I read this essay by Steven Den Beste about the concept of "a fair fight" between combatants. Then, I read this response by Robin Goodfellow. My reaction turns, as did Mr. Goodfellow's, on SDB's comment "Would I rule out torture, rape, mutilation, mass murder? I won't rule out anything."

SDB claims that if we capture an enemy combatant who's planted a nuke in an American city with the timer ticking, then he's shoving pointy things under the guy's fingernails. Mr.Goodfellow says that some things are beyond the pale, and he's willing to die rather than do those things to live.

Good for Mr.Goodfellow, and I hope that we never have to depend on his punk ass. His claim that it's better to die than to live means that he's decided that my daughters would be better off dead all by his lonesome. Fuck him. With a stick. If a combatant is holding our population hostage and there isn't any other alternative, then the guys on the spot have to commit themselves to hell so that the rest of the nation can live. That's just the deal, and I'll further claim that that's always been the deal: the soldier's existence requires him to endanger his soul in order to save his people. If you're not willing to make that trade, then cover yourself in white paint and quit pretending you're not a pacifist free rider.

And yes, I'm willing to make that trade. The lives of my family, neighbors, state, and nation are worth more than my "soul". Damn, but I'm pissed now.

UPDATE: I hadn't yet read Kim du Toit's response. If I had, I'd have just pointed at that and said "You damned skippy". After my wife read my response we had a short-ish discussion, wherein the phrase "Marquis of Queensbury" came out of my mouth. I'm thrilled to pieces to find that I'm on the same wavelength.