A pro-life approach to the cluster bomb treaty

As I’ve mentioned in a few places, one of my driving beliefs is intellectual consistency — if I believe in a principle, then that principle should always apply, or else I should have a good reason for any apparent inconsistency. I have also mentioned before that being truly pro-life means more than just being anti-abortion. The term “pro-life” needs to reflect a belief that life is sacred, and that it should be protected. Anyone wearing the label “pro-life” should believe in proactive action to protect life. Having said that, I’m not a complete pacifist. Some other time, perhaps I will go into all of my reasons for that.

However, anyone who professes to believe that life is sacred needs to give some serious thought to how wars are fought, if they must be. Any civilized person, and certainly anyone who calls himself pro-life, must agree that we should take steps to avoid killing civilians and that using weapons which cause excessive injuries and deaths is unacceptable.

That brings us to the current drive to ban cluster munitions. A group of more than 40 nations held a conference in Oslo recently, with the stated purpose of encouraging the world to ban cluster weapons. A few major nations did not attend — the US, China, Russia, Israel, and Pakistan among them.

I’m not entirely comfortable being in that company.  Of course, I’m not surprised, either. It is a defining trait of US  international policy that we aggressively defend our right to kill people however we see fit.

For those who weren’t raised in Air Force families, allow me to explain the concept of cluster munitions. A bomb (or artillery shell, Tomahawk missile, etc.) is a canister, carrying dozens, scores, or even hundreds of bomblets. These are released, producing many explosions in the target area. These are very effective against vehicle convoys, grounded aircraft, or people. The problem is that about 40 percent of these bomblets don’t explode on impact. They explode later, when they’re disturbed.

Sadly, in a lot of cases, they are disturbed by children. Or they’re disturbed by medical personnel who come out to offer care after battles. Or by civilians who are trying to clean up after battles. I’m sure that you can see the problem, here.

Cluster bombs number among those weapons that need to be evaluated in terms of our principles and our beliefs. As do chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, depleted uranium, and the like, these weapons become uncontrolled after they are initially used.

I number myself among those who thinks that these weapons should be banned. The US boasts of our ability to hit targets precisely and “surgically.” Cluster bombs directly oppose that philosophy. The tendency to kill people other than our targets is unacceptable, and we should abandon them entirely.

Interestingly, this call to treaty has been joined by many nations which are not typically aggressive in such efforts — Great Britain, Germany, even Australia.

It is time for pro-lifers to apply our principles more broadly. Let’s look at the full range of issues. Do we believe in protecting innocent lives? Do we really believe that life is sacred?

This is an issue on which the US should be taking the lead, rather than being led. Pro-lifers should be at the front of this issue, calling for the US to honor our belief in the importance and the value of human life. We must not ignore this kind of issue, it’s a test of whether we really hold to our principles.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance