Continuing the debate, Larison’s two cents:
Of course, it is true when you opt to bomb civilian centers, especially in an indiscriminate, fire-bombing way, that you have at that time chosen to commit war crimes, and it is also true that people who have reconciled themselves to the mass slaughter of civilians have chosen to justify pretty much anything in the name of fighting the enemy. It does not follow that because you have gone to war against another state that you have therefore necessarily embarked on a course that requires you to engage in those war crimes. The choice to commit those crimes comes later, and that choice becomes inevitable only if those crimes are absolutely necessary to achieve victory. In fact, such crimes tend to stand out for just how utterly unnecessary and excessive they are. If you accept the inhuman calculations of total war and unconditional surrender, you might say that war crimes are inevitable, but if you really accept the logic of total war you don’t believe that there is anything done in war that violates morality or law, because total war is the practical negation of both.
And in this war, the president decided to commit war crimes in advance. In fact, torture was, we now know, one of the central strategies of the war. Its rapid spread across every theater of war – and its emergence into the daylight – was not part of the original plan. But once you have sanctioned something at the very top, the limits on those at the bottom, always vulnerable, are just blown away.
The Dish 