War is Hell

Possession of secret information burdens the holder. Consider the burden of prosecuting war. Decrying war from a distance (done often by those who were not directly affected or many years after the fact) avoids the complexity and true moral dilemma faced by those actually forced to decide. For example, the firebombing of Dresden - a horrific event late in World War Two - garners criticism even from participants. When one is confronted with photos or first-hand accounts of the flesh-eating firestorm created by Allied bombing, criticism comes easily.

Moral complexity emerges when a peaceful people are attacked or are forced to decide to defend others who are attacked by a nation or people with evil intent (evil can be gauged). Should there be a response to evil? Should the strong protect the weak? Did the U.S., for example, along with the Allies, have an obligation to put a stop to Hitler who was bent on genocide and the domination of Europe?
If yes, how much force was required to stop a nation bent on destroying others and materially and economically aligned to do so? Can a little force, a little war stop a juggernaut like the Nazis?

Hermann Goering executed a plan to destroy London by air and bombed indiscriminately with the goal of creating chaos to pave the way for an invasion force. The Germans used incendiary bombs in the destruction of Coventry and other cities. They attempted waging a terror war through the use of the V-1 and V-2 rockets.

Moreover, the German people supported and embraced Hitler and the Nazi party. They were not innocently caught up but were the very means (election) by which Hitler came to power and they did nothing to stop him when he began to act (speaking generally of the multitude, not of the few who tried and failed). No German cry for help or deliverance was heard.

I am nearly finished my journey through Donald Miller's Masters of the Air. He removes any glamor associated with flying a B-17 or B-24 on missions over the European Theater of Operations. He captures the horror, the hardship, the hellish nature of war. He draws the reader into the moral questions of the bombing of civilians - either purposely or by virtue of proximity to military targets. The technology of the time did not include means for precision bombing. Bombs were often off-target because of weather, smoke, and anti-aircraft fire. Those in charge of strategic decisions and those working out those decisions tactically faced the awful weight of the moral questions of warfare: What is right? What is necessary? What is immoral? Where is the line? How does one wage limited warfare with blurry lines between military and civilian?
Another reason to read history and reflect on the wrestlings of those who've gone before us...