Friday, September 06, 2013

a moment of abject lucidity brought to you by retired colonel lawrence wilkerson



Chris Hayes: What do you think when you watch him talk about the Iraq experience. Do you think we’ve learned our lesson?

Lawrence Wilkerson: In some ways perhaps, in other ways not. My first reaction and this in no way meant to be cold. It is meant to be the exact opposite. What’s the difference in a child dying of sarin gas in the night, a child dying in the morning with napalm, and a child dying in the afternoon with white phosphorous? Personally as a soldier I rather die of the sarin gas than the other two; those other two perfectly legal. And many people in Syria are dying of other causes than chemical weapons. So I have a real problem with this from that point of view.

Chris Hayes: So you question drawing this ring around this class of weapon in the way the civilized world, if we can use that phrase, has basically said you can’t do this.

Lawrence Wilkerson: The main reason we have a chemical weapons ban and the success we do with over a hundred and eighty eight countries members of the convention is because they aren’t very good weapons. That’s the real reason. Look at why the United States continues to use depleted uranium, white phosphorous, wouldn’t join the land mine ban and so forth is all because we find utility in the weapons. That’s not to be cold. That’s simply to be rational about it.

3 comments:

Nakajima Kikka said...

What’s the difference in a child dying of sarin gas in the night, a child dying in the morning with napalm, and a child dying in the afternoon with white phosphorous?

Of the three, death by napalm is far and away the most agonizing. When your hatred of the enemy becomes unhinged, you deploy napalm against their civilian population.

The main reason we have a chemical weapons ban...is because they aren’t very good weapons.

Debatable. Chemical weapons are strictly anti-personnel. The other two are dual-use, the "technical" reason why they're not banned. For all three, their effectiveness on the battlefield depends on the skill and experience of those doing the deployment.

Nakajima Kikka said...

Is there anything here that wasn't already covered by Gen. Smedley D. Butler in War is a Racket?

CNu said...

Lol, only the exquisite Sibel Edmonds...,