I’ve been thinking about the situation in Iraq (unavoidable really), and the way in which it’s been treated. Unfortunately, I’ve scarcely been able to write about it without launching into a rant filled with some shall we say colorful adjectives…
Fortunately James Lileks, as always, manages to say it better than anyone else:
Started with the newspaper, of course. Headline: A DOZEN MARINES SLAIN. Subhead: “At least 20 wounded in fierce fighting; Iraqi attackers suffer ‘heavy casualties.’” Sidebar: “LATEST US DEATHS.” Story from the Washington Post; three paragraphs before the jump with scant but sufficient context: there’s this Al-Sadr out there, a “radical Shiite cleric.” Last line before the jump: “In nearby Fallujah, meanwhile, Marine officers said Tuesday they control the city.”
Given the horrible headlines that followed the brutal deaths of four Americans last week, you’d think that would be the main story, or at least something that merited a mention in a headline. But a dozen dead Marines is the main story. The reason they died is not the main story. What has been accomplished is not the main story. To me, this is like printing “Four Thousand Dead in French Assault” and putting “Omaha Beach secured” in the subhead.
Which one honors the dead more?
Exactly.
Much, much, more on this later.
UPDATE: Even better:
Turn on the radio. The host is playing a clip of Ted Kennedy declaring “Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.” Well, Ted, we’re a long way from Vietnam, when American irresolution condemned millions to the gulag or to exile. Maybe we’ll get to that point, but as you might say, we’ll drive off that bridge when we come to it. But thanks for telling the troops that we’re going to lose, and that they’re dying for no reason.
You know what? The Democrats keep saying that they support the troops 100%.
Sorry, but saying irresponsible things like that proves it’s an appalling lie.
Much, much, more on this later.
I think the troops are a little busy looking for WMD’s and ducking bullets to be worried about what some democrats think.
Believe me, they hear these things – they do have TVs and satellite dishes in Iraq…
What you are advocating is bias in reporting. I thought bias was a problem to be avoided.
Not everyone feels as you do about the war. Some of us think that the deaths are more important news than the goal (whatever that is!) of this war. Let the facts speak for themselves.
Unfortunately, those people seem to be oblivious as to how skewed such a view is.
And for the record, the goal of Iraq is to liberate 25 million people from tyranny, prevent Saddam Hussein from ever threatening anyone again, establish democracy in the Middle East, and take the fight in the war on terrorism to the enemy where it belongs.
Skew this, skew that! Do you want to eliminate bias in the media or what? I don’t think you do. I’m certain that you want the Right Wing slant to supplant reality. Some would call that Propaganda. Some what call that bad for Democracy. Let the truth be told, let everyone decide for themselves.
Did 25 million people ask to be “liberated” from tyranny? How many of them have to die before they are free?
A: The problem is that the media is only focusing on one side of the story – the bad side. They’re not reporting the victories that are being made, they’re not reporting the fact that the Iraqi people are most certainly on our side, and they’re not reporting the progress that has been made in rebuilding Iraq. The media isn’t doing its job.
B: Again, the same logical fallacy rears it’s ugly head. Once again, for the record:
The results of *not* removing Hussein would result in a greater loss of human life than the results of removing him.
The choice is not between a no-war no-casualty and a war/casualty option, it is between a no-war/massive loss of Iraqi lives and a war/some loss of innocent Iraqi life.
The only way the left can justify it’s anti-war position is to ignore this fact.
For a man who want to raise the level of arguments, you sure engage in a lot of negatives (as in unprovable negatives). “The only way” – are you kidding me. You are clearly not even interested in a real discussion of actual facts, only in biased conclusions. If you can’t see the bias in your own comments, I really don’t know what else to say.
You make an assertion – yet you don’t have the guts to prove it.
Fine – show me proof that leaving Saddam Hussein in Iraq would result in a smaller loss of life than removing him.
The reason you attack me rather than disproving my assertion is because there is no such proof, therefore my point stands.
Don’t make me laugh. The burden lies on you to prove yourself correct. You have failed.
You said:”Fine – show me proof that leaving Saddam Hussein in Iraq would result in a smaller loss of life than removing him.”
I made no such assertion. These is your spin (that’s a nice word for bias) on what you think I mean when I question the US’s role in Iraq. If “loss of life” is the criteria, then explain the “loss of life” during a decade of sanctions. (You can look it up yourself. I’m not doing your research for you.) How about the “loss of life” in China, which we do nothing about? How about the “loss of life” in Rwanda?
My point is that US foreign policy is incoherent. There is only situational ethics at work. Funny, “moral relativism” is often used dispargingly (if incorrectly) against the Left, but it’s the Right that keeps the concept alive.
I’m sorry that I have the nerve to criticize my government’s policies. Isn’t that the point of a free democracy? If not, why don’t we just call off the elections and let the RNC appoint Presidents?
Well, if you agree that removing Hussein saved lives, you’re getting tripped up in your own logic. If removing Saddam results in saving tens of thousands of lives, then that supports the justification of the war as a humanitarian exercise.
Which only further justifies the war.
No, US foreign policy is self-interested, as all national policies are. We have every self interesting in not going to war with a nuclear power (China) and no self-interest in getting into a situation that we can do little to solve (Rwanda).
Non sequitor.
Hello, I just wanted to say you have a very informative site which really made me think, Thanks ! A site with a wealth of info.!…thanks very much! Have a nice Day!!