So, this is gonna be a relatively spicy hot take, but I watched Kyle Kulinski again today, and he was commenting on some interview between Medhi Hassan and Dean Phillips, in which Dean Phillips was asked about the morality of saving 6-7 American hostages at the expense of 200 Palestinians. And he just seemed taken aback when Dean Phillips said he would be okay with such a trade. And, to me, this came off as kinda cringey, as I kind of agree with Dean Phillips, and I wanted to explain the logic.
Lefties don't seem to understand that when you're at war, the goal is to win. And the goal is, as George S. Patton would say, "not to die for your own country, but to make the other bastard die for his." PERIOD.
In a state of war and foreign affairs, no, the lives of our own citizens are decidedly NOT equal to that of the enemy. And Dean phillips talked about things we did during WWII that werent nice, like the bombing of Dresden, the fire bombing of Tokyo, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as things that were necessary that helped us win wars. ANd he's right. You realize if we didnt do those things, more AMERICANS would die? We had this whole suidical frontal assault on Japan planned called Operation Downfall. It would have killed hundred of thousands of our own people to pull off. But because we bombed them into submission, we ended the war on relatively amicable terms. It wasn't a clean win. Yes, we killed tons of people. but we did it because better them than us!
I mean, I've been saying this a lot since October 7th, and it's true. The left doesnt know how to fight a war. They dont have the stomach to fight a war. They are dangerously inept at foreign policy. For however good I think they may be on economic policy at times, on foreign, they suck. Majorly. And they would be the downfall of the US to our enemies.
When we think about foreign policy, there is a hierarchy of how lives are prioritized.
First, I'd say you look out for your own people.
Second, you look out for your allies.
Third, I'd say you look out for friends who you don't have any obligations toward, but you share mutual interests and culture.
Fourth, you look out for people who are neutral.
And THEN you start worrying about your enemy at the bottom of the list. And yes, the civilians of the other side are technically the enemy. Yes, we should try to be relatively humane toward them. And that's why I tend to criticize Israel as much as I do. I think they have not even attempted a good faith effort at TRYING to avoid civilian casualties, and I do think that their actions are done with the intent to have a genocidal effect. They want the land, they want to clear the people off of it, so they intentionally inflict maximum civilian casualties to do this. I don't think that's right.
But if we happen to kill a bunch of civilians trying to achieve legitimate military objectives and there's no way around it, then so be it. Ultimately, it comes down to intent for me. Try to minimize harm, but push comes to shove if that's what it takes to win, do what you have to. Just, try to be as humane as reasonably possible under the circumstances.
I'm not expecting perfection here. Just effort to not be extremely crappy, and my criticisms toward Israel are over their failure to achieve even that low bar.
But make no mistake, push comes to shove, yeah, American lives are worth multiple palestinian ones, I would say. I won't set a hard rule, if I did I'd probably say something like 10:1 (meaning that 200 for 6-7 is a bad tradeoff), but honestly, that's also why I'm kinda leery on a hard rule. It is subjective, isn't it? And it is a dilemma or trolley problem either way.
Still, at the end of the day, I expect the American government to support Americans over Palestinians. If they don't do that, they're abdicating their role as being the protectors of their citizens, which is one of the key responsibilities of a nation state. Sorry, not sorry. I know this isn't the politically correct answer lefties like to hear, but it is the correct one as far as warfare goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment