Myths
Surrounding The Bombings Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki
By Timothy J.
Freeman
08 August, 2003
The
essay Remembering
Hiroshima & Nagasaki by David Krieger touched me deeply
on this morning. I've always felt some connection with what happened
on this day in 1945. I've always felt some sense of responsibility and
sadness regarding this day. At least I think I've always felt this since
I was about six years old when I first learned of what happened on that
day twelve years exactly before my birth. I guess being born on the
sixth of August has always marked my life with this somber sense of
seriousness of purpose. I think it is perhaps what turned me into a
philosopher. I think I've always just had to try to understand why,
why it is we live in a world where such terrible things happen, why
it is we live in a world that will forever be marked by the tragedy
of that day and the fear of nuclear catastrophe to come.
After that initial
childhood horrifying revelation many birthdays passed with maybe only
a fleeting thought of Hiroshima. Like the vast majority of Americans
I had been persuaded of the tragic necessity of the bombing. It didn't
really lessen the horror, or the need to try and understand why, but
it did enable me to celebrate birthdays perhaps a little bit more like
other folks. But for the last decade or so my birthday has always been
tinged with sadness as I've come to understand how unnecessary was Hiroshima
and then, of course, Nagasaki. But on this day, my forty-sixth birthday,
after all that has transpired in this past year, and after reading in
Mr. Krieger's essay that even General Eishenhower at the time thought
the bombing of Hiroshima unnecessary, I am simply overwhelmed by the
most profound unutterable sadness.
In his essay, Krieger
writes of the myths that have grown up around the bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Underlying these myths, he finds "a more general
myth that US leaders can be expected to do what is right and moral.
To conclude that our leaders did the wrong thing by acting immorally
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, slaughtering civilian populations, flies
in the face of this widespread understanding of who we are as a people."
I cannot help but note how painfully relevant this demythologizing of
America is today.
I manage to just
get by teaching a few philosophy classes now and then at the University
of Hawaii here on the Big Island of Hawaii. Each semester I always begin
my Introduction to Western Philosophy class by shocking the students
by telling them that this class will likely be the most important class
they will ever take in their college careers. Of course this sounds
totally ridiculous to everyone as the majority of Americans have never
come close to a philosophy class and most, if they do, are taking it
only to fulfill an elective requirementor perhaps it just fits
a convenient time slot in their schedule. For most Americans its preposterous
of course to think that what we discuss in philosophy class is relevant
at all to their lives. It is certainly not likely to lead to a job or
any stable income as I can well attest. But philosophy, "the love
of wisdom," really is, I tell my students, the key to democracy.
Of course, it's a commonplace since Jefferson that "education is
the key to democracy." But just what sort of education is this
key? Is it really enough just to have the technological education that
will enable one to get a job and raise a family? Philosophers since
Plato have had grave doubts about democracy, Plato ranking it next to
last in his hierarchy of government. Plato's skepticism about democracy,
however, can be attributed to a skepticism about the capacity of the
majority for wisdom, a product of the ancient world view in which not
all of us are created equal. Our democracy is founded on the contrary
modern world view that all of us are created equal, the view enshrined
in our Declaration of Independence in those words Jefferson borrowed
from the great Enlightenment philosopher John Locke. The only defense
of democracy against Plato's criticism, the only hope of democracy,
lies in the hope that the people can become in some measure wise. Despite
Plato's criticism one can find, in that very criticism, the key to democracy.
Philosophy, for Plato, is the most important thing for both the individual
and the state. Famously, he has Socrates say in The Apology that the
"unexamined life is not worth living." The reason Socrates
says this is that a life without philosophical examination runs a great
risk of injustice and injustice, according to Socrates, is worse than
death, it does irreparable harm to the soul, not only of the individual
but also the state.
There was perhaps
no greater demonstration of the importance of a philosophical education
than the Introduction to Western Philosophy class I taught this spring.
For two weeks just as the war was breaking out, from March 10th to the
21st I had my students examine "Just War Theory" and the case
for war against Iraq. I had told my students from day one that there
was never an obligation on their part to agree with the instructor,
never a necessity that they even come to agreement amongst themselves.
The only thing I asked of them is that they at least be able to examine
some difficult questions, and find some way to have a healthy conversation
about the difficult issues that divide us as a people. Some people,
of course, dismiss the whole idea of a just war and of just war theory.
There are really only three positions regarding justice and war. One
could be concerned about justice and argue that no war is justand
thus one is a pacifist and should therefore oppose all war. Or, as an
ex-colonel once told me"wars are not properly classified
as just or unjust, only won or lost, won with overwhelming force or
lost with timidity." This view, which he later disavowed, simply
dismisses a concern with justice and thus, if it were the position of
our country, would make America no better than the worst nations in
human history. The third position I think is where most Americans would
at least like to think they adhere to. Neither pacifists nor warriors
unconcerned about justice, most Americans think that America is guided
by a concern for justice, and that if she must go to war, it must be
a just war. Thus we come to the philosophical questionwhat, if
anything, makes a war a just war?
There is a 2000
year old history within the tradition of Western thought concerned with
this philosophical question. This history stretches perhaps all the
way back to Cicero, is shaped by the Christian philosophers Augustine
and Aquinas, is developed further by secular Enlightenment thinkers,
and is finally enshrined in international law at the end of the WWII
through essentially two documents, both the products of American statesmanship,
the UN Charter and the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials Documents. There
are a number of different ways of summarizing the basic principles,
but the most important and basic principle is Just Cause, and the only
just cause recognized throughout this tradition and now enshrined in
international law is self-defense. One must be responding to either
an actual attack upon oneself or a neighbor or friend-state, or an imminent
threat of attack. There simply is no other just cause for war.
In that class I
had my students examine and discuss the basic principles of just war
theory. I had them read President Bush's State of the Union address,
Secretary Powell's presentation before the United Nations, and about
a dozen articles from Middle-East experts and intelligence professionals
examining the case for war. We spent considerable time examining and
discussing the all-important concept of imminent threat. I believe most
of my students understood quite well that it was not enough just to
possess weapons of mass destruction, that for a threat to really be
imminent there must also be evidence of the delivery systems for those
weapons as well as the likelihood of intent to use them. They understood
that the UN weapons inspectors had already concluded that Iraq had no
nuclear weapons program, that it had been completely dismantled by 1998.
They had already read just as the war was breaking out that the President's
claim about the nuclear material purchased from Africa was based on
forged documents. They understood that even if Iraq possessed some fraction
of the chemical weapons which we once gave them the materials to produce,
that they did not have the missiles that could constitute a delivery
system. By the end of our two week examination, my students also understood
that there was no connection between Iraq and 911, that the Sunni Baathist
regime in Iraq would not likely be giving biological weapons to Shiites
whom they had repressed for so long. Thus, even if there were any remaining
stockpile of the easily degrading biological weapons that we sold them
the materials to produce so many years ago, that they didn't really
have the delivery system to constitute an imminent threat.
We also spent considerable
time talking about the problem of terrorism and the question of whether
Saddam Hussein should be considered a suicidal terrorist or just a brutal
dictator. Most of them understood I think that there is a big difference
between stateless, desperate, religious fanatics and a man firmly ensconced
in power in a country sitting on three trillion dollars worth of oil.
What motive would Saddam Hussein have in launching an attack against
the United States, or even Israel, when it was abundantly obvious that
such an attack would be suicidal? It became painfully obvious to most
of my students that there was never any imminent threat and thus no
real just cause for war against Iraq. I have to admit it was a challenging
experience not only for the students but for me as I watched it dawn
upon their faces that their leaders were not acting morally in leading
our nation to war. It was not something to relish watching this myth
about America that Krieger writes about dissolve there upon the classroom
floor.
I'm sure my students
haven't been too surprised by the way things have turned out, the missing
weapons of mass destruction, the famous "16 words" in the
State of the Union address. I saw one of my students the other day and
he remarked about how everything we talked about has now been coming
out. The 16 words, of course, were never even the half of it. Another
of my students in her paper found even more important words that so
far I have not seen any of the media focus upon. On the one hand the
President tried to suggest that Iraq was an imminent threat, and now
we know how much distortion and lies were used to persuade the American
people of that threat. But on the other hand Bush simply dismissed the
idea that we even need to wait for an imminent threat. "Some have
said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists
and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice
before they strike?" Capitalizing yet again on 911 and the fear
and hysteria of the people, Bush simply dismissed the entire tradition
of just war theory and the very basis of international law. This is
really was what was most disturbing about that speech. Underlying that
speech is the whole immoral doctrine of preemptive strike, the New National
Security Strategy unveiled last fall.
At the end of the
two weeks, that Friday after the war had started, one young woman stood
up in class and remarked how sad it was that the whole nation hadn't
been taking this class, for if they had there is no way we would have
gone to war. I don't say that with any sense of self- aggrandizement;
it is only a comment about the state of our democracy and the importance
of philosophical examination. As a nation we failed to adequately have
a discussion about the justice of war and the case for war against Iraq.
We remained blinded by the myth about America, too confident that we
were on the side of justice we turned our back on justice and have done
irreparable harm to the soul of the nation.
Now, of course,
the American people are only just now beginning to comprehend the tragedy
that has befallen our nation. The casualties mount daily, the anger
and frustration at our occupation of Iraq grows daily. The war against
Iraq has probably proved to be the greatest recruiting tool for Osama
bin Laden. We are spending a billion dollars a week on an occupation
of Iraq that seems more and more each day like falling into a trap of
quicksand.
Today is my birthday,
but it is not a happy birthday.
Timothy
J. Freeman is Adjunct Professor of Philosophy. The University
of Hawaii at Hilo