Among the more revealing moral dilemmas are those that arise less for the actors themselves than for others evaluating the actions after the fact. One such case is that of British reporter Stephen Farrell, rescued from the Taliban on September 9 at the cost of two dead: his Afghan interpreter and a rescuing British soldiers.
In most cases, such incidents would be seen as normal tragedies of war. Nobody questioned the rectitude, nay the heroism, of the rescuers. But British punditry lit up with debate anyhow—a debate well summarized by Tunku Varadarajan in today’s Forbes.
It seems that Farrell had ignored direct and sound military advice not to enter Taliban-controlled territory, deciding instead to go for whatever scoop he had in mind. The question in dispute is this: Did Farrell, whose impetuousness was motivated by undue ambition, deserve to be rescued at such cost, or even at all?
He must have considered it likely that his countrymen would come for him if he got captured—as American soldiers would probably do for their own in similar circumstances—but it seemed awfully selfish of Farrell to presume on such gallantry. After all, he was far more likely to benefit than those who had nothing so tangible as their lives to gain by rescuing him.
One could well say that abstract justice did not require a rescue here, that it was not the case that the soldiers were required to rescue Farrell. But must we go further and claim that they ought to have left Farrell to his fate?
Sometimes we owe to ourselves more than what justice ordinarily requires us to do for others. To show mercy, especially when it costs, can be a truly noble thing. One does not pass up such opportunities lightly; solidarity depends on taking up at least some of them.
Which is something that soldiers know, which is perhaps why those British fighters took this one up.
September 14th, 2009 | 5:57 pm
I completely agree that abstract justice does not require that any journalist be rescued from their own reckless behavior. Such a rescue would be a supererogatory act of mercy and gallantry. Fortunately, for Farrell, British fighters have a reputation for being brave and self-sacrificing. But he now owes a debt that he will likely never be able to fully repay.
September 15th, 2009 | 4:39 am
The links in this piece are not working properly :-(
September 15th, 2009 | 7:25 am
Joe Carter said,
If he even acknowledges it and doesn’t consider the rescue his due as a taxpayer …
September 15th, 2009 | 8:05 am
I’m a retired US Navy helicopter pilot. On many occasions during my career I was called on to extricate the objectively undeserving from the consequences of their foolish behavior. And while most were suitably thankful and repentant, there were some who considered their rescue by the military as a sort of entitlement. These I am sure never gave a thought to the fact that their actions placed the lives of their rescuers in danger.
Because our work focuses on life and death issues, we in the military have perhaps a keener gut-level appreciation of the sanctity of life. This leads us to take what some might consider to be unacceptable risks to save the lives of others. It’s just something we do.
September 15th, 2009 | 8:24 am
One hopes to be ready (in the sense of having arduously arrived at a conviction) when great tests arrive. The British soldiers attempted the rescue; the recriminations about foolhardy behavior could take place later. The great tragedy lies in the always possible but certainly unintended death of an innocent man, not in the soldiers’ “noble” attempt to put things right.
September 15th, 2009 | 8:45 pm
“One could well say that abstract justice did not require a rescue here, that it was not the case that the soldiers were required to rescue Farrell. But must we go further and claim that they ought to have left Farrell to his fate?”
I don’t know this detail of the case, but were the soldiers asked to volunteer for this rescue? Or were they ordered to do it? It seems to me the latter is most likely. So, it isn’t the soldiers making the decision, it is someone well up the chain of command. Who, I am quite confident, is still alive and well not having had to risk his life to save the journalist.
That doesn’t diminish the heroism of the soldiers. But it makes the decision to rescue him all the more contemptible.
If the media needs one of their prima dona reporters rescued, call Blackwater.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact