Most simply, it's a statement about values and war, summed up with "Whose deaths matter and whose do not?" It points out our natural bias to value only those lives most connected to us, and implies that our (American) effectiveness at warfare may be exacerbating that bias.
I agree with her that the civilian casualty issue is under-appreciated. Both the cost of war and the use of torture by American agents receive more domestic attention and debate than foreign civilian casualties caused by US actions. That moral calculus is worth some reflection.
Each nation (or ethnic group, religious group, etc) mourns its own dead with special significance. That is natural.
Perhaps a nation that wants to be a positive force in this world (and often purports to be doing other nations a favor by using military force) should consider the perspective of citizens of those nations. Pragmatism often must take trump in foreign affairs, but I want to work for moral sophistication, not only strategic success. I thought Guillemin put that idea well.
Comments