapons. If Israel had not bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor, if the first invasion had not happened, if there had been no sanctions and inspections, if there had been no invasion when Saddam Hussein stopped complying with the inspections -- at least thousands more people would be dead, and millions more would live in constant fear of their lives. Those people matter too. As do people who haven't been killed by the terrorists who Saddam Hussein is no longer supporting.
There are also Iraqis who are no longer living under Saddam Hussein. There are Afghans no longer living under the Taliban. Those people are important too. Considering only those who have been killed by the invading allies makes it sound like ceasing to fight would be good for citizens of countries we've invaded, but it would actually allow evil people to oppress and murder them. There is much that still needs to be done in order to secure the present and future of Iraq and Afghanistan. Giving up the fight now would be a major betrayal of those people.
This is not an exhaustive list, but it is a substantive list.