Question of Degree

Yes, I'm just now getting around to reading Sunday's paper.

In our local paper, the opinions editor did his Sunday OpEd piece on the Tokyo firebombing from World War II. In it, he expresses surprise that the people of Japan are suing the Japanese government over the bombing, not the American government.

The logic of the suit is that the Japanese government caused the attack by starting an unprovoked war with the United States, and then not taking care of the victims of the attack on Tokyo afterward. "Accordingto to the Kyodo News agency, the 112 plaintiffs accuse the Japanese government with failing to help bombing victims and - get this - starting the war and refusing to surrender, thereby inviting the raid." He then goes on to detail some of the various atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII, and notes that Japan and Germany "have no one to blame but themselves for the devastation of their countries during the war. They attacked other nations - many of which were defenseless and posed zero threat to them - and did horrible things to millions of people. Because of that, they deserve every bit of the counterattack that followed." (T. Taschinger, Beaumont Enterprise, 3/25/07)

I acknowledge that the scale of atrocity, loss of life, devastation which took place during WWII is far and beyond anything which has occurred, or will occur, during the current war with Iraq. But is it 'scale' which determines whether a country is 'deserving' of any counterattack it receives as a result of an unwarranted assault of another country?

I couldn't help but read his editoral as moral justification for any group of native Iraqis who may in the future decide to exact retribution against the United States for its unprovoked attack, and subsequent loss of life and upheaval, upon their country. Does that mean the people of the United States should sue our own government for such a breach if (when?) there is another attack on American soil by terrorists "home-grown" as a result of our government's course of action in Iraq?

When GW Bush decided to invade Iraq, there was no clear evidence that the Iraqi government or people had anything whatsoever to do with the terrorist attack on American soil of 9/11. Subsequent investigation and information pretty clearly says that they weren't. Thus, our attack on Iraq would qualify as unprovoked.

The scale of lives lost by Iraqis and Americans and allies is nowhere close to that of WWII; however, any loss of life as a result is significant. The U.S. has acknowledged, and fortunately dealt with, such acts as Abu Ghraib and the rape/murders committed on Iraqi soil. Yet the reality is that they did occur. Smaller, almost trivial (as if any behavior such as those acts could ever be called 'trivial'), in comparison to the actions of Japan and Germany in WWII, yet they happened. The devastation to the country and its infrastructure has been immense, and has ultimately facilitated the on-going sectarian violence which exists today. [aside - there will be those who say that anything which occurred as a result of our invasion is considerably less damage than that perpetrated by Saddam Hussein during his rule. I don't deny that Hussein was a tyrant and mass murderer and probably a worthy candidate for removal from office. That is not the issue which I am addressing.]

By Taschinger's basic logic, should we experience another attack on American soil, we would be fully deserving and a trip to the local courthouse for judgment would be completely appropriate. I wonder whether those going to court will choose to sue the American government as a whole or just GW Bush and company.