Why Are Conservatives So Liberal About Who They Kill?

Michael Goldfarb, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard and former John McCain aide, commenting on how Israelis killed a Hamas leader, his wives, and his 12 children.

"The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it's not clear that they are rational, at least not like us. But to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions."

Goldfarb is pretty much endorsing deliberate military attacks against innocent civilians, embracing collateral damage.

As Matt Yglesias explained:

"To be clear, [Goldfarb's] not saying that it's sometimes okay to kill a bad guy's innocent children as part of a military operation directed against the guy. He's saying it's better to kill his children than it would be to avoid killing them."

Adding:

"the ethics of Osama bin Laden being explicitly adopted by the organs of mainstream conservatism."

Neoconservatives want it both ways: the use of lethal force against civilians and the selective perception of whose lethal force is morally objectionable. As with torture, not only is it reprehensible, it's also wrong.

Source: Washington Monthly