He's Evil But He'll Die, So I Like It

So Slobodan Milosevic is dead. I figure you knew that.

...oh right- Reader Discretion Advised and All That...

Back in the day when he was alive and orchestrating the murders a lot of people were unsure how to approach, or even if to approach, the problem. There were a number of reasons for this and one that shouldn't be underestimated is the sense with which people looked at genocide. It was largely seen as this monster that would have required the type of commitment WWII required. Part of that was because the genocidal monster that was Nazism required a huge international commitment to fight and Powell under Bush I, learning from Viet Nam, believed that US troops should not be committed to something that could not overcome political wariness or would be left under-supported because of political concerns. The commitment he felt the Balkans required could not be politically supported, therefore he would not commit US forces to the Balkans.

What wasn't really appreciated was that the genocide in the Balkans wasn't like WWII. The fighters there were not only not like Nazis, they were not like the Viet Cong either. For example, the Serbs sieging Sarajevo were mostly conscripts who were only recently gangsters or men of fighting age who had as an alternative to lobbing mortar shells on an unseen enemy, jail. They weren't trained soldiers, were largely uncommitted to their cause, and fled when faced with opposition. They would sit around the hillsides of Sarajevo in their machine gun nests with their mortars terrorizing civilians in the city below. UN forces were under strict orders to not intervene- they were to only deliver relief supplies. When they did begin to face opposition in the mid-nineties, they offered little resistance. When they were bombed by NATO they caved. When war criminals were arrested, there were no reprisal killings. The comparatively small, 11 day NATO bombing campaign in '95 led to the Dayton Accord. It was followed later by the much larger '99 campaign, followed in turn by the ousting of Milosevic and his being handed over by his own people for war crimes.

As smart as Colin Powell might be, he was wrong about what the Balkans would require. There was plenty of guff going around about the value of the Balkans, the slippery slope to a quagmire, the violent history of the region and other reasons to not intervene. The left (and I mean the real left that is composed of anarchists and communists- not the straw man left created by the right wing echo chamber that includes everyone from Ted Kennedy and Jon Mc Cain to Che Guevara) decried the imperialist or fascist motivations of the US, and boy did the right have something to say about this. No one other than W (as a governor no less) said, "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." Weird. Rick Santorum said, " [The] President... is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." I guess he was saying he was... against it? And Clowny Mc Liar, I mean Sean Hannity said, "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" What was I talking about- politically expedient hypocrisy? No wait no, the way and why nations go to war. Okay.

The conflict "ended," and no Americans died in the conflict- not that that is the measure of success but it shows how mistaken Powell was. Many voices that today defend the current war in Iraq and accuse its critics of undermining the country and helping the enemy attacked the Clinton administration for this intervention; still, his administration helped build an international response and executed it in an international context. Whatever that's worth. This isn't to say it wasn't dangerous or should have been entered into lightly and was not accompanied by the atrocities inevitably present in war. People were brutally killed, smart bombs landed on busloads of civilians, and ruthless revenge for genocidal barbarity was always a threat if not an intermittent reality. I am not saying the intervention in the Balkans was a happy-clean fun war. What this shows is that if it is going to be done, it is possible to bring criminals who happen to have armies at their command to account in a way that is very distinct than the way it has been done in Iraq, and bad leadership or policy has real consequences.

Now I happen to be non-violent, or if you prefer, a pacifist. I happen to be non-violent because I am a Christian. Now some will take this to mean that I am right out of any discussion on the question of war. Just like some imagine that if you do not whole hog dig the war in Iraq you want terrorists to take over America. That's a dumb thought. I happen to think people like me are necessary when it comes to questions of war, much like in Christian tradition, the "Law" is necessary to let you know how bad you are. I do not imagine that a nation-state will act the same way I, or the Church, would. A nation will resort to violence, and that is their right, though doing it may not be right. To some this might void my pacifist standing, for others this might seem contradictory or a cop-out that allows me to have my cake and eat it too. Maybe. It may also be that if I wasn't so violent and militaristic in my youth I may not feel the need to be non-violent now. If it helps, you could think of my non-violence as a personal weakness and when I mature in my faith I'll be comfortable with killing. In any case, when a nation inevitability resorts to violence, it is an inevitability that can be mitigated, though not made good.

So why do I mention Milosevic? Well it's news people- you can't live with your heads in the sand! Oh no- wait I was making another point. The military NATO/UN intervention in the Balkans was an evil. But it was done in a way that mitigated the potential for greater evil. That doesn't make it good, it just makes it better than what it could have been. The US led effort to oust the Taliban is an evil too. But, like the Balkans, it is largely being done in a way that makes it better than what it could have been. Though, we are learning that resources are being diverted from this conflict to support Iraq, perhaps making it more difficult to finish, perhaps not. In any case, we are learning, every day, more and more, that the war in Iraq was not planned, initiated, or waged... how to say it... well. The leadership has been neither wise nor accurate in waging this war. They have, through their choices, made a bad situation worse.

To that, some may say, "Well if it's evil, why not just be as evil as we wanna be?" Well I guess you can, but you're gonna make things far worse than they would otherwise be. "Well isn't all evil just evil?" you say. Perhaps, but I say, "What would you rather do: steal money from your mommy's purse to get cash to buy your drugs or go down on some overweight, mouth-breathing, bald guy in an adult bookstore restroom so you could afford a quarter gram of speed that turns out to be mostly clumps of plastic, that you smoke in the back seat of a burned out abandoned Plymouth Valiant in the L.A. River?" They're both evil, right? Neither is good and should be called such, but one is worse than the other. Or maybe you'd be just as happy in either situation. A person in either situation is in bad shape, but I tend to think the latter is worse.

Is it at all possible that Saddam could have been removed from power without us being in the situation we are currently in or without the deception and bad judgment that preceded it? I think so. I think the Balkans illustrate this. Could things be worse? Of course, but I also think they have already been made worse because of the... evil of the administration. Now the use of that term might strike some as unseemly, but a.) if that is the reality of the human condition, why balk at using the term? and b.) to a certain extent, if we do not see the limitations and evil of our actions and substitute what we do for the good of what God does then we don't really expect God to do anything. It's okay to call evil evil.

It's right to say that Jesus being killed was evil. That's what it is. The joke of a trial, the chanting for his death, Barabbas' release, Pilate's spineless acquiescence, Jesus' friends fleeing, Peter's denials, Jesus' murder are all evil things. To recognize that does not impugn God. And it's not fate or "the long run" that overcomes that evil. God does. But it doesn't mean those things are then good.

I was a dating dick in the bad old days. I was mean, selfish, and dishonest to girls that liked me. I know things now because of that that are good but I was evil and any of the number of horrible things that I did to a girl in those days is not good because there is now a good because of God. It's not the long view of time that makes bad look not so bad. If you were to say something like that to Origen he would tell you you are wrong and don't understand the nature of your faith. Then again, he was declared a heretic... after he was dead... and the church needed to function in an imperial context. So call evil evil but know that's not all there is.

I don't doubt, that in the mouths of some, evil is used to end any discussion of an issue. If an administration is evil then anything I say or do against it is justified. Isn't that the argument supporting so much of what passes for justice right now? It's okay to detain people indefinitely because they are evil and we are good. It's okay to redefine torture because we are good and can be trusted to only torture a bit. It is wrong to question what the administration decides because it is good and they are fighting evil. That's the way it is used by those who have no understanding of their own guilt or who are happy with it. But that's not what this is about. I am not ending the discussion by saying what is evil. I am using it to point out an origin, a place to start from and lead to where we can be better. "Good enough" or "at least better than" are seductively and falsely comforting. I am better than I was but I pray not as good as I'll be.

That may be a bit abstract and, for some, less than constructive. Eh, well...

It helps our consciences to think of war as some reified function of valor, duty and love of country, that's not what it is. I am not speaking ill of the type of altruism that is a part of why some people join the military. I mean Slobodan Milosevic died in jail instead of in power because other people died gruesomely. Somebody's brother was killed. Somebody's mother was raped. Somebody's father is simply missing; Milosevic died in jail rather than in power. The former is better than the latter, but that doesn't make it good. It just means it's better to lose one eye than two. Saddam too, will probably die in prison rather than in power. But that doesn't, now lead us to say the same thing we might about Milosevic. In this case, because of the actual choices made we are blind, deaf and dumb, rather than just blind.

One Last Thing
I was playing this game with JonShoe wherein my post titles would be taken from movies and he would try to guess what they were from. He was able to get them more often than not. That's good, but for whatever reason I stopped doing that as much. I'm going to try to get back to that and open the game up to everyone. I will use more than movie quotes, that is they could be from TV shows, books, commercials, or some other source that tests your cultural literacy. So here're the rules: If the title of a post is in red, that is, red, it's a game quote. If you are the first one to respond with the correct citation and who said it, that is character and work, you'll win something good. If it's a disputed quote, get your own blog and make whatever rules you want- I get to say from where I culled said quote and who is right.

So who said it and in what? If you are the first to guess, you win this:

...Uh... Blogger isn't loading images right now... so... you have to just picture it. I'll show you when it's loading again.

It's a handmade wooden stash box from Bolivia. That's kinda' cool isn't it?

I Have a Tear in My Abdominal Wall That Hurts A Lot
Jesus of Suburbia, et al - Green Day
Mr. Knight- John Coltrane
London Calling- The Clash
Do Ya- ELO
Warning Sign- Talking Heads
Bring The Noise- Public Enemy
Outer Space Doesn't Care About You- The Briefs
Girl, You Have No Faith In Medicine- The White Stripes
Overture- The Who
Guerilla Radio- Rage Against the Machine
No Surprises- Radiohead
Shelter From The Storm- Bob Dylan
Ed Is Dead- The Pixies
Miles Ahead- Miles Davis
Same Dress New Day- Tripping Daisy