Either all lives are sacred, or none

In her letter “Soldiers not terrorists” (July 5) Loren Steinfeldt responds to an editorial by Grace Low, “Wake Up!” (June 25), in which Low criticizes the U.S. military for the deaths of seven teenagers in an air strike that targeted Abu Laith al-Libi, al-Qaida’s leader in Afghanistan. Steinfeldt defends the military, claiming that the deaths are a result of al-Qaida’s use of young people as human shields to deter attacks on their leadership. \nArguments such as the one advanced by Steinfeldt take the necessity of military offensives as a given. Steinfeldt is not willing to question the validity of the use of force, and therefore, when something unjust occurs, can only blame the victims for their own deaths. Steinfeldt asserts that “a greater number of civilian lives will ultimately be saved by the al-Qaida deaths in the strike.” Yet how many lives could be saved altogether by a real alternative to endless war – diplomacy?\nThe title of Steinfeldt’s letter is pretty tough to refute – certainly no one wants to claim that soldiers are terrorists. Yet no one wants to admit the obvious, either, which is that soldiers are soldiers, their job is to kill, and for the past six years the United States has been sending its young men and women to other countries to kill their young men and women as retaliation for the crimes of Sept.11, 2001. \nThe mathematics of war are complicated. Steinfeldt’s claim that the deaths of seven Afghan teenagers will prevent a greater number of deaths sets up a tricky inequality. Is the value of one life greater than the value of another? Are all lives equal? Who has the ability to decide which lives should be given to save other lives? If we are to think seriously about these questions, we have to realize that the actions of the U.S. military in this instance are indefensible.