Hitchens: Stop Caring So Much About Slain Soldiers
Hitchens: Stop Caring So Much About Slain Soldiers
Are you concerned about American troops dying in Iraq? In columnist Christopher Hitchens’ eyes, you are part of the problem:
But the truly sobering reflection is that crimes and blunders of this kind are committed, in effect, by popular demand. It is emphasized every day that Americans do not want to read about dead soldiers. So it is arranged that, as far as possible, they will read (or perhaps not bother to read) about dead civilians instead. This is the price that a “body-bag” mentality exacts.
Also, newspapers shouldn’t report on military fatalities. That empowers insurgencies:
Incidentally, when is the New York Times going to start running a “Names of the Dead” regular feature from Afghanistan? And how long will it be, as the Taliban forces try for a comeback, before we hear demands for a deadline for withdrawal from Kabul as well? If “quagmirism” has its logic one way, then it has it the other way, too (unless you don’t believe that retreat also has its quagmires).
It’s amazing how far some will go to blame people other than the Bush administration for the problems in Iraq.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hitch has really gone off the deep end. I remember when he was somewhat reasonable.
July 5th, 2005 at 6:52 pmSaddam Hussein was so deluded and deranged during the final days of his despotism that he spent time writing, or dictating, another of his pulp novels. Titled Get Out Damned Oneâ€â€hardly a polite way of suggesting a date for withdrawalâ€â€the adventure story invokes a mythic Arab hero who “invades the land of the enemy and topples one of their monumental towers.” More wish-thinking, I dare say.
At least he acknowledges, in a backhanded sort of way, that Saddam posed no real threat to anyone and had no connection to 9/11, except in his dreanged and deluded mind.
BTW, a preview button would be nice…
July 5th, 2005 at 6:53 pmThis seems to be part of a growing consensus. Check this article by Neil Cavuto of Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161252,00.html
We also keep hearing that legislators say that negative press is bad for troop morale. I guess ignorance is bliss.
July 5th, 2005 at 7:25 pmUsing the U.S. military for a job that U.N. peacekeeping forces from a country like Turkey or Pakistan or France should be doing is bad for morale.
July 5th, 2005 at 7:46 pmMikey,
I would feel bad knowing my country had duped me and sent me in to fight an illegal war as well. But the guys in power who created treason by going to war over lies are the ones who should pay, not our soldiers!
July 5th, 2005 at 7:57 pmIt’s becoming somebody’s apochrypha.
War is Peace, too.
Christopher is looking a little bit like this guy:
“Winston Smith, the protagonist of Orwell’s novel, becomes a Thought Criminal. A minor bureaucrat (an “Outer Party” member) his job is to actually rewrite the archives of the London Times so that they are consistent with current Ingsoc policy. When Ingsoc changes its political alliance with another superpower and begins waging war on a former ally, Winston’s job is to rewrite all the prior information to show that the old alliance never existed. So addled are the minds of the people he meets that they don’t even realize that these changes have been made. A sad, lonely man, Winston is also smart enough to understand the insidious manipulation being perpetrated on the society.”
July 5th, 2005 at 8:56 pmInfantile one sided thinking by incredibly spoiled babies who want their way at any cost.
July 5th, 2005 at 8:57 pmNow everyone who wants to know the truth lie down and shrivel up, so they can impose their brand of groupthink.
“It is emphasized every day that Americans do not want to read about dead soldiers.”
What utter crap and thanks Ron for pulling that passage, the jist of which came instantly to my mind as well.
What is emphasized every day is the extraordinary lengths RepubCo will go to to keep Americans from realizing that we’re in a “war” at all. We have lost close to 1800 Americans and if there was ANY way to ignore and hide every death and injury, they would take it. These deaths are the cost of doing business to RepubCo. Losses in any corporation are written off and forgotten with government blessing.
Hitchen’s is a pod person. Born again with RepubCo branded on the back of his neck.
July 5th, 2005 at 9:11 pmA question for Hitch: would there be a quagmire in Afghanistan, necessitating the NYT to extend its feature there, if he hadn’t got his beloved invasion of Iraq?
July 5th, 2005 at 9:43 pmThere is an elitist idea hidden in this sort of thinking that prefers to bury the ugly details of an (their)event so as not bring to consciousness the reality of the situation, avoid responsibility, and own up to who they really are.
It is as if the soldiers station in life is to die for those who are deemed more important without question. Then to be hidden from view,SHAME!. Killed twice!
I recall an interview with Barbara Bush being asked why we don’t see the flag draped caskets arriving home and she more or less scoffed, “nobody wants to turn on the TV and see that, for heavens sake”.
July 5th, 2005 at 9:48 pmShould they REALLY mourn these deaths then they would at once realize just how wrong they are.
CURIOUS ABOUT WAR = CONCERN FOR TRUTH = YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM = EMPOWERING INSURGENTS = ENEMY = TERRORIST
July 5th, 2005 at 10:29 pmI see nothhhing.
When it becomes a crime to worry about the dead and dying in a war it is time to remove those in power who started said war. It is bad enough that certain people in the main stream media…FOX, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, plus numerous publications…don’t want to acknowledge the number of dead on both sides. It is even worse when those who die during transport to bases in Germany, at those bases, during transport to the U.S. or at hospitals here are not counted as having died from wounds received in battle. These deaths are never part of the news and they are just as important as those who die inside Iraq and Afganistan. The number of dead in Iraq is far greater than the 1700 the government is admitting to.
July 5th, 2005 at 10:34 pmApologists, one and all – and yet, for no reason other than “Patriotism” and to be liked by the “Right” I suppose. Go figure, it’s a lot easier than coming up with ways to figure out how to get out of the quagmire W, Rove and Co got us into in the first place.
July 5th, 2005 at 11:17 pmGeorge Orwell is a favorite of mine–I use his 1984 frequently when I write about Bush/Repub politics–and a favorite of Hitch. Unfortunately, Hitch has taken a page from 1984 (as Ron points out above). Many old marxists had to flip sides when first nazi Germany was bad, but became an ally (to split Poland), only to become an enemy a couple years later. Hitch was (maybe still is) a marxist, an ideologue who asserts that the ends justify the means, regardless of the price or the horrors it might entail. A “moral certainty” as he describes it in his article on Slate.
The question is, why should the real carnage taking place in Iraq be hidden (partially or not) from the people who supported the war? Of course, the Taliban and AlQueda and the other terrorists want Americans to suffer; they also hope that Americans don’t want to keep paying this high price. So what? If they’re true, then we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq because it was the wrong war in which to commit our nation.
For my part, I still think that 47% of Americans who still think invading Iraq is worth the price is far too high number! Maybe these people should be exposed to the brutal reality more not less.
July 5th, 2005 at 11:17 pm“It is emphasized every day that Americans do not want to read about dead soldiers.”
That’s right, Hitch, we don’t want to read about “dead” soldiers.
We want to read about how instead the situation in Iraq is improving everyday, and how the Iraqi forces are effectively stopping the insurgency and suicide bombings from killing more innocent people.
However, President Bush has done little to improve or acknowledge, for that matter, of the dire situation in Iraq.
Therefore, we mention three things:
1) Anyone who reports of how “the situation in Iraq is improving everyday,” is hopelessly ignorant and delusional, because accurate reports from the area show otherwise.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:31 am2) The Bush administration belongs in the description listed in #1
3) You can sugar-coat it all you want, but Americans like to stay informed and on top of the story. By golly, if we didn’t want to read about our American soldiers dying each day, we can just turn off the television set or switching the channel. Or watch the White House Press Briefing on C-SPAN.
Yer damn right I want to read abt how the U.S. Military is killing innocent civillians. I want everyone in the United States to read abt the thousands upon thousands of civillians are killed by our troops. The more people wake up to the real situation in Iraq, the sooner it will be OVER. And I’m not talking abt the Left. Im talking abt the Walmart-shopping, midwest/south christian GOPers who are now starting to really clue in that the “mission” has NOT been accomplished.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:40 amWhile it is true that 1,700 deaths in Iraq is piddling compared to the 20 million Russia lost in WWII, it is sufficient to dispel any idea that joining the army is just a way to get a college scholarship.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:21 amI’m with burro on this. Hitch has it mixed up: It’s not that we don’t want to read about dead soldiers, it’s that BushCheaney don’t want us to read about dead soldiers. Or see dead soldiers coming into Dover for that matter. And that’s one of the biggest problems with this war. There is no national consciousness that we are really truly at war, no community mobilization, no collective sacrifice. With dreams of a quick, clean, technologically advanced victory, Rumsfeld and his merry men have left the troops and their families out there alone. The elite fighting forces were supposed to head out to Iraq, do the job, and come home promptly. Never mind about the ugly reality of human warfare, Bush dodged that experience years ago and surrounded himself with men who did too.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:38 amThe 1700 only counts those who die within iraq itself. The ‘unofficial’ estimates are that there are an additional 5000 uncounted deaths who died outside of the country while getting emergency medical treatment. There’s an organization that is attempting to certify the number with family members, as one might guess the pentagon is stonewalling…
And there’s another ~5000 a year awols apparently, which is getting VERY little press…
July 6th, 2005 at 3:40 amNeal Cavuto = pussy
July 6th, 2005 at 9:05 amI think you have taken Hitchen’s words out of context. I am not a fan of Hitchens, but in this article he makes a good point, which is that American soldiers have been ordered to err on the side of killing Iraqi civilians rather than risk American casualties. This keeps American casualites down at the expense of Iraqi civilians, which is politically more acceptable in this country. He also references a British general who says this policy will cause us to lose Iraq by alienating Iraqi civilians. Your hysteria over a single sentence, taken out of context, is misleading and buries his main point, which is a good one.
July 6th, 2005 at 9:41 amThe facts are being hidden. Whether it be the deaths Iraqis, American soldiers, or journalists, this admin. wants us to look the other way.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:08 amO come on.
All this stuff about “support the troops” or worring about dead soldiers – whether from the left or the right – is just crocodile tears.
Shakespeare said, “The lady protests too much, methinks;” and this clearly applies to those who say they care about “the troops.”
Most people couldn’t care less. I mean speciifcally the people with yellow ribbons. I also mean specifically the liberals who suddenly seem to profess concern about them.
They are lower middle class, trailer park types who neigher the Jenna Bush’s nor the Limosine Liberals of this world really care a hoot about.
And let’s speak plainly. They’re mercenaries. Expendable.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:12 amFellow, just put a gun in your mouth. Not to care is the greatest sin of all. You can’t put that on others. That is the way YOU feel.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:34 amWelp, Fellow, that’s a bit of the thinking that has us in this mess. I guess you wouln’t consider it a mess though. It must be a minor annoyance, along the lines of backed up traffic.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:27 amand,
If the media would report balanced truthful accounts of the war and stop trying to calculate imagined public response, as if it were a marketing campaign, more would care. That is the point.
Fellow has it righter than T.J. and John. The trailer park types have no place to go but down unless they hire out their energy. They are not merely military mercenaries; they are economic mercenaries AND anti-union AND poorly educated AND raised in belief not thought, so they are expendable and not very expensive at that. Support the troops by opening doors for them to education, health, and possibilities.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:56 amI wonder how World War II would have been impacted had some conservative journal started to attack FDR’s administration for their blunders and casualities like the press is doing today. I don’t think there would have been enough paper and ink to print them. Thank god, America did what it needed to do to rid the world of the axis powers. Fifty years from now, we will look back and say the same thing. What is the real motivation of the New York Times here?
July 6th, 2005 at 12:10 pmRon, Orwell had the Times re-written to hide old alliances.
‘Why, I understand there are some *liberals* who try to attack the US by claiming it once supported Saddam, even with WMD!’
The old news reports have not been re-written, and yet old US alliances are nullified as we attack.
There seems to be next to no accountability for the US’ role in Saddam and Al Queda’s support, while we go around looking for solitary hotel room meetings in Prague to find ‘linkage’ to support accusations.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:38 pmFellow,
The military, regardless of it’s make-up, is a critically impoertant national resource. It is being squandered and broken, for nothing, for no good reason, for the second yime in fifty years.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:41 pmVinilo,
July 6th, 2005 at 1:08 pmMany have taken the only steps they can toward higher education by trying to earn money for college or learning a skill. They believe the false promises of the military. You can’t blame the victims of lies for being the victims. Blame the perpetrators of lies.
If there is one thing about being poor that I know, it is the complete lack of choices. You just do what you can
(most well-to-do types can’t grasp this concept). To blame people for doing the best they can under their circumstances shows you have never walked in those shoes.
Idealism is for the comfortable. You are standing ABOVE and judging, though I can understand where you are coming from.
Randy, you must be joking, right? Germany and Japan had armies, navies and air forces. Go hide under your bed until it’s over if you are that frightened. I think there is a new terror warning out!
July 6th, 2005 at 1:25 pmWhat is the real motivation of the New York Times here?
July 6th, 2005 at 1:27 pmGood question, though, Randy. What was Judith Miller’s, and by proxy, the Times’ motivation in printing all that Chalabi misinformation that got us into this war?
Nunya,
You are missing the entire point of my question. during WWII, we were unified as a nation. The Republican party did not attack the policies of FDR in the way the democrats and the MSM are today. Iraq is no Vietnam, yet the MSM and the democrats sure would like it to be. You guys are using the same old playbook, time to get a new one!
July 6th, 2005 at 1:28 pmFellow and Vinilo, I don’t care about you, your families your friends or anyone on the earth that is not involved in my well-being. Let’s see what road we go down and where we end up. Hell. Maybe we are closer than you think.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:29 pmYou could at least pretend to be human beings.
Ever hear of human advancement? Should we stay still, and do things as they were done 65 years ago? Coservative equals stagnant.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:36 pmYou are missing the entire point of my question…Iraq is no Vietnam
Iraq is no WWII, it’s much more like Viet Nam.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:08 pmThere are more stories to be shown than the dying, the wounded Americans and the U.S. caused devastation. How about the stories of the victims, the Iraqi children and their families.
By showing starving children in Africa or China or the Tsunami reporters awakened a ground swell of social consciousness.
Maybe it would never happen with the anesthetized media and administration. But the rest of us……
July 6th, 2005 at 2:34 pmI wonder how World War II would have been impacted had some conservative journal started to attack FDR’s administration for their blunders and casualities like the press is doing today.
If all those casualties occured in the two years after FDR declared victory, you might have a point.
As it is, you’re just carping. You voted for the guy who declared an end to coddling dictators, and then walks hand-in-hand through the bluebonnets with Crown Prince Jihad of Burkastan.
Can’t blame the MSM for that.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:24 pmJust because Republicans can’t handle the truth doesn’t mean us normal law abiding citizens can’t.
The truth will set you free, unless your a part of Bushco.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:05 pmWe are already free, Susan. We need to send Bushco to prison and the GOP to their own little paradise to remain free.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:27 pmSo you say that we should not have attacked Iraq. Hmm. That is to say that there was not a shred of terriorism on behalf of Sadam and company? That there would never be an attack on the U.S. ever in the future? We know that Iraq was not responsible for 9/11? NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. But if it smells like a rat, it probably is. I’d rather fight the terriorists on their own turf and not on ours. Thank God George Bush had the guts to do that.
July 7th, 2005 at 12:01 pmRandy, take that same post and replace the word “Iraq” with “Saudi Arabia” or “Pakistan.”
And we attacked Iraq for all the reasons you state. That did not protect commuters in London, did it?
July 7th, 2005 at 2:25 pmComment.
January 5th, 2006 at 10:59 am