"Man's duty in this life, [Admiral Cajal] thought, is to choose the lesser evil." (VII, p. 514)
So how does Cajal's campaign measure up to this duty?
"On Hru III the choths rose in revolt. They massacred part of the garrison. Then the missiles struck from space. Not many were needed before the siege of the Imperials was called off. The Wyvans were rounded up and shot. This was done with proper respect for their dignity." (XII, p. 572)
Rounded up and shot with respect? This is appalling.
When the thought crosses Cajal's mind that he might be a genius, he sets himself a penance. Well, he is obviously a morally scrupulous man - by his own set of criteria.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Wrong! Either the Hague or Geneva Conventions DOES allow, as legitimate in times of war, the execution of local officials who, after surrendering on terms, then chose to rebel against the occupation force. By surrendering in the first place, they agreed to become hostages for the quiet behavior of their people. The reasoning was simple: it lessened the amount of resources the conqueror had to leave behind, and it minimized the impact of the conquest on the conquered. All this was explicitly discussed by Jerry Pournelle in one of his Col. Falkenberg stories.
The text quoted makes it plain this was what the Covenant of Alfazr allowed. And we don't see the Ythrian wyvans themselves objecting. Their attitude was more like: "We gambled and we lost. Oh well, such is life."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the whole campaign was completely unjustified aggression by Terra.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But not from Terra's POV. It's a nearly universal human belief the wars THEIR countries fight are justified. It's best to understand the war between the Empire and the Domain as a cabinet war, one fought for limited ends and gains. Terra never tried to take over the entire Domain, but to end, favorably of course, long lasting disputes and quarrels.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But many people, including me, believe that such wars are monstrous and should be stopped.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't think that is ever going to happen. Because human beings are always going to be QUARRELSOME. And if peaceful means of settling disputes breaks down, people WILL fight.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, what should happen and what will happen are not the same and what some people think and what others think are also not the same so let's open up to different possibilities, at least.
Paul.
What will happen in future? Large numbers of people will make individual and collective choices and decisions in circumstances that, first, will be continually changing and, secondly, are completely unpredictable by us. We cannot say what will definitely happen or not happen. All that we can discuss is what we would like to try to help bring about.
Kaor, Paul!
Except the "different possibilities" you keep wistfully hoping for are simply not likely, because what you hope for or advocate doesn't conform to how REAL human beings behave, now and in the past.
And I say it's not realistic to expect human being and their nations to change in any fundamental way. The prudent statesman does not try to force people to be what he thinks they should be. He goes by what people actually ARE. He strives to achieve what might be possible.
I think the best we should hope for is that the human race finally gets OFF this rock in a meaningful way, which includes the founding of new nations and societies off Earth. That would at least open up new options!
Ad astra! Sean
Everything changes. Our species is differentiated by the fact that it has changed its environment and changed itself in the process. Mankind has undergone the change from nonexistence to existence. Civilization is only a few thousand years old. The industrial revolution was yesterday. We have (potentially, of course)a much longer future in which to change ourselves further and out of recognition. This is fully realistic. An sf reader should not have to argue this case.
Kaor, Paul!
Respectfully, I still disagree. What has NOT changed is the human propensity to be quarrelsome and violent. And that has been traced back millions of years ago. Only a few months ago I read Kermit Pattison's book FOSSIL MEN, in which he discussed how the archaeological team led by Dr. Tim White discovered evidence of precisely that: hominins/humans being violent millions of years ago.
And I am not at all sure I would want the human race to change the ways you would like it to. Those changes would make the species so different it could no longer be called human at all. I suspect Poul Anderson would agree with me.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: people are never going to agree on what is a "permissible" war.
They can, however, sometimes agree on rules of engagement which prevent -unnecessary- damage.
That is, damage not necessary to the ultimate purpose of the war, which is to settle who's boss, whose will will prevail in the political questions at stake.
Otherwise all wars become wars of extermination.
The "laws of war" traditionally say nothing about policy or politics; they just regulate -conduct- in something that they assume (rightly, IMHO) will happen anyway.
One of the basic rules in many such systems is that if you give up on terms, you have to keep the agreement as long as the terms are met.
If you don't, then it's fair to kill you.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! What you wrote is what I've been trying to tell Paul. The Hague and Geneva Conventions are attempts at codifying rules for preventing or limiting unnecessary damage during wars.
The Ythrian wyvans on Hru III broke that agreement, and were rightfully executed.
Ad astra! Sean
Yup. It's not a matter of the war being "just" or "unjust"; everyone thinks their side is right.
It's a matter of playing by the (neutral) rules. Your conviction of your own righteousness gives you no extra rights.
Another example: one of the fundamentals is that only the State or an analogue can legitimately fight.
Individuals can't just decide to pick up a gun and start shooting, even at invaders; if you do so you can rightfully be put to death and your house burned down.
You have to be part of an organization obeying a chain of command starting from the political leadership, and you have to carry arms openly and wear some identifying insignia, ideally a uniform, but at least an armband or something of that nature.
In other words you can hide -physically- (behind a bush, in a basement) but you can't pretend to be a civilian or a neutral. If the other side can physically see you, it has to be obvious that you're a combatant.
And so if you violate that rule, you can be exterminated like vermin.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! And you beat me to some of the things you listed above that I was going to cite. (Smiles)
Even prisoners captured from the armies of the rebel Confederacy in the US Civil War were treated, most times, like POWs. Because these soldiers were acting under uniform by authority of a state, even tho it was not recognized as legitimate by the US gov't or any foreign powers.
Post a Comment