That is why war is like rape.

All true….unless the nation concerned is the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

That is why war is like rape.

Because the idea that there is something like “group morality” is an absurdity. We are judged as individuals. Thus, the war in Iraq is immoral, but if you did not support it, you are not responsible for it even if you pay taxes in the U.S. You are operating under a concept of justification which is patently absurd.

Does the collective effort (e.g. defeating Japan) lose its moral justification when atrocities are committed or participated in by some of your own troops?

Absurd: one soldier who rapes no one and opposes such vile acts is justified in in his particiaption of the war (barring other information); that is, it is a moral good that he kills and steals in this particular context. It’s not that killing and stealing are bad but now good, those acts aren’t bad in the first place. (Killing in self-defense isn’t “justifiable murder,” it’s not murder at all.) A rapist-soldier is not justified. Only the individual can be judged in this matter. You’ve confused mere policy justification with the inherent goodness of an act. . . a distinction that was evident in my post.

It doesn’t matter how “justified” a general policy or a general course of action is. If an action within that policy is evil, then that act is evil, full stop. They are completely separate concepts, ethically. If they were not, it would be impossble to judge any action because I could just pull back the frame of reference, point out a positive behavior around the offending action, and call it all good. (Since, inevitably, there were some good human beings born as the result of the Rape of Nanking, ergo, the Japanese invasion of China was good, Q.E.D.)

A justified war can be justly started even if individuals fighting on the “right” side do horrible things. The goodness of a policy decision is, again, independent of the actions of individual moral actors. Without that conceptual distinction, ethical distinctions would lose all meaning.

“That is NOWHERE in my comment. Nowhere. You pulled that straight out of your ass.”

I pulled that straight out of your prior post. Here it is again, since you apparently can’t read what you wrote:

“It is no virtue that the U.S. beat Japan.”

Nowhere did you say in your prior post that an individual loses any justification for participating in an otherwise justified war by committing immoral acts such as rape during that participation. It may have been abundantly clear in your own mind, but it was not clear in anything you wrote before.

You are completely and undeniably correct, of course, in that new statement, but so what? Does the collective effort (e.g. defeating Japan) lose its moral justification when atrocities are committed or participated in by some of your own troops? There’s probably a better argument for tarnishing the legitimacy of the US war effort in the firebombing of Japanese cities or in the use of atomic bombs, since those decisions to kill civilians were command decisions.

Prospectively, if the leadership trains its troops not to commit recognized atrocities and punishes those who are caught committing them, can it not wage a justified war if that leadership knows some of its troops, however small a percentage, will not obey the training?

If you see no virtue in Japan’s defeat in WWII. . .

That is NOWHERE in my comment. Nowhere. You pulled that straight out of your ass.

I made it abundantly clear that there is no virtue in an individual fighting what would be a justified war when said individual uses that war as an opportunity to do a wrong.

Feel free to argue with yourself — but please, do not take your logical shortcomings and place them at the feet of others.

I disagree with all you said except for #1, #2 and #5 and even that agreement requires qualifications.

#1 “I’m not one for excessive hope”

Neither am I. Neither am I for excessive despair.

#2. “There is no such thing as a “redeeming feature” when it comes to atrocities.”

True. But there is redemption in action taken, individually and collectively, to stop them,

#5. “It is vice where the U.S. sponsored rape camps.”

Yes. But nowhere in the links or cited materials is there an allegation that the U.S. “sponsored” rape camps.

If you see no virtue in Japan’s defeat in WWII (you didn’t mention Germany) or in the Confederacy’s defeat in the US Civil War, then indeed we have nothing in common. I will continue to see your views as perverted as you see mine.

I agree with Dorothy’s comment #37 above. Like I said in comment 42, if you are a pacifist then the discussion is over as to war. Nothing in your mind would justify one.

There is no such thing as a “redeeming feature” when it comes to atrocities.

It is no virtue that the U.S. beat Japan.

It is no virtue that the North crushed the Confederacy.

It is vice where the U.S. sponsored rape camps.

It is vice where the North enjoyed the fruits of slavery — which, by the way, was also a rape camp.

Given that there is Hell, there will be no “bonus points for virtue” for the leaders that won the war and raped their way through it.

You have a peverted view here. The “good war” is not a virtue — it was merely a convenient vehicle for raping others.

You might as well give a child molester a reduced sentence because he was volunteering at the orphanage where he raped kids.

I gather my crimes are:

1. Questioning your original source for making a sweeping overly broad statement and challenging the assertion that almost all GI’s in Japan were rapists.

2. Thanking you for bringing another source to the discussion.

3. Giving U.S. military leadership credit for stopping the horror, though they were slow to do so (almost 4 months from the memo to top brass).

4. Recognizing gradations in evil or bad conduct, some which are so different to be different in character. Genarlow Wilson’s offense was of a different character than that of Chester Stiles. Perhaps I focus too much for your taste on the knowledge and intent of the perpetrators. That’s a byproduct of my law degree, for which I do not apologize.

I plead guilty to all of those.

To those offenses I’ll add another. The U.S. military deserves credit for defeating Japan in WWII, which meant that the Japanese atrocities committed all over Asia, including the system of sexual slavery, would be stopped.

Knowledge of the atrocities of past wars should be publicized, in hopes that they will not be repeated.

From the WaPo article.

“… American authorities permitted the official brothel system to operate despite internal reports that women were being coerced into prostitution. The Americans also had full knowledge by then of Japan’s atrocious treatment of women in countries across Asia that it conquered during the war.”

They didn’t know, except for when they did. Gee, go sue WaPo.

RE: “I suspect that a filter you look through equates sex at any brothel in an area where women have few other economic choices with rape.”

In turn, I suspect you’d see any starving 5-year-old in a war torn country who agreed to have sex with an occupying soldier for food just an economic transaction. What? No? But it’s ok if they’re 11 or 12, right? Maybe 13 or 14? Then it starts to be ok. Oh hell, who really knows, right?

If you’re in an occupied/wartorn terrirtory and someone is selling you little girls and women to stick your penis in, I’d pretty much think common decency would dictate that you don’t partake in the transaction. Since, you know, you don’t know the circumstances and therefore very well might be participating in systematic rape. Like the GIs in Japan in 1945.

Of course, when you just have to put your penis in something, well, there’s that.

I suspect you’re a “classic liberal” who isn’t well versed in the right to liberty. Around here, I think they just call them libertarians.

I am not and was not defending the “comfort women” horror. I am just not willing to label “almost every GI in Japan, 1945″ a rapist. But if you believe that sincerely and want to get the story more coverage, I suggest you do this: Print up placards with “almost every GI in Japan, 1945 were rapists” on them, call your local news outlets and picket the closest VFW hall. That should get you some coverage, maybe a libel suit, too, if there are any old guys left with enough energy to sue you.

A population’s general unwillingness to recognize the evils of a course of action, past or present, is not uniquely American.