« Resign, Kofi, Resign! | Main | Join Us... »
May 2, 2005
Casualties of War
Yesterday I caught Liz Trotta for a few minutes on Fox News during their 10-12am show. The issue being discussed was war casualties. (I can't find a link to the show on the Fox site so if someone can send it to me I'd be obliged)
The question was whether the war was being "sanitized" by the mainstream media. The charge is that by not showing "enough" U.S. casualties Americans are developing a "video game" mentality towards war.
Liz thought the charge to be utter nonsense and so do I, for two reasons.
First, I think that if anything, American's have a more realistic view of war than ever before. There are several trends in our culture that I believe support this view.
Movies and Television are more violent and realistic. Movies such as Saving Private Ryan went to lengths never before imagined in showing war. Not just the "blood and guts" aspect, but the general view that from a soldier's perspective fighting is not all about patriotism and glory. It is a terrible, dirty, frightening business. Soldiers fight for their buddies.
The culture in general has "accepted" a higher level of violence. This is a bad thing, and one can argue that we have been "desensitized", and perhaps so. However the fact remains that violence per se is not unknown to Americans.
There is also my own general anecdotal experience. I just do not get the impression that Americans in general "don't know what really goes on in war." I think higher of us. I think they do.
So what about the "video game" mentality? It certainly exists. One problem with movies and TV is that they are a step or two ahead of what real show weaponry and technology can actually do. And of course it rarely shows "collateral damage". One of the most egregious examples is when people fire multiple rounds in closed environments (in a house for example) with no apparent effect on their hearing. Anyone who has actually fired a gun knows how incredibly loud they really are.
Of course, when I speak of "Americans" I generalize. Yes there are always exceptions.
Problems of the Past
I've read many times of guys who joined the military in the 50's or 60's who admitted that they had a "John Wayne" view of warfare. Then came Vietnam.
A quick perusal of the war movies of the time quickly demonstrates how such views came into being. While a few showed the horrors of war most, as I recall, really did not. Titles do not quickly come to mind, and I don't have time right now to research, but I think my statement stands up.
The Real Motive
Some who complain that our media does not show "enough" American body bags have good intentions. I'm not going to tar everyone.
There are some, however, with more sinister motives.
They want to demoralize us. They want us to call it quits in Iraq and pull the troops out. They are part of the Fifth Column that I have written about and we need to call them what they are.
These people claim that we are "hiding" our casualties. This commentary, by one Gail Vida Hamburg, linked to on antiwar.com is typical. The author claims that Italy properly honors its war dead while American "pays little attention to its war dead":
America, on the other hand, with 1,516 U.S. fatalities in Iraq as of March 16, 2005, pays little public attention to its war dead. Indeed, aside from the printed obituaries in metro sections of dailies, there is little acknowledgment by the government or substantial reporting in the media of the soldiers who perish in Iraq and the families they leave behind. We do not see or hear them. They die alone on the hot sands of Iraq and their survivors grieve privately on American soil.
The Pentagon does not allow photographs of coffins, something that bothers the author. She also condems the President for not attending the funerals of soldiers killed in action:
If he believes our military is fighting for noble ideals, if he admires, as he says, their valor and sacrifice, why must he absent himself from their funerals or prevent our witness of their final return? Why must our war dead come home like thieves in the night?
Besides the fact that she is utterly wrong in her assertion that we "pay little attention to (our) war dead", there is the question of motivation.
They couldn't care less about the sacrifices made by our military. Too many photos and reports of anti-war protestors have dispelled that notion.
No, they want to demoralize us and change public opinion. They want us to call it quits in Iraq and bring the troops home (or better yet, disband the whole military). As shown by the inaction during the mass murders committed by the communists in south-east Asia after their take-over in 1975, they also couldn't care less about the people involved. Whether the Iraqis live in freedom and prosperity or under the heal of a dictator of whatever stripe concerns them not at all.
So What Should We do?
Continue current policies.
The left wants to make a spectacle of solumn funeral services, as they do with arrivals of caskets from Iraq. They will not be allowed to succeed.
The reality is that innumerable weblogs and news reports (I see these on Fox and other msm outlets) honor our troops who have fought bravely and made the ultimate sacrifice. The idea that all this is somehow "hidden" is B.S. of the first degree.
The idea that the president should attend all funerals is also nonsense. Besides the fact that he does not have time, it would really accomplish nothing. No one in their right mind believes that President Bush (or any past president, for that matter) does not care. Of course, leftists who make these charges are not in their right mind, but we knew that already.
Posted by Tom at May 2, 2005 10:03 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/398
