| |
Bombings Kill at Least 146 Iraqis in Baghdad - New York Times
by Decius at 3:59 pm EDT, Apr 18, 2007 |
In the deadliest day in Baghdad since the latest American-led security plan for the city took effect two months ago, at least 146 people were killed today in a series of bombings that tore through predominantly Shiite crowds gathered at a bus depot, on a shopping street and near a police checkpoint, the authorities said.
Click through for a fairly horrific photograph.
Ken Olbermann asks: It is an unspeakable and overwhelming tragedy, up to 30 young Americans killed violently, pointlessly, and the rest of us left with an urgent and almost helpless feeling that somebody could have done something to prevent it, and that everybody must do something to protect the next potential victims. And yet, the same number of young Americans of approximately the same age have died in Iraq in the last 10 days. It seems fair to ask the question: If the violent deaths in Virginia send a nation into shock and expressions of concern and anxiety, why isn't a continuous flow of American blood in Iraq generating a similar reaction?
It does seem fair to ask the question. However, I think that by leaving the question hanging Olbermann intends to score a political point instead of really thinking about it. He goes on to talk about how preventable the violence in Iraq is. I'm not so sure. If we hadn't gone in to begin with, we wouldn't have the problems we have now, but that decision has already been made. Does Olbermann have a peace plan, or merely a plan to pull out and let the people there consume each other in civil war? We've grown accustomed to the violence in Iraq. Certainly we don't expect a college campus to face similar horrors. Bombings in Iraq aren't a shock. The soldiers there are connected to us, but they weren't drafted and they understand the risks they are taking. The people who live there, however, didn't ask for the hell they are living in. I do think that people have a tendency to view foreign people dying on their television screens with a great deal of detactment... Like they aren't real people, but characters in some mini-series. For at least a certain percentage of the population there is an element of self superiority, either ethnic or national or religious, in play. But for most I simply think they have conceptual trouble deeply comprehending the reality of places that they have never travelled to. They know intellectually that Iraq is real, but emotionally they don't get it on the same level as places they have touched. Were we to be more emotionally involved, would it impact the outcome? I think perhaps it might. I'm interested in what others think. |
| |
RE: Bombings Kill at Least 146 Iraqis in Baghdad - New York Times
by k at 5:02 pm EDT, Apr 18, 2007 |
Decius wrote:
Were we to be more emotionally involved, would it impact the outcome? I think perhaps it might. I'm interested in what others think.
Of course it would. We're wired to react emotionally to people with whom we identify. We can identify with a kid on a college campus in Virginia. We can't identify with an Iraqi who, well, fuck, who knows what jobs they work over there or what their values are (slipping momentarily, if you'll allow, into the collective conciousness). I'm 100% confident in taking the above as a given. The difficult question is how do you get people to identify with other people? What's the magic ingedient? You'd think Christianity would do it, given that Jesus wasn't all "Love other white Americans... they're the ones you can trust." But that doesn't work because for most people, even supposedly devout people, that's all just words on a page. For too many, Christianity is ritual and comfort and social interaction, but it's not really a philosophy. So this arguably "Christian" nation doesn't have much to say about dead bodies in other countries... even dead American soldiers. I used to think you did it by showing people the reality of the situation others are faced with. You start showing dead bodies and blown up markets and the public will start to get that these are people not so different from themselves and their death is something to be upset by. But now I think that just desensitizes everyone so much that pretty soon they're back to not really being affected by it. I don't have the answer. For any given situation, people's moral sensibilities cause them to care to a degree that I'm not convinced is practically changable en masse. People either care enough to write their congressman or they don't... where on the scale of giving a shit that line falls is variable as well. And so too for every issue there is. Also, it's not really appropriate to chastise Olbermann for making the statement he did without laying out some mystical 10 step plan for peace in Iraq. I'd love it if he had one, or, for that matter, if anyone had one, but no one appears to. And so nothing happens. Olbermann's job, perhaps, is just to get people pissed off enough that they start demanding that the folks that *should* be working on this issue, our elected leaders, get to it and figure something out. Make a decision, one way or the other. Question 1 : Is civil war in Iraq inevitable? Answer based on fact, not ideology (good luck with that). No one here has the expertise to answer the question fully, but a consensus still has to be reached. Our leaders need to reach it. If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes" then it's reasonable to ask why we should bother staying. Is it reprehensible to say "Sorry we fucked everything up and kicked off this civil war, but we're gonna cut our losses now that it's unavoidable" ? Yes, it sure is, but we already knew that starting this ridiculous war was reprehensible. If it's too late, then it's too late, so cutting one's losses -- in this case the loss of American lives and treasure -- is the only real solution. It sure sucks, but staying there in the midst of an intractable civil war starts to sound more like some fucked up version of penance than a logical foreign policy decision, or even a moral position. Our soldiers shouldn't die as someone else's penance. |
|
| |
RE: Bombings Kill at Least 146 Iraqis in Baghdad - New York Times
by Mike the Usurper at 3:22 pm EDT, Apr 20, 2007 |
Decius wrote:
It does seem fair to ask the question. However, I think that by leaving the question hanging Olbermann intends to score a political point instead of really thinking about it. He goes on to talk about how preventable the violence in Iraq is. I'm not so sure. If we hadn't gone in to begin with, we wouldn't have the problems we have now, but that decision has already been made. Does Olbermann have a peace plan, or merely a plan to pull out and let the people there consume each other in civil war? .... Were we to be more emotionally involved, would it impact the outcome? I think perhaps it might. I'm interested in what others think.
(note: some offensive comments included, not appropriate reading for the young'ns)
There are two separate points here and I'll deal with the easy one first, Olbermann. Calling this a political point is bogus. Of course it is in a large sense, but the reality is, he's a newscaster. His job is to report things and say when the emperor has no clothes. It is not to be the emperor or the emperor's tailor. Of course it's political, but I don't see him giving the Democrats any slack when they fuck up either, so political, yes, biased, maybe, on the other hand, maybe he just goes after Republicans more because until last November they controlled all three branches of government and were colossal screw ups, at least the ones who weren't corrupt that is. The second issue, involvement is a whole different ball of wax. There are multiple points of disconnect here, so we'll start at the top.
First, the military, and especially the army, is made up of poor people. Not all of them certainly, but predominantly the military was seen as a route to college, having some money, and getting out of the slums. Compared to the draft era, it means people are less likely to have any direct personal connection to the people in the services.
Second, with the end of the draft and the move to the all volunteer force, there is less of a moral connection. "They signed up for this, so I'm not going to worry as much about it." This is of course wrong. The people who volunteer usually do so with the idea that they're defending the country (and recruiters sell that point when they try to get people). They didn't sign up to get teabagged by W to prove he has balls.
Third we start seeing cultural issues. After four years of seeing people get blown up every day, the violence of Iraq no longer surprises anyone. Another car bomb? What's new about that? We're becomming immune to it. And this is not a comment on video games or movies or violent TV or anything of the sort. This is very direct. For pretty much my entire life, people have been blowing away other people in the Middle East on a near daily basis. If it were someplace else, like New Zealand, it would be seen differently. In the Middle East, it's normal. So, with that out ... [ Read More (0.5k in body) ] |
|
|
|
