All I Have Ever Known

I read a number of blogs on a daily basis, and I am amazed by the fact that volumes are written by persons who have zero or very little knowledge about the subjects they choose to write about. I do not want to join the ranks of such bloggers; thus, I feel it incumbent on me to write only about subjects about which I am knowledgeable.

That pledge rules out writing about high fashion, pop culture, bird watching, interior design, ice dancing, carpentry, and a plethora of other subjects. I vow to write about only those topics with which I have a documented history, interest, and level of competentcy that will not draw hoots of derision.

I do know a bit about OPINIONS. I am in fact engaged in responding to many views about OPINIONS at this time, as the subject is a topic on the Discussion Board of one of my online philosophy classes. In general, most of the students have said that one opinion is as good as another, that all opinions should be treated as equal in terms of truth value, etc.

This is of course nonsense. If not, I suggest that the next time you are ill you give equal weight to the views of your plumber and your doctor as to the diagnosis of your problem. It is clear that some opinions are better informed than others. Opinions are not of equal value or weight. That is not to say that one should disrespect persons who hold uninformed opinions. One can disagree without being disagreeable.

People hold millions of opinions. At this moment a huge number of persons hold opinions relevant to the appropriate course of action as regards the United States' involvement in Afghanistan. Many think that we should simply withdraw, acknowledge the fact that our efforts have all resulted in failure, and worse, in the deaths of service men and women as well as the deaths of innocent civilians. What they say is true. The U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has resulted in the deaths of American men and women as well as the death of innocent men, women and children. How can this possibly be justified? I do not know that it can, but if it cannot, what is needed is a total redefinition of the meaning and morality of warfare. 

Warfare is divided into unjustified warfare and justified warfare. The philosophic question is simply what events justifiy the killing of troops on each side of an isssue, what justifies the killing of innocents, what justifies killing at all at any time or any place.

Obviously our government believes that the war in Afghanistan is justified. Is it? I do not really know the answer to that question. Is Afghanistan a hotbed of terrorist activity? It seems to me that the answer to that question is yes. Are the Taliban nice people? I think, no. Are women subjected to horrible treatment under Taliban rule? I think, yes. Are these brutal, repressive, and ignorant people. I would guess, yes.

Is Afghanistan a primary source of heroin production via poppy growth and distribution to those who turn poppies into heroin? I think, yes.

Is it ever permissible or morally correct to kill innocents? I know not. Does it happen? Yes. The United States, in the prosecution of what it believed to be a just war firebombed Germany and let loose the Atomic Bomb on Japan. Harry Truman thought it necessary and utilitarian in a moral sense.

I do think it immoral, and demonstrably so, to risk the lives of our American troops, both men and women, behind the veil of repressive and stupid rules of engagement. I have first hand involvement and knowledge about repressive rules of engagement. I have heard it reported that the same is true in Afghanistan. If so, that is immoral.

Should we simply cut bait and come home? Perhaps. But we should, in the meantime, have rules of engagement that allow our soldiers and marines to fight back with all the intensity that can be mustered.

I know something about this subject, so I acknowledge that I wrote this post and approve of its contents.

Comments

[Dennis Palmer]

I also have some knowledge of this subject and I concur with your comments, still serving, majorp