Opinion Holy war By Douglas Lummis	フレームで見る  英文をプリントする  脚注をプリントする
聖戦 アフガニスタンへのテロ報復の方法は「聖戦」の様相を帯びてきている。しかしそもそも人間が人間を殺すことは、聖戦とは呼べないのではないか。戦い合う者同士がそれぞれの行為を聖戦だと信じていたら、その戦いに終わりはくるのだろうか。

War is the most vulgar of human activities: killing people. To conceal its vulgarity, war is often given splendid justifications. But the more splendid the justification, the worse war becomes.

Surely the worst form of war is the one with the most splendid justification: Holy War.

Ordinarily wars are fought to achieve some practical end. The end might be selfish national interest (e.g., grabbing land or oil), or it might be justice (e.g., driving out an invader). In either case, killing is a means. The argument is, "the end justifies the means." This is a dubious moral formula. But it is not the worst, precisely because everyone knows it is dubious. Moreover, "the end justifies the means" admits the means are bad. If not, they wouldn't need justification.

It's different with holy war. In holy war, soldiers believe they are carrying out the will of some god. They are fighting not for their own or their nation's good, but for this god's good. When they kill someone, this need not be justified. On the contrary, killing itself becomes sacred.

That's the difference. If killing is a means, when the end is achieved the killing can stop. But in holy war, killing is the end. The enemies are the god's enemies. Forcing them to surrender is not enough. The only way to deal with them is to destroy them.

Moreover, those fighting holy wars generally see no reason why they ought to follow the laws and customs of war, or the rules of international law. Those apply only to human wars, not to holy ones.

The newspapers tell us that the people who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States saw themselves as holy warriors. Probably. But many U.S. leaders are also using the language of holy war. The first name of the United States' Afghan military operation was "Infinite Justice." "Infinity" is a religious term. Infinite justice could be known only by a god, not by any human being.

Later, the U.S. government renamed the operation, more modestly, "Enduring Freedom." But President George W. Bush continues to call the war "a battle between good and evil." As was pointed out recently in this column, "evil" is also a religious term. An "evil" person is an enemy of God, one who has chosen evil over good, and who works only to bring suffering into the world.

This is how "the terrorist" is being portrayed, and this is why "the war on terrorism" is taking on the characteristics of holy war.

But if both sides see it as holy war, how can it end?

I think it is time for religious people everywhere (of whom, by the way, I am not one) to make a clear statement: There is not, and cannot be, holy war. Any supernatural being that calls on its followers to kill other humans is not a moral force, and does not deserve the name of God. People who insist on killing in the name of such a being should call it something else. Moloch, maybe?

Shukan ST: Dec. 28, 2001

(C) All rights reserved