War in Iraq: Negligence or Recklessness?
The quote below is from Joe Klein’s column in this week’s Time Magazine. As usual it’s well said and the application to the War in Iraq is well drawn.
“One valuable metaphor emerged last week. The New York Times described the possible legal charges that could be brought in a hunting accident. “Mr. Cheney could be charged with negligence, defined as failing to understand the dangers involved and disregarding them, or recklessness, defined as understanding the dangers and disregarding them.” Which is perhaps the neatest summary I’ve seen of the public debate surrounding the Bush Administration’s war in Iraq. Absent further evidence, the Administration seems guilty of negligence—a cavalier insensitivity to the unimaginable calamities that attend the use of lethal force. And while I have little faith that Cheney’s awful experience at the Armstrong Ranch will change his views of war and peace, I do hope that it gives him pause and that he gains wisdom from the intimate knowledge that there are experiences other than “pleasure” that can attend the firing of a weapon.”
Klein is saying that Bush et al. are guilty of “negligence,” that is, going ahead with the invasion of Iraq while having failed to understand the “dangers,” or consequences of what they were doing. I agree, for if they had understood they probably would not have gone ahead. For then they would have been reckless, and politicians are not reckless. Are they?
I have just a few more days left on my one month’s electronic subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary. For your information here are that dictionary’s entries for negligence, reckless and recklessness. You’ll note, but only if you read these definitions, that to be reckless includes being neglectful. Or negligence is on the road to recklessness. Did Bush et al. at the very beginning reach that further stage on that road, going from neglectful to reckless? Klein says no, and, again, I guess I would agree with him, although given the actual state of affairs in Iraq this distinction is of little or no comfort.
Klein doesn’t ask the question whether or not Bush’s war activities have now become reckless, nearly three years after the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. Perhaps to describe the present state of affairs we need another word. How about “mistaken?” How long before we can simply say that they/we are wrong? Probably more Americans than not are close to coming to that position. If many still hold back from that it’s because of the “support our troupes” thing. (That Los Angeles Times columnist who said he no longer supported the troupes because he didn’t support the war, is now a pariah, at least among the conservative talk show figures.) How many more weeks, months, years before we begin our “phased withdrawal,” or retreat? Because withdraw at best but more likely retreat we will. Does anyone really believe that the Iraqis will get it together in their own peaceful “multicultural” society before we leave? Don’t you get the feeling that the dike is broken and it’s only a matter of time before the waters of sectarian strife, barely held back at the moment by the finger of the US military, will completely overrun that country as that finger is withdrawn, as withdrawn it must be in time.
For your pleasure and enlightenment in regard to the two words negligence and recklessness, I include below brief clips of the meanings of these words taken from the Complete Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. I note that to be reckless is also to be negligent. But if one is negligent it doesn’t follow that one is also reckless. And we have no trouble separating our reckless from our negligent friends. I would say that the hunter who shot his friend was negligent, and that the president who invaded Iraq was reckless. But what will he be if and when Iraq does become a peaceful liberal democracy? Wise, smarter than the rest of us, able to see things that no one else could see? If I think of my own life I can think of hundreds of instances of negligence. Recklessness? Very few. At the time maybe a few more, but as it turned out no. I’m still alive, and fairly healthy and haven’t significantly harmed anyone else, at least to my best knowledge. Wishful thinking on our president’s part, that he wasn’t reckless and that things will turn out to be different, and better, from what they appear to be now, is what our president is holding on to for dear life.
NEGLIGENCE:
1. a. Lack of attention to what ought to be done; failure to take proper or necessary care of a thing or person; lack of necessary or reasonable care in doing something; carelessness.
b. Law. Not doing what a reasonable person would do, or doing what a reasonable person would not do; failure to carry out a legally imposed duty of care; lack of reasonable care.
2. a. Disregard or neglect of something. Obs.
b. Disregard (of a thing or person); neglect. Obs.
3. Originally: careless indifference, as in appearance or dress, or in literary or artistic style. Later: freedom from artificiality or restraint. Also: an instance of this. Now rare.
4. An instance of inattention or carelessness; a negligent act; a careless omission.
RECKLESS:
1. Of persons: Careless, heedless.
a. Careless in respect of ({dag}one’s conduct, reputation, or) the consequences of one’s actions; lacking in prudence or caution.
b. Careless in respect of some duty or task; negligent, inattentive. Obs.
c. Having no care or consideration for oneself or another. Obs. rare.
2. Of actions, conduct, things, etc.: Characterized or distinguished by negligent carelessness or) heedless rashness.
RECKLESSNESS:
1. The quality of being reckless.
2. Neglect or disregard of something.
Explore posts in the same categories: Current Affairs
