|
Edited on Sat May-07-11 06:04 AM by howard112211
One can argue back and forth over whether or not it was possible to take Bin Laden alive, or whether or not he was armed, fighting back etc., and I think these discussions are pointless for one because we will probably not get any reliable facts about what actually happened any time soon, but also because, and I think this is the main issue, they are a distraction from the much more interesting question: Given a choice, is this outcome the preferred outcome, or would having him alive been better?
My understanding is that during World War Two, from the point on where killing Hitler by some means had no longer any strategic value in deciding the war, it was seen by many as preferential that he be captured alive, so that he could be put on trial. And his suicide in the end was viewed as a "less than ideal" outcome because in some sense it means that he "escaped justice". Also, allowing him to "die like a soldier", i.e. in battle, would have been not as good as having him "die like a criminal", after being convicted by a court.
I just wonder when this shift of paradigm happened.
Another thing which I wonder is when the perception of "the scope of our standards" changed. We wanted to put Hitler on trial, amongst other reasons, to demonstrate that our standards are universal.
It seems like Americans used to be more ambitious.
I worry about the "Palinization" of the perception of our values. When she said "those who are fighting to destroy our constitution are not worthy of it", below the tough chest thumping rhetoric lies the implication that "Our way of handling things is only good within our borders. What happens outside is not our problem and our values do not apply.". In some sense this is a direct invitation to other powers to ignore what we see as our standards. So ultimately, it is a downsizing of the scope of our worldview.
|