What's in store for Osama bin Laden?

Note: After some interesting discussion in the comments, I added new material to this post on May 7, 2011.

In broaching this topic, I can't help but be reminded of an episode of the old TV sitcom Becker. The opening scene went something like this:

Becker is sitting at a lunch counter and remarks to a friend that one of his patients just passed away. A nearby stranger intrudes on the conversation, asking, "When did he die?"

"Yesterday," Becker says.

"Oh, good. Then he's still on the astral plane. I'll be visiting there later today. You want me to look him up?"

Later it transpires that a mental hospital has been releasing its patients into Becker's neighborhood.

There is something undeniably nutty about speculating on the afterlife adventures -- or misadventures -- of a particular individual. How can we possibly know? There is no way to be sure, with 100% confidence, that there even is an afterlife, let alone to know what goes on there, let alone to know what's happening to a given person.

Nevertheless, those of us who think that life after death is highly probable, and who have read widely on the subject, can't help but formulate some idea -- provisional and conjectural though it may be -- of what a person like Osama bin Laden might expect. In my own case, my expectation is based on mainly on reports of near-death experiencers and mediums. Robert Crookall's books, notably Intimations of Immortality, have been particularly influential on me. 

It appears that the circumstances of one's death can play an important role in how smoothly the transition goes. Osama bin Laden's last earthly moments must have been characterized by confusion and distress, as a team of commandos fought their way into the house in a midnight raid, killing many of its occupants in a hail of bullets. It is safe to say that bin Laden was fearful, even panicky at the end. And then, before he had time to compose himself, a bullet tore through the left side of his face, blowing out the back of his skull, and killing him instantly.

A person who dies that way seems likely to have a rough transition. He may not even realize he is dead. He may remain earthbound for a long time, in a state of shock and denial, treating the physical world around him as a dream. This condition can persist for days, months, or even longer.

On the other hand, bin Laden presumably did believe in an afterlife, so he might be more mentally prepared for his discarnate existence than the average secular-minded person today. Of course, he would expect to go to paradise, an everlasting garden of sensual delights. But nothing in my reading suggests that this is how the scenario would play out.

What, then, would happen to bin Laden? Originally I wrote that he would go directly to the life review as described below. But Bryan.A pointed out that someone as spiritually bankrupt as bin Laden probably would not be ready for a life review. Instead, he would more likely be drawn to a very low plane of spiritual existence, where he would linger for an untold period of time amidst similarly debased souls. His existence would continue in this harsh, dreary, loveless realm until eventually he became aware of his own shortcomings and the need for repentance and atonement. Only then would he be able and willing to receive guidance from higher spiritual beings, which would orchestrate a life review.

I think this is probably correct; at least, it conforms to what I've read. So let us assume that bin Laden will first linger in a twilight zone, a sort of "Hades" in the original sense - the misty, joyless underworld described by the ancient Greeks. At some point he will begin to emerge from his self-absorption and self-imposed blindness, he will reach out for help, and help will be offered. Then he will be ready for the next step -- what near-death experiencers call a life review.

All of his significant actions and decisions on earth will be replayed before him. Not only will he see his life flash before his eyes, but he will enter into the experience, reliving crucial moments. More important, he will be compelled to experience the consequences of his choices in the lives of other people. He will enter their subjective awareness, and feel what they felt.

Bin Laden is believed to have ordered the bombing of US embassies in Africa which killed about 200 people, the 9/11 attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people, and numerous other atrocities around the globe. Thousands of people suffered violent deaths as a result of his actions. Untold thousands more suffered the grief, shock, and trauma of losing their loved ones. Still others were maimed and crippled. What would it be like to experience the physical and emotional pain of all those thousands of people? It would be something like hell.

The life review seems to take place in a timeless realm, or, to put it more precisely, a realm in which time operates differently from the way we know it on the physical plane. There is no earthly way to estimate how long bin Laden's immersion in the agony of his victims would last. Perhaps, in earthly terms, it is all over in less than a second; but subjectively, from bin Laden's point of view, it might seem to last for centuries.

In any event, at some point this terrible ordeal will end. Having already matured enough to be willing to face the life review, bin Laden should find the experience  so intense and revealing that he will no longer cling to the ego-centered outlook that drove him to commit his crimes. He will see, clearly and for the first time, the terrible error of his ways. He will seek forgiveness.

But mere remorse is not enough. What will follow is a long period of self-abasement and spiritual regeneration, a tortuous path to redemption that could include new earthly incarnations in which he will experience the powerlessness and pain of a victim throughout a whole lifetime. The purpose is not suffering for its own sake, but the attainment of a new level of spiritual awareness, made possible only by a full understanding of his former depravity.

Eventually, even a soul as corrupt and malignant as bin Laden will be purified and exalted. It may take many lifetimes, an immense amount of spiritual work, and the guidance of infinitely patient spirit counselors. But from everything I've read on the subject, it appears that no soul is permanently left behind.

Some people might say that a monster like bin Laden deserves unending torment, with no opportunity for redemption. But it seems that the system -- or the Mind behind it -- is not so harsh and unforgiving. Every soul, we are told, originates in innocence and will ultimately return to that state, after its errors and transgressions have been stripped away. But the process of purification is long and arduous, and there are no shortcuts.

So where in the world is Osama bin Laden right now? My guess -- of course it can be only a guess  -- is that either he is anchored to his mansion in Pakistan in a fog of bewilderment and fear, or he is sunk deep in a half-lit underworld in the company of other angry, violent, homicidal, and intolerant souls, where he will remain until he is ready to face the full consequences of his evil acts.

Comments

[Friar Doughnut]

His actions mean nothing. You only assign a positive or negative attribute to him based on what everyone has told you to believe in the ideas of bad and good. There is no bad and there is no good. There never was. Our existence on this planet is as impermanent as a dream. Our minds belong to a race of creatures called the Flyers who came from the depths of the universe and apprehended humanity to create us of two minds, ours and theirs. In this process of apprehension, we are dying, forced to witness our deaths with 'time', a concept of the predator's mind.

[no one]

I wasn't going to say anything because I have a feeling it's going to be unpopular to the point of heresy, but I'm in a weird mood; slightly onery due to back pain and curious and risky.........So....

This whole discussion of what has happened to OBL post being double tapped in the head speaks to me of the role that motives, emotions and intentions play in the evolution of the soul.

Because OBL attacked the US in a rather spectacular way resulting in the deaths of 3,000 people as seen on tv, it is easy - especially for US citizens - to think of him as a "monster".

However, OBL believed in a cause and believed it was worth fighting for. As the spokesman for an organization - albeit a non-state - he declared war in the name of his cause. He publicly announced this. By all thoughtful accounts of the man and his life, his goal was not senseless murder for murder's sake. Rather, he sought a region where Muslims could live by an orthodox code free from what he saw as western imperial influence. He is not alone in his perception of an unacceptable state of affairs in the Muslim world. there are many who agree with him. He has been described by both Muslim and non-Muslim sources who knew him as a pious and moral man. Fair and just and humble in his dealings with people. He was courageous in battle and in leading by example. He has been described as a true believer in Islam.

His goal, whether you agree with it's goodness or not, was not so very different from a Jefferson or Washington and their peers who started a war in which many died becuase they did not want to pay taxes to England and sought to be free to live their lives the wat they wanted to (despite owning slaves) away from the King's influence. The American revolution even included terrorism. Many sympathizers of the crown had their property destroyed and some were killed by their neighbors.

War is the blunt edge of politics. Killed is killed whether it is by musket, machine gun, incendiary bomb or atomic bomb - or hijacked airplane. Killing in war cannot be spiritually good when it is our side getting the upper hand and bad when it's their side. They believe in their side as much as we believe in ours.

Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Churchill killed many times more than Bin Laden in deliberate fire bombings of civilian targets; entire cities like Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima and many others were reduced to ruble and ash. Hundreds of thousands of women and children died deaths every bit as horrific as those who died as a result of OBL's schemes. Who speaks of these men burning in Hell?

If those fantastic means (in terms of the number of lives destroyed) are justified by the end, then why cannot OBL's attempt at unifying and rallying the Muslim world to expell the "invading crusaders" at the cost of a few thousand lives?

I do not think there is any cosmic law that says that killing a US citizen on US soil is a worse sin than killing a German woman or Japenese child or Iraqi family on their home soil.

Thus, we return to motive. If OBL did what he did simply out of pure mean spirited blood lust, then I do think a hellish afterlife would await him.

Where things get interesting is if he did what he did out of true belief in the goodness and rightness of his cause (and, again, there is much evidence to suggest this is the case) and a lack of other effective options. What then? And of what men we call heros who did similar things - worse things in terms of scale and scope - in our name? What of our own souls when we cheer the 'heros' and teach their virtues down through our generations?

P.S. as a US citizen I am 100% in accord with OBL's killing by our troops as a declared and proven enemy.
If in the service now I would have volunteered for the opportunity to do it myself if that opportunity arose.

That being said, I do not need to demonize a worthy adversary.

[no one]

P.P.S.

I do think that Bin Laden, as a pious and courageous man, was prepared for death, accepted its proximity and probably did not experience the fog of confusion.

I think he would have faced the life review with courage as well. There are good qualities that if channeled properly, could make for a fine human the next time around the wheel. These would moderate the harsher aspects of the review.

At this point he is probably learning lessons about the ends not justifying the means. It's a big club. He has a lot of companions; some are real big name celebrities with him.

The next step depends on his willingness to repent, to learn and to grow.

[Michael Prescott]

"He was courageous in battle"

According to the book The Looming Tower, bin Laden usually passed out from fear during battles (which took place in the Russian occupation of Afghanistan). His acolytes, however, spread the message that he was so fearless he could even "sleep" in the midst of combat!

They also spread the word that he was very tall, a giant standing at least 6'4", when in fact he was 6' at most, and possibly smaller. So I would take reports of his piety etc. with a grain of salt.

But it's true that we can only judge from our personal perspective, which is necessarily limited.

[no one]

P.P.P.S.

We have had discussions around reincarnation and so called group souls. What is a Bin Laden if not another facet, another expression, of the "chief freedom fighter" or the "revolutionary leader"? The same group as a Washington.

Two sides of the same coin.

You see? We like this soul expression when we benifit from it. We hate it when it when it comes after us.

The lesson to be learned is as much for us as it is for him. That is what the group soul does. It expresses he same aura to different folks with different nuances. All of the nuances are true an you have to take in all of the nuances to understand the truth of the thing.

Violence As A Means To An End.

This is the thing under discussion.

We have all, to one degree, or another, played with the thing and are all, to some extent, as involved in it as Bin Laden.

The people at 'ground zero' were chanting and whooping it up over the killing of a man who is considered evil for killing.

[Bruce Siegel]

"However, OBL believed in a cause and believed it was worth fighting for"

No one, I agree that even the seemingly worst of us has qualities that are admirable, and I understand your desire to point that out.

Though I'm tempted, I'll refrain from passing final judgement as to whether bin Laden was a legitimate revolutionary, a hate-filled person, or something in between.

But what I will say, is that I've been inspired by the completely un-bin Laden-like revolutions now taking place in the Arab world, in which people have risen up against oppressors peacefully, using violence as a last resort.

How nice when the ends (a more spiritual society) and the means are in accord.

During the Egyptian revolution, I was moved by what an Egyptian teenager had to say about his fellow revolutionaries, something to the effect of: At last--I have POSITIVE role models.

[no one]

MP, who knows about his courage. War heros are always have their rep.s inflated. That is true of US heros as well. One guy I know who was awarded the Navy Cross in VN told me, many years after the event that led to the medal, that he was so scared that he became disoriented and he thought he was running away from danger, but was, instead, running straight at the enemy. When he realized this, he just started shooting in a panick. Fortunately, he had inspired his buddies to follow his "attack" and an enemy pos. was wiped out and injured US Marines in the field of fire, saved.

Some accounts of Bin Laden by US intel sources have him being brave. These were at a time when we liked him because he was fighting Russians (aka "the evil empire") and was likened onto G. Washington by none other than Ronald Reagan himself. Other sources, like the one you quote, have him not so brave (at a time he became our enemy). Propaganda is insidious and pervasive. All that aside, he was there against a formmidable foe and, perhaps in spite of overwhelming fear, he did fight. Sometimes that is the sign of the truest courage.

[no one]

Bruce, "Though I'm tempted, I'll refrain from passing final judgement as to whether bin Laden was a legitimate revolutionary, a hate-filled person, or something in between."

me2. He may have turned into a hate filled sinister bastard. A lot of intel and other sources have him otherwise. I too suspend judgement. Just offering an alternative.

"But what I will say, is that I've been inspired by the completely un-bin Laden-like revolutions now taking place in the Arab world, in which people have risen up against oppressors peacefully, using violence as a last resort."

I'm with you there too. I hope it works out in the long run. I am skeptical, though. There are so many variables. Israel's reaction not being the least. I am curious as to whether or not these revolutions become hijacked (or maybe were even originally inspired to some extent) by a Bin Laden like agenda. I don't think we know enough about who these revolutionaries really are. Only time will tell.

[Michael Prescott]

"Rather, he sought a region where Muslims could live by an orthodox code free from what he saw as western imperial influence."

On the contrary, Al Qaeda seeks a worldwide caliphate that will rule all people everywhere, not just a region for themselves. They imagine that they can attain world domination, and their actions are motivated by that objective.

Also, let's not forget that AQ's "code" of sharia law includes the total suppression of women, the state murder of homosexuals, etc.

It seems to me that ultimate ends matter. Churchill, Roosevelt, and Truman killed a lot of people, but they were fighting a defensive war against an aggressive enemy that wanted a world takeover. Their goal was to enlarge, not shrink, the sphere of human freedom. Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo were fighting to eradicate human freedom and to eliminate, through genocide, any "undesirable" racial, ethnic, or social groups.

Al Qaeda wants a global Islamic dictatorship in which infidels will be, at best, second-class citizens, if not eliminated altogether. The Taliban's reign in Afghanistan is a good example of what AQ is after. Under the Taliban, people were executed for owning a cassette player, because music was forbidden.

Moral relativism is adopted only by people who are comfortably insulated from any real-world consequences of their position. That's why it's popular in academia. People who have to live with the actuality of regimes like Nazism or the Taliban learn soon enough that there is real evil in the world.

[no one]

"On the contrary, Al Qaeda seeks a worldwide caliphate that will rule all people everywhere, not just a region for themselves. They imagine that they can attain world domination, and their actions are motivated by that objective."

"Al Qaeda wants a global Islamic dictatorship in which infidels will be, at best, second-class citizens, if not eliminated altogether. "

I'm afraid I don't think that is true. I don't want to argue, but it is somewhat germane to the larger discussion.

Bin Laden and AQ never stated such things. In fact Bin Laden was always very careful to state his goals clearly; to defend Muslim people and Muslim lands where ever threatened by non-Muslims, to drive western influence out of Muslim lands, to defend the plaistinians and to replace "apostate" governments in Muslim lands with governments true to the faith and people (though I do agree that his version of Sharia would not be a spociety I'd want to live in). The ex-CIA operatives and who have written books regarding their studies of Bin Laden assert that his goal(s) is exactly as stated and that grandiosity such as world domination was absolutely no a part of his plan.

He did plan, successfully, to use his attacks on the US to suck us into endless wars overseas that would, he hoped, bankrupt us, such that our influence in the middle east would ultimately diminish.

By all intel accounts Bin Laden was a rational actor. He was not pushing manic impossible agendas like Hitler.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/OsamabinLaden.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer

http://iraqwar.org/binladenquotes.htm

"It seems to me that ultimate ends matter. Churchill, Roosevelt, and Truman killed a lot of people, but they were fighting a defensive war against an aggressive enemy that wanted a world takeover."

But that is exactly what Bin Laden himself said to justify his actions.

As an aside, I am not so sure that, militarily, the deliberate killing of all those civilians did much to hasten the war's end.

"Moral relativism is adopted only by people who are comfortably insulated from any real-world consequences of their position.That's why it's popular in academia. "

I hope you are not thinking I am like that. I've been out there with a rifle in my hands. Both of my children are out there now.

All I am saying is that Bin Laden thinks - excuse me, thought - his ideas were right and worth killing for. You think our ideas are right and worth killing for.

The only way Bin Laden becomes evil and us, ok, is if there is a god that is judging us as ultimately right right and him as ultimately wrong. Then again, Bin Laden would say there is a god, but that His calculation is the other way around. And even if you think we are right to kill because there is a higher power on our side, then you have become a holy warrior too. And that, my friend, is a slippery slope; the slipperiest slope there is. This country is not led by angels in congress; nor in the executive suites.

[Matt Rouge]

I think *no one* points out something quite important. Something relevant to the "game theory" of warfare.

If we do something bad to the other side because we think it's justified, then the other side will do the same to us when they think it's justified.

If we drop two nukes on Japan to end the war and ultimately save perhaps millions of lives, then Japan, were it able, would drop two nukes on the US with the same justification.

It does little good to say, "Ah, but we are *truly* in the right, whereas they are not," since Japan would of course assert that *it* is truly in the right.

This isn't moral relativism. Quite the opposite. It's simply understanding that your opponent is incentivized to see himself as correct and do to you what you're doing to him.

It's also understanding that the day is also going to come when you're wrong. The US was dead wrong in Vietnam, for example, and ended up killing millions of people for no good reason.

Us vs. them is a losing game--for the species. If aliens see what we are doing to each other, surely they regard us as unable to get our sh*t together as a collective.

I'm no pacifist. When and if Nazis are about to take over the world, you have to fight them and beat them. At the same time, the species must develop a mechanism to prevent Nazis from appearing in the first place.

I really don't think Spirit cares about the petty reasons for why we've done what we've done. If we drop a nuclear bomb on people because we feel we have to... we've still indiscriminately killed women and babies--whole families. We've destroyed authors' books and composers' compositions. We don't even know what we've destroyed or who we've killed. It's spiritually primitive, and we are going to have to evolve as individuals and as a species to where we don't do that any more.

ObL also didn't know whom he'd be killing on 9/11, but he knew he'd be doing a lot of damage and creating an almost unfathomable amount of pain. He will, I am sure, have to accept the consequences of that in one mode or another.

[Bruce Siegel]

"I am curious as to whether or not these revolutions become hijacked (or maybe were even originally inspired to some extent) by a Bin Laden like agenda."

Inspired by a Bin Laden-like agenda? Definitely not. From the Tunisian fruit peddler who burned himself alive, thereby stirring his countrymen to action, to the Egyptians in Tahrir Square who were, in turn, inspired by the Tunisians, and then on to other countries in the region, these have been populist rather than ideological rebellions, carried out by people seeking the same freedoms and opportunities that you and I enjoy.

I've been following these events pretty closely, and I'm convinced of that.

As to the danger of their efforts been hijacked, now that's a real concern. But I doubt that things can ever go back to being as bad as they were.

[no one]

Just to clarify, I do think the atomic bombs saved more lives than they took, from a military perspective. The bombings of German cities, like Dresden, are far more disputable in that regard.

We feel justified (need to protect that oil) in propping up dictators in the Middle East (and else where) that rule by terror and other decidely non-democratic methods and principles and AQ uses that fact to justify retaliating with terrorism against us.

And the Israelis and Palistinians; Classic example of the endless and ugly futility of the vendetta cycle! And one that we take a side in.

Matt, yes. There is a time to fight. Unfortunately, the need for most of these fights could have been averted long before they started if simple humanity and diplomacy based of wise virtue had been applied. Hitler was only able to into power because of the humiliation and crushing economic circumstances imposed on Germany post WW1. A less vengeful peace treaty would have resulted in something more like Japan post WW2. Our involvement in Vietnam to stop communism was the consequence of our supporting a dictator that made communism look attractive and the previous colonial rule of our allies, the French, that did the same. We were so afraid of the VN communists that we had to go in and get a lot people killed. Now we do business with that same communist country. It is even considered a pretty good tourist deal.

I mean, you can't crush a people beneath your shoe and then start throwing around right versus wrong when some of them come out from under fighting.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. That is something I am sure is a feature in so very many life reviews.

[no one]

"As to the danger of their efforts been hijacked, now that's a real concern. But I doubt that things can ever go back to being as bad as they were."

I hope you're right. You probably are.

But that's what I'm talking about. The US and Israel supported the Egyptian gov't that was so bad.

[Douglas]

btw, to the person who said that Osama bin Laden was in fact a 'rational actor' unlike say adolf hitler:

well, I'm no fan of Adolf hitler but he was also a 'rational actor'. In fact all dictators, revolutionaries etc are all 'rational actors' in that they all find 'logical' motives for their actions.

As for Hitler, actually his aims were quite specific - primarily he wanted to return Germany to it's boundaries at the height of the Holy Roman Empire, which meant much of Europe. However he knew that the Soviets would always be a threat so later planned on invading Russia to take them out of the game.

He rationalised that Germany deserved to run a pan european state as that was its historical right, he also brough genetics into the equation too, just in case there was any doubt.

[Michael Prescott]

I think it comes down to whether or not there are objective moral values. If there are, then we can say there was a clear difference between Churchill (fighting to repulse an advancing genocidal dictatorship) and bin Laden (fighting to advance a repressive theocratic dictatorship). On the other hand, if there are not any objective moral values, then one person's aims are as valid as anyone else's. In that case we end up, like the Existentialists, saying that we should simply commit to some purpose, any purpose, in order to give our lives meaning. Then the only issue is the extent of our commitment - i.e., how sincere we are. So if Churchill and bin Laden are equally sincere, they are morally equivalent.

To me, this is a blind alley, and a sufficient reason to reject relativism. (I also think sincerity, as a virtue, is greatly overrated, since it's possible to sincerely believe some truly awful things.) YMMV.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

I believe in objective moral values. That's precisely why I'm leery of saying it's OK to bomb civilians so long as the cause is just.

Cheers,

Matt

[Michael Prescott]

I'd like to pursue this discussion a little further, because it's interesting and a bit different from what we usually talk about on this blog. A couple of things occurred to me.

First, there was a comparison of Osama bin Laden to George Washington. It's true that both men had leadership qualities and were involved in revolutionary movements that cost many lives. But I think there are key differences. I'm no expert on the Revolutionary War, but as far as I know, George Washington never deliberately targeted civilians. He did use guerrilla tactics against the Redcoats, but he did not attack unarmed noncombatants. There may have been attacks on some Tories, but I'm guessing these were unauthorized, rogue actions, not elements of Washington's strategy. Sadly, in war there will always be scattered atrocities, but I think it makes a moral difference whether these atrocities are planned and directed by military commanders as part of a strategy, or whether they are unanticipated and unwanted side effects of the chaos of battle. Bin Laden, of course, deliberately targeted unarmed and unsuspecting civilians, and spent much of his life coming up with new and more ingenious ways to kill unsuspecting and defenseless men, women, and children who had nothing to do with him or his movement.

More important, Washington and the other Founding Fathers were seeking to expand the sphere of human freedom, with greater personal liberty and enhanced opportunities for prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. Obviously there were omissions in their idea of freedom; notably, they did not grant full rights to women, and they granted no rights to slaves. Still, the founding of the American republic was a major step forward for politico-economic freedom. It was the first constitutional republic in history, and was seen, even at the time, as an experiment in government that, if successful, could bring about "a new order of the ages." On the other hand, bin Laden wanted to establish a highly repressive theocratic dictatorship that would trample hard-won human rights commonly accepted throughout much of the modern world. It was a regressive, atavistic "ideal" which would have turned back the clock to the Dark Ages. If personal freedom is an objective moral value, then Osama bin Laden was immoral in seeking to curtail it. I don't think it is possible to place a moral value on freedom if we are simultaneously going to say that people who explicitly want to do away with freedom are acting morally. At least, it seems to me that this would involve an insuperable contradiction.

Another issue raised in the comments involved the use of the A-bomb on Japan. It's well known that Harry Truman's advisers told him the only alternative to dropping the bomb would be to mount an invasion of Japan, which would extend the war by several months and cost a huge number of American lives. Truman made the calculation that it was preferable to end the war immediately and save those American lives, even at the cost of the lives of many Japanese civilians. It is not unlikely that some degree of prejudice against nonwhites factored into this decision, and if it did, I would assume that part of the purpose of Truman's life review would be to teach him the error of this kind of thinking, by making him experience some of the pain and terror felt by the victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Still, leaving aside the possibility of racial prejudice, Truman's decision appears to have been motivated by genuine concern for the lives of American sailors and infantrymen, and since he was tasked first and foremost with looking out for the interests of the United States, and since the United States was fighting a defensive war against Japan (who started the war with a sneak attack that killed many innocent civilians), I can't fault his judgment.

In this respect, the Catholic Church's doctrine of the "just war" seems relevant. This doctrine, originated by Augustine, spells out the conditions under which it is morally acceptable to wage war. To me, it's a pretty reasonable position. The "just war" doctrine is summarized and explained here:

http://tinyurl.com/dgpxey

[no one]

"First, there was a comparison of Osama bin Laden to George Washington. It's true that both men had leadership qualities and were involved in revolutionary movements that cost many lives. But I think there are key differences. I'm no expert on the Revolutionary War, but as far as I know, George Washington never deliberately targeted civilians. "

That comparison was actually first made by Ronald Reagan.

As far as deliberately targeting civilians, it was not the normal procedure back in Washington's time. It was considered babaric and un-gentlemanly. In fact this was largely the case among "civilized" nations pre-WW2. In WW2 the tactic of targeting civilians gained a lot of traction because the "good guys" did it too. Now it has more acceptance as a methodology of; albeit of last resort for anyone. So that is more of a time and culture thing than necessarily a reflection on Washington.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in all wars - all - civilians die. Often they die in numbers disproportionately high compared to uniformed combatants. So when a country decides to invade another, even ostensibly to promote "freedom" it has, de facto, elected to kill civilians. That so called colateral damage is a given and accepted by product of the invasion (And it is. Those numbers are even war gamed). The freedom bestowing invading country may not want to kill civilians, but they know they will. I dunno, seems like a fine line and a slipperly slope from that to just out right targeting civilians. The civilians end up dead and mutilated no matter what the intention. Maybe this is accounted for in the difference between murder and manslaughter in criminal law.

"More important, Washington and the other Founding Fathers were seeking to expand the sphere of human freedom, with greater personal liberty and enhanced opportunities for prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. Obviously there were omissions in their idea of freedom; notably, they did not grant full rights to women, and they granted no rights to slaves. Still, the founding of the American republic was a major step forward for politico-economic freedom. "

Agreed that overall there was a net marginal benefit for human society, though at what cost? I think it should also be mentioned that the Native Americans also got the short end of the freedom stick. But here is the question: was war and killing a necessary means of achieving these goals? When does war become necessary and justified? Who decides? Ghandi achieved freedom for India without war.

I agree with the calculus behind truman's decision to use the a-bomb. Though what you did not note is that the invasion would have killed more civilians that the a bombs. he considered that too; correctly IMO. the invasion of Okinawa by US forces killed some 100,000 +/- civilians with bullets and artillery.

"Sadly, in war there will always be scattered atrocities, but I think it makes a moral difference whether these atrocities are planned and directed by military commanders as part of a strategy...."

Here is where I take a totally different path from yours. I see war itself as a planned atrocity. It debases and degrades everyone involved. It is a hell of a things to slaughter other human beings whether they are in uniform or not. As E.B. Sledge stated in his recounting of his honorable and valorous service as a US Marine infantryman in the Pacific in WW2, contrary to the loud harangues of the politicians, there is no glory in war. Only the flies benefit.

"On the other hand, bin Laden wanted to establish a highly repressive theocratic dictatorship that would trample hard-won human rights commonly accepted throughout much of the modern world."

True from your perspective and mine. But what regimes was he seeking to replace? Dictatorships that also don't honor human rights and that are supported, in many cases, by us (the US). So right versus wrong gets very murky. The just war theory, whatever its merits (or lack thereof) don't apply well. We will kill a guy who wants a dictatorship and will murder to achieve it so we can maintain the same? hardly just.

[no one]

I should add that I would like to believe in a "just war". WW2, from the US perspective may have been a just war. The US revolution not so sure; in fact, probably not.

"Just" war, though, seems to be a concept not compatible with spiritual traditions like christianity or buddhism. Jesus would not permit his followers to defend him with a sword. Nor did he teach his follwers to protect themselves, despite much prophesized persecution, with the sword.

On the other hand, a just war may indeed be necessarily fought for reasons more germane to those have to live an earthly existance.

Hence the need for forgiveness. None of us - even the just - can come out of earthly life untainted by its realities and necesities.

[Art]

Wars happen so we can experience separation. Lots and lots of it. Can't learn it there so it has to be learned here. We here in the physical universe can't begin to comprehend the feelings of oneness and connectedness in heaven.

[Matt Rouge]

I certainly think there is a world of difference between George Washington and bin Laden. In terms of greatness, morality aside, Washington blows bin Laden away (as he does most historical figures). In terms of morality, Washington made some mistakes, including some big ones (execution of John Andre), but he also did many great and noble things that advanced the cause of freedom in the world, and he was also, on the whole, what seems to be a very noble and moral person. To wit, disinclined to cause people pain and misery.

Bin Laden was scum. Then again, I would say that people like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are also scum (and the two latter fools certainly caused a lot more gratuitous death and destruction than bin Laden did).

A-bomb. First, let me explain my bias. I lived in Japan for 8 years, and I'm fluent in Japanese. WWII is no abstraction there. You talk to people, not even that old, who vividly recall bombs dropping in their neighborhood in Tokyo when they were children. You see that the parent of your loved one could easily have been killed and your loved one never born. Real lives were destroyed, innocent children killed.

One hidden assumption in these arguments that is rarely questioned is this: We *had* to achieve total surrender on the part of Japan in 1945.

It's a debatable position, but I think there are two reasons why people don't question it. Pearl Harbor is one. Japan clearly and unambiguously "started it," so the right of the US to punch back hard is undeniable.

The second is that the Japanese get rolled in with the Nazis, as if they were just as bad and had to be stopped at all costs. Japan was indeed an a**hole country, but they didn't start being an a**hole country on December 7, 1941. In fact, the worst thing they did, the Rape of Nanking, happened in 1937. Despite this massacre and Japan's overall unacceptable treatment and domination of China, the 1940 Olympics were scheduled to be held in Tokyo (but were canceled because of the war in Europe).

Japan was a bad country that thoroughly deserved to be put in its place, but there was no reason to suspect they'd do anything worse than what they were doing in China before WWII. Which was, for the most part, basic exploitative imperialism--not some huge plan of genocide or anything like that. Keep in mind that Britain was doing something *basically* the same in India and other countries at the time. I won't argue that Japan was not worse, but it was not something radically different, either.

At the end of the day, the Pacific War was about two countries vying for power in the region. I think you can successfully make the argument that Japan was the worse country and started the war and deserved to be beaten--within reason. I don't think you can make the argument that Japan was so bad that the only acceptable outcome was complete surrender and occupation.

In 1945, Japan was beaten before the A-bombs hit. Hitler was already defeated in Europe. At this point, a negotiated peace was possible.

Things turned out pretty well for Japan. Being occupied by the Allies and being forced to adopt a better constitution turn an a**hole country into a pretty good one.

The thing is, it's easy to forget the cost in lives once it's paid. New people are born to replace the dead. All's well that ends well. You get the pic.

It's easy to think of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as *merely* a fait accompli, a fact of history that we can ponder and argue about. But it happened just 26 years before I was born--not really very long ago. It's something that *could* have been otherwise, with a substantial percentage of those killed still alive today, not to mention their unborn children and grandchildren. Regardless of whether you think it was right or not, it is a tragedy that extends into the present day, and not just in a "history would have been totally different," abstract way.

[Zerdini]

@Art

What a strange view!

Contrast it with a a spirit teacher's (Silver Birch) view:

Your world thinks it solves its problems by the shedding of blood. But no problem was ever solved in that way, for bloodshed is needless and leads nowhere.

Why cannot they use the reason which the Great Spirit has given them? Why do they think that their only solution must be to kill as many as possible, that the one who is the greatest killer is accounted the victor? It is a strange world you live in.

The Great War! Its greatness consisted in the amount of slaughter, wasted slaughter.

The Great War, that was to end all war! How hollow, how full of mockery do those words sound!

Do you not consider that those who made every sacrifice that they could make in the world of matter, even to laying down their physical lives, have not spent years in bitter disillusionment? They were cut off in the prime of earthly life. They were sent unprepared into the world of spirit.

They passed on cheerfully for an ideal, that your civilization might be saved, and they have been betrayed ever since.

Does your world of matter realize that peace can only come from the application of spiritual laws to worldly matters?

It is selfishness that brings not only war, with its train of bloodshed, misery and weeping, but chaos, confusion, disaster and bankruptcy.

They must learn that only by substituting service for selfishness can peace come, that the old ideas of materialism and power and desires to aggrandize nations must be swept away and in their place there must reign the desire to live for one another, the stronger to help the weaker, the richer to give to the poorer.

Do not insult those who have been translated to spirit realms with tributes that come from the lips and not from the heart.

All other methods have been tried and they have failed you. But not yet has the application of spiritual truths been tried. Unless your world does so, it will continue with war and bloodshed that will, in the end, destroy your much vaunted civilization.

[no one]

That is it. Silver Birch says it better than I did, but we are saying the same thing.

My comparison of Washington to Bin Laden comes from a Silver Birchian perspective. Both men were revolutionary leaders who used violence to achieve their ends. They are facets of the same personality type. The legitimizing of war as a means is spiritual disease that eventually infects everyone who handles it.

Also, I do have to confess to some tongue in cheek sarcasm. I thought it was, from an earthly point of view, irresponsible hyperbole when the Reagan admin made the same comparison. Yet it was a classic statement. When the killing is done for ideas we believe in, to people we don't like, it is just and good. When it is done for reasons we don't believe in, it is evil. Even if it is the same man doing it for his own same personal reasons all along.

[no one]

"...In terms of greatness, morality aside, Washington blows bin Laden away (as he does most historical figures).....but he also did many great and noble things that advanced the cause of freedom in the world...."

I wonder, had the the revolution failed, as it almost did, and the British prevailed, would Washington be considered, today, as such a great man? Or would he be a paragraph or two in the history books; just another of those oddities that makes a crazy attempt to disrupt societal structure with the obligatory morality lesson as to why such an attempt is a bad thing.

Had Bin Laden's plan been successful, had the US become bankrupt fighting foreign wars, had the Muslim population rallied and overthrown their governments and institutes Sharia societies, how would Bin Laden have been viewed in the Muslim world? You know they still see Salhadin as a hero for his excursions against the crusaders. I think it is arguable that he would have been on a par with Salhadin and Washington as far as "greatness" goes, at least in the Muslim world; which is a really big place.

History is written by the victors and heros are made by the same.

Any how, the more I think about it (and this is, for me, an intensely interesting and important discussion) I think Michael hit the nail right on the head with, "I think it comes down to whether or not there are objective moral values." But that nail still needs a few extra taps before it is seated flush.

MP's question is the first of a few key pillars supporting the matter. All issues of slippery slopes and grey areas and alterior motives aside and practical questions (like who says?), the whole discussion, for me, comes down to the following:

1. Are there or are there not objective moral values?
2. If there are objective moral values, what are they?
3. If yes two #1 and a detail for #2, at what cost are these
moral values to be defended and/or projected across humanity? What methods are deemed acceptable?
4. Is killing and causing pain and suffering on a mass scale proscribed under the objective moral values detailed in #2?
5. Given a positive answer to #4, what are the implications for #3?

Sorry for taking up so much bandwidth with comments. Again, I think this is a really critical discussion. I think about it a lot from a spiritual perspective (with two children in the service in job descriptions that involve killing people) and because, as a patriotic American, I become concerned with the heart and soul of my country when we embark on endless wars to spread democracy and freedom at the muzzle of a weapon.

I am painfully ambivalent on the topic. I am practical about what has to be done as a carbon based life form on planet earth. And I am sensitive to what should be done as a spiritual entity that must, sooner or later, transcend this carbon based veil of tears.

[Michael Prescott]

No one, are you sure that Reagan compared OBL to Washington? I remember that he compared the Nicaraguan contras to the Founding Fathers, but I don't recall any statement about OBL. OBL played a very marginal role in the Afghan war against the USSR, so I would find it surprising if Reagan had even heard of him.

Invading another country does involve planning for civilian casualties, but I think the crucial point, from a moral perspective, is whether the invasion is a defensive response to an attack or an aggressive move for the purpose of conquest. The distinction between defense and aggression is similar to the distinction between killing in self-defense and murder.

I think the US was convinced that Japan's total surrender was necessary because they had found that the Japanese military would fight almost to the last man in earlier engagements. The Japanese preferred death to dishonor, and after they rejected the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (which demanded unconditional surrender), it was thought that only a display of overwhelming force could break their spirit. As it was, the Hiroshima bomb did not bring about their surrender; in fact, the Japanese military forbade any peace negotiations and started making preparations to impose martial law. Even after the second bomb was dropped, it took Japan five days to give up, and some elements of the military rebelled against the decision to surrender.

Zerdini, I'm afraid we have to be realistic about conditions on earth. The precepts attributed to Silver Birch are very nice, but I don't see how they can work in the world as we know it. Kindness and love would not have repelled the Nazis. In order for Silver Birch's advice to be practical, it would have to be adopted universally. As long as some people (and governments) choose aggression and hostility, defensive force will be required to contain them.

There's a good quote attributed (wrongly) to George Orwell: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Though Orwell probably never said this, he did say something similar: "... men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." And: "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

http://tinyurl.com/82dxz

[Bruce Siegel]

"I don't think you can make the argument that Japan was so bad that the only acceptable outcome was complete surrender and occupation."

Matt, I've never had the impression that the US used the bomb because, as you say, we felt the Japanese were "so bad," but rather because Japanese behavior was making it pretty clear that nothing short of complete surrender and occupation would end the war. And to get to that point, without the bomb, would have cost huge numbers of additional casualties.

"In 1945, Japan was beaten before the A-bombs hit. Hitler was already defeated in Europe. At this point, a negotiated peace was possible."

PERHAPS a negotiated peace would have been possible at SOME point. But how can you know that? And, as literally suicidal as the Japanese mentality was, how far down the road--with how many more millions dead--might that have been?

I don't know the answer to that question. But I find it easy to believe that those were, in fact, the PRIMARY questions the US was asking itself, rather than how can we punish this very naughty country.

I'm sure that the desire for revenge and the wish to make a moral statement were not completely absent, but do you think they were bigger motivators than the simple need to end the war?

[Matt Rouge]

No one. History is not totally written by the victors, and the victors are not always, in the long run, self-approving. The consensus seems to be these days that we screwed up bad in Vietnam (we weren't "victors," of course, but we walked away intact and could write our story as we pleased), and America is deeply divided over our "victory" in Iraq.

Plus, there are always countries that did not participate in the hostilities who are free to write what they want.

The hypothetical about Washington not winning the War is rather like a hypothetical about Michelangelo not creating any worthwhile art. He's famous because he won and was then able to go on and have great accomplishments as a civilian leader. I also think one of Washington's biggest accomplishments is what he *didn't* do: crown himself king. Heck, he quit after two terms. That's big.

[Matt Rouge]

"Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

Michael, I think that this is basically true. The trouble is that Evil uses evil people to make good people evil. That is, Evil gets the "benefit" of the evil people doing their thing, and then it gets the "benefit" of good people fighting back and then, inevitably, doing evil of some degree themselves.

I don't buy the "defensive war" thing in the argument about Japan. "They started it" counts for something, but we were not literally defending ourselves from an imminent attack on the mainland from Japan. (We may have had to beat them to some degree to prevent them from becoming capable of such an attack. Of course, the Japanese would also be thinking they had to beat us pretty good to prevent an attack on their mainland.)

Silver Birch is also still right, on the whole. What if the Cuban Missile Crisis had resulted in the nuclear annihilation of the US and USSR? All of our blaming of "them," no matter how correct, would have done us, them, and the rest of the planet no good. It would have been a "species fail."

The key issue here is that the logic of the micro does not work in the macro. We can justify our position in war all we like, but if we destroy the species and the planet, we still lose.

[Bruce Siegel]

"I think the US was convinced that Japan's total surrender was necessary because they had found that the Japanese military would fight almost to the last man in earlier engagements."

Michael, this is interesting. You posted this reply while I was in the act of making exactly the point (in my comment labelled 9:44 AM). So I didn't get to see what you wrote until after I struggled with what I wanted to say, and how I wanted to say it.

And my point is that though we both made the same argument, your response is infinitely better! For one thing, you marshalled more historical facts and specifics, so your writing is considerably more forceful.

A confession of sorts: One of the reasons I enjoy participating in your blog is because you write so well. Over the years, it's been fun--and sort of a training ground--to try to express myself as elegantly and persuasively as you do.

Sometimes I think I do pretty well and that I'm actually improving. But seeing this shared comment is a serious setback. :o)

It's also a bit frustrating to know that while I struggle with each reply, I have the feeling that you whip off your comments and posts pretty quickly, and probably don't even need to do much editing. Am I right about that?

I guess if I had been spending all those years writing novels instead of playing the piano and teaching music, I'd be writing more confidently today.

I guess I can live with that. :o)

[no one]

"Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

Maybe. It is probably more true that those who thrill to violence are also likely to have that violence performed by someone else. Old men behind safe desks send young men to war.

"You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go"

Sigfried Sassoon

"History is not totally written by the victors..."

Ok, maybe not absolutely totally, but mostly. More importantly, each society gets to tell its version. It gets to spin and propagandize what happened until the facts are lost. Nationalism takes over from there. The propaganda becomes a social norm and violating social norms (i.e. speaking against the propaganda) becomes difficult. Speaking with impact against the propaganda becomes almost impossible.

George Washington the freedom spreading reluctant warrior and president. That is propaganda of the genre I am referring to. What of his role in the French/Indian war? What were his motives in that one? reluctant? He was an agressor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_in_the_French_and_Indian_War

If he could be an agressor without the motive of spreading democracy, then how can we be certain of his motive in the revolution?

Now imagine Mexico has invaded Guatamala. The Saudis are strong allies of Guatamala. They seek to repulse the Mexican invasion and gain permission from the US to use the US as a base of operations to attack Mexico. The Suadis are successful in getting Mexico out of Guatamala. However, after their success, they stay on in the US; with fully armed troops garrissoned in fortified hotels in Washington DC. Furthermore, at the same time, Hawaiin natives decide that Hawaii was given to them by God and they confiscate all valuable land and other property owned by whites and send most white residents to live on one of less hospitable small islands with little opportunity for economic develoment. Whites do not have the right to vote. Some whites retalaitae with acts of terrorism and insurection and the natives respond violently; crushing homes with women in children inside, etc, etc.

the Saudis are friends of the Hawaiin natives and support their new country with arms and money and a defense pact. they call the native's new country a bastion of democracy.

How would you feel about the Saudis being militarily in the US? How would about them generally?

It seems to me that the Suadis, in this scenario, are more deserving of being militarily combated by US citizens than the British were of being attacked by the colonists.

But, if you take that scenario and substitute "Iraq' for 'Mexico', 'Kuwait' for 'Guatamala', 'United States' for 'Saudis' and 'Israel' for 'native Hawaiians' and 'Palistinians' for 'whites' you have exactly Bin Laden's stated grievances.

Yet, Bin Laden is murdering hell bait, Washington a hero and McCain, who, along with his peers, dropped thousands of tons of bombs on both military and cicilian N. Vietnamese targets, is a viable candidate for POTUS.

[No one]

ooops, many mispellings, the most egregiou "ciclian" for "civilian"

[Matt Rouge]

Yes, Michael is one hell of a writer. But he can also play "Chopsticks" on the piano. Right, Michael?!

Well, no one, I've studied the Revolutionary War a bit and my impression of Washington is what I've got based on the information I've read. I think he was very admirable as a leader and politician (i.e., a person one would study to learn from), and I do think he was more a force for good in history than evil by a wide margin. I don't claim he was perfect, and he did make mistakes.

I'm no McCain fan fer sure.

As for Japan fighting to the last man.... Maybe on the home islands that would be a problem. But they were already defeated almost everywhere off the home islands. So it begs the question of whether an invasion of the home islands was an appropriate decision. The default assumption seems to be that we would have invaded the home islands of Japan had we not had the A-bomb, but I think that's by no means a given.

I'd also like to point something else out. WWII is one of the few wars in the past few hundred which good was truly clashing with evil. Mostly, in history, it would not have mattered much for the sake of morality and goodness who had one. WWI? I can't think of any reason why the world would be a worse place today had Germany won. In fact, had that happened it probably would have prevented WWII and almost certainly the Holocaust.

So, in a way, WWII is a bad example when talking about the ethics of war. Most of the time, it is just two idiot countries beating the crap out of each other, with who wins not meaning all that much.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks for the kind words, Bruce. But I thought you made your point just fine.

Sadly, I cannot play anything on the piano, not even Chopsticks. Nor can I play any other instrument, or sing, or dance, or read music. I am totally illiterate, musically. I don't even listen to music anymore, though when I was younger, I used to listen to some rock and some country music. Emmylou Harris was a favorite of mine, but I seem to have lost all interest in music now.

I do hum to myself occasionally, if that counts for anything ...

:-(

[no one]

In summation, all I am trying to say, besides that it is way too simplistic to call someone evil just because they did something to you or your tribe that you don't like, is that if there are universal laws then they must apply to everyone; including us.

If it is wrong for Bin Laden to target civilians, then it is wrong for us to do so. If it is wrong for Bin laden to want a form of oppressive government, then it is wrong for us to support oppressive governments (like we do).

Justifications are merely excuses and they can't displace the higher truth or we begin heading rapidly into an amoral chaos. Anyone can justify anything. We can justify supporting dictators and bombing civilians. Bin Laden can do the same.

If we are the shining beacon of the right way to live then we have even more responsibility to not circumvent those moral truths.

Violence begets violence. Here is what Bin laden had to say about the origins of idea to attack the world trade towers.

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

– Osama bin Laden, 2004

If Bin Laden is evil because of what he did in the name of his cause (and he may well be in some objective sense), then we are also subject to the same judgement.

[Matt Rouge]

No one,

A lot of what you say resonates.

"Be perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect," is a verse that perhaps applies here.

IMO (and I think you are saying this too), Spirit doesn't say, "Make sure your justification is really good, and enter into the Kingdom." Rather, Spirit challenges us to attain the highest level of love, justice, compassion--and all the qualities we know are virtuous.

I think the great thing and the awful thing about this world is that that challenge is always present, and sometimes it's simply impossible to live up to the ideal in the moment. In WWII, we did not possess the "technology of the spirit" to deal with the Nazis without killing a lot of innocent people.

Thus, we may be arguing at cross-purposes in this thread quite a bit. When people express the justifications for why we did what we did, on one level they are correct. Where those expressions fall short is in not going on to express the fact (as I perceive it) that we are called to a *yet* higher level of goodness than that.

[Paul]

@mp - in the face of violence such as that characterised by the SS for example, perhaps Silver Birch's observations seem impractical and likely to lead only to death for many and a miserable existence for others. On the other hand, assuming death is not the end, maybe Silver Birch knows more about the truth of the matter than we do? Many have given their own lives for others in the face of torture and suffering refusing to give up principles they held dear. As many have done the same when fighting for similar values. I am inclined to think that we don't have anywhere near a complete view of the full picture, perhaps Silver Birch does. Who can say for sure?