U.S. Hypocrisy Astonishes the World
Americans have lost their ability for introspection, thereby revealing their astounding hypocrisy to the world.
U.S. War Secretary Robert Gates has condemned The Associated Press and a reporter, Julie Jacobson, embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, for taking and releasing a photo of a U.S. Marine who was wounded in action and died from his injury.
The photographer was on patrol with the Marines when they came under fire. She found the courage and presence of mind to do her job. Her reward is to be condemned by the warmonger Gates as "insensitive." Gates says her employer, The Associated Press, lacks "judgment and common decency."
The American Legion jumped in and denounced The Associated Press for a "stunning lack of compassion and common decency."
To stem opposition to its wars, the War Department hides signs of American casualties from the public. Angry that evidence escaped the censor, the war secretary and the American Legion attacked with politically correct jargon: "insensitive," "offended" and the "anguish," "pain and suffering" inflicted upon the Marine's family. The War Department sounds like it is preparing a harassment tort.
Isn't this passing the buck? The Marine lost his life not because of The Associated Press and a photographer, but because of the war criminals—Gates, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama—and the U.S. Congress that supports wars of naked aggression that serve no American purpose, but which keeps campaign coffers filled with contributions from the armaments companies.
Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard is dead because the U.S. government and a significant percentage of the U.S. population believe that the U.S. has the right to invade, bomb and occupy other peoples who have raised no hand against us but are demonized with lies and propaganda.
For the American war secretary, it is a photo that is insensitive, not America's assertion of the right to determine the fate of Afghanistan with bombs and soldiers.
The exceptional "virtuous nation" does not think it is insensitive for America's bombs to blow innocent villagers to pieces. On Sept. 4, the day before Gates' outburst over the "insensitive" photo, Agence France Presse reported from Afghanistan that a U.S.-NATO air strike had killed large numbers of villagers who had come to get fuel from two tankers that had been hijacked from negligent and inattentive occupation forces:
"Nobody was in one piece. Hands, legs and body parts were scattered everywhere. Those who were away from the fuel tanker were badly burnt," said 32-year-old Mohammad Daud, depicting a scene from hell. The burned-out shells of the tankers, still smoking in marooned wrecks on the riverbank, were surrounded by the charred-meat remains of villagers from Chahar Dara district in Kunduz province, near the Tajik border. Dr. Farid Rahid, a spokesperson in Kabul for the ministry of health, said up to 250 villagers had been near the tankers when the air strike was called in.
What does the world think of the United States? The American war secretary and a U.S. military veterans association think a photo of an injured and dying American soldier is insensitive, but not the wipeout of an Afghan village that came to get needed fuel.
The U.S. government is like a criminal who accuses the police of his crime when he is arrested or a sociopathic abuser who blames the victim. It is a known fact that the CIA has violated U.S. law and international law with its assassinations, kidnappings and torture. But it is not this criminal agency that will be held accountable. Instead, those who will be punished will be those moral beings who, appalled at the illegality and inhumanity of the CIA, leaked the evidence of the agency's crimes.
The CIA has asked the U.S. Justice (sic) Department to investigate what the CIA alleges is the "criminal disclosure" of its secret program to murder suspected foreign terrorist leaders abroad. As we learned from Gitmo, those suspected by America are overwhelmingly innocent.
The CIA program is so indefensible that when CIA Director Leon Panetta found out about it six months after being in office, he cancelled the program (assuming those running the program obeyed) and informed Congress.
Yet, the CIA wants the person who revealed its crime to be punished for revealing secret information. A secret agency this unmoored from moral and legal standards is a greater threat to our country than are terrorists. Who knows what false flag operation it will pull off in order to provide justification and support for its agenda. An agency that is more liability than benefit should be abolished.
The agency's program of assassinating terrorist leaders is itself fraught with contradictions and dangers. The hatred created by the U.S. and Israel is independent of any leader. If one is killed, others take his place. The most likely outcome of the CIA assassination program is that the agency will be manipulated by rivals, just as the FBI was used by one mafia family to eliminate another. In order to establish credibility with groups that they are attempting to penetrate, CIA agents will be drawn into participating in violent acts against the U.S. and its allies.
Accusing the truth-teller instead of the evil-doer is the position that the neoconservatives took against the New York Times when, after one year's delay, which gave George W. Bush time to get re-elected, the Times published the National Security Agency leak that revealed that the Bush administration was committing felonies by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The neocons, especially those associated with Commentary magazine, wanted the New York Times indicted for treason. To the evil neocon mind, anything that interferes with their diabolical agenda is treason.
This is the way many Americans think. America uber alles! No one counts but us (and Israel). The deaths we inflict and the pain and suffering we bring to others are merely collateral damage on the bloody path to American hegemony.
The attitude of the "freedom and democracy" U.S. government is that anyone who complains of illegality or immorality or inhumanity is a traitor. Republican Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri is a recent example. Bond got on his high horse about "irreparable damage" to the CIA from the disclosures of its criminal activities. Bond wants those "back-stabbers" who revealed the CIA's wrongdoings to be held accountable.
Bond is unable to grasp that it is the criminal activities, not their disclosure, that is the source of the problem. Obviously, the whistleblower protection act has no support from Bond, who sees it as just another law to plough under.
This is where the U.S. government stands today: Ignoring and covering up government crimes is the patriotic thing to do. To reveal the government's crimes is an act of treason. Many Americans on both sides of the aisle agree.
Yet, they still think that they are The Virtuous Nation, the exceptional nation, the salt of the earth.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
Mr. Roberts accuses the AP of telling the truth and the "war criminals" of killing this young man?
There is something so obviously wrong with the AP intentionally publishing a graphic picture of on of our soldiers taken during his hour of death for the political world to consume while there was still heat in the tears of his family. Also, it was not the vague government forces you mention that killed him, it was an RPG fired by an enemy soldier that blew off his legs.
There must be better ways to make your points. Keep the soldiers out of your politics. This article reeks of an autocratic callousness that should not be condoned around here.
The problem is that there aren't ENOUGH photos like that. For most Americans our wars are things that happen on television, where they make themselves feel good cheering on our soldiers and waving their little flags. It is unreal - they have to make no sacrifices and are not inconvenienced in any way. It is right and proper that the true cost of these wars be shown directly to the apathetic, servile and gullible American people.
I also want to mention to Mr McCabe that the above was not a response to his post, lest it seem so coming right after his.
I won't hesitate to say pro-Big Government/US As World Policeman apologia, which advocates air-brushing key aspects of US imperialism can also be said to be complicit in the killing.
European media, if I'm not mistaken, has been much more honest and realistic in its depiction of the blood and gore of the Iraq and Afghani wars.
S.L. Toddard wrote: "The problem is that there aren’t ENOUGH photos like that."
Agreed. Splashing more pictures like that throughout the media will prevent more soldiers dying needlessly in American wars of imperial conquest.
Even if the picture really is obscene, it pales in comparison to the breezy carelessness with which our "best and brightest" have been throwing away American lives (and treasure) since early in the start of Dubya's regime.
You guys are stuck in some sophomoric thinking, really missing the point, perhaps several.
First off, the European media does not publish pictures of their own soldiers as they lay dying on the battlefield. THe only way they have been less restrained is that they (at least Britain's) were not restricted from photographing flag-covered caskets returning home. That restriction, before being lifted here, was perhaps a shame but a far cry from what is being talked about at hand.
Secondly, what do you hope to accomplish by "splashing" pictures of the horrors of war all over the internet? Horrors exist on both sides and could just as easily be used to fuel the fires of aggression. Furthermore, horrors exist in just wars as well, yet horors in just wars must be endured by our soldiers, many who carry that burden with them the rest of their lives. This would have been an improprer picture to publish if we were in a just war now, would it have not? It is no less inappropriate since we are in an unjust war.
I am not advocating censorship or government control of media. Perhaps this picture, if left unattributed or attributed with family permission, should appear in some book in the cold future for the posterity of academics. But it should not be used for political statements, not by the AP, not by Paul Craig Roberts, and not by you guys.
The tactic of elective warfare where time after time innocent men, women and children are killed in the pursuit of a military objective is immoral and evil. If the Taliban uses violence against civilians it is condemned as an anti-human act but somehow it is excused when the civilians get in the way with NATO military actions. The little babies, boys and girls, killed by that bomb are as precious as yours and mine. No excuses and if this is part of the American way of war then I am becoming a pacifist except in the case of defending the nation from egregious attack on our soil. I speak as a US Navy veteran from the Vietnam era. From a traditional Catholic view of war going back to St. Augustine, the conduct of the American political class in pursuing these elective wars since the fall of the Berlin wall and calling the innocent and killed human beings as collateral damage is an affront to the dignity of the human person and despicable acts of the ungodly.
McCabe writes @1 "it was not the vague government forces you mention that killed him, it was an RPG fired by an enemy soldier that blew off his legs."
Mr.McCabe,
This is kid's stuff and very similar to what can be read elsewhere from NRO - to The Weekly Standard. Maybe the material cause of the Marine's death was an RPG and the final cause of all war is a punishment for sin, but the cheerleaders for these recent debacles are known quantities. If you want to carry their water, you will need a bigger back and larger bucket (and teach your kids to tote too)these folk's motto is not "Afghanistan or Bust" but "On To Iran!" I was surprised to see that things have gotten so stupid that even George Will is saying enough is enough. See Marine General Charles Krulak's response to Will's column in support of getting our soldiers and Marines out of these hell holes. Krulac is no easy target for the Unpatriotic American label either, he still carries bullet holes from Vietnam, was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with combat V,(for Valor) and was commander of 2nd FSSG during the Gulf War and later Commandant of Marines.
I can't help but reflect that if the people of all the countries had had a realistic presentation of the horrors of World War I, then Western Civilisation would not have suffered through that suicidal bloodbath brought on by incompetent and evil rulers---and we might all be better off today.
It's precious when a college student - excuse me, "graduate" student - smears other posters here as "sophomoric". Simply precious.
And some say the level of our discourse has diminshed...
But I digress.
I'm very sorry that Lance Corporal Joshua M. Bernard lost his life in Afghanistan due to enemy fire. However, I have a question: did Lance Cpl. Bernard volunteer or was he drafted? Isn't our "professional army, airforce, navy, and marine corps, (a volunteer force, folks) nothing more than a means to carry out foreign policy by the a-holes in D.C.? Did or did not Mr. Bernard know into what he was volunteeering? Personally, I think they know exactly what they are doing and hoping the roll of the dice doesn't go against them.
Here are things that would be useful for our - and I use the term "our" loosely given the complete disregard they have for keeping us informed - media to report and illustrate in every way possible:
1. suffering of our poor troops sent into harms way
This would include the torturous death on the battlefield as well as the forgotten veterans who have suffered permanent physical and psychological damage.
2. suffering of civilian "collateral damage"
All the bombed wedding parties, embassies, passenger trains, homes, etc.
3. the run-down of the precise participants (command and execution) in terms of nationality when the term "NATO" is applied to a military action
It would be very informative if a wider audience understood just how many of our allies refuse to partake in the carange our government unleashes (particularly as has been the case in the Balkans and the Middle East these past 10 years, spanning BOTH Republican and Democratic administrations).
4. the results of independent polls and other reactions from countries around the world as to how they perceive our government's behavior
How many Americans know or believe that our country frequently shows up as number one or two in polls conducted where the inquiry is what country poses the greatest threat to peace?
Of course, all of this knowledge may not sway the lunatics who celebrate war, but it certainly couldn't hurt.
It would also do us a service to hear more about Blackwater. It should be made plain that we are using in large part a massive and secretive mercenary army which exists entirely outside the Constitutional military framework to conquer these two dilapidated, technologically neanderthal, poverty benighted countries - I mean existential threats(!). It is so sinister and grotesque as to defy caricature.
Yes, Dr. Wilson strikes the right balance for the general concern of keeping the public artificially isolated from the truths of war vs. over-exposing them to the specific horrors of it. I was guarding against the statements of Toddard, Hoop and Gloriosus -- although I understood their points.
I hope others can read the difference between this general statement and the specific line I originally thought was bluntly crossed either purposely or negligently by exploiting this particular soldier's death for political advantage.
Robert the Second, I don't read the NRO because Tom Piatak does it for me (thankfully). And the next time you try to carry Aristotle's water, take more care with his four causes lest you spill that water all over the place. Eagle, unlike you, I explained why I thought the previous statements were sophomoric. You have merely attempted to smear me. No need to put "graduate" in quotes, it's accurate.
"Yes, Dr. Wilson strikes the right balance for the general concern of keeping the public artificially isolated from the truths of war vs. over-exposing them to the specific horrors of it."
I see nothing in his post to indicate any "balance" between your position and ours. He wrote that he can't help but think that, were the presentation of the horrors of WWI more realistic - which is what the rest of us are arguing should happen now - then we would have been better off.
Toddard, you are mostly right, and we probably even mostly agree at least on your point. I started off against exploiting the death of not just a specific soldier but *our* soldier for political purposes, even good ones (I certainly agree with PCR's main point about U.S. hypocrisy, but I think he has crossed some subtler lines in his own zealousness recently).
You made a related point that, I believe, was generally supposing that people who support unjust wars are ignorant of their true costs and are blinded by mindless propaganda, much of which I receive via email from well-meaning friends and relatives. I see that harm, and to that extent I agreed with your post.
"The problem is that there aren’t ENOUGH photos like that."
I thought you drew a sloppy line when you said that not enough of these pictures were out there. Maybe you just meant general pictures of war casualties, but it came off as a reference to that specific picture and its peculiar content and use. Surely you can see the difference between your general point and my specific one, and then how they could be connected by your words.
That is where you and Dr. Wilson differed. Dr. Wilson (as well as Patrick and others later) made their points in general, without specific claims, and left the exploitation of soldiers out of it completely. I think their points had a balance and fairness that yours (and maybe mine) lacked.
I think you sensed your own ambiguity when you mentioned you were not responding to my post. I apologize for my own sloppiness in trying to make this point earlier.
I tend to agree with R. McCabe in that publishing such photos is problematic if it is done as an appeal to mass reaction to end the war. The end is certainly legitimate, but the means are highly questionable. (To demonstrate via an argumentum ad absurdum, do we need to publish photos of young prisoners getting raped in order to make a case against jailing people in "penitentiaries" for petty crimes?) As McCabe points out, mass reaction can easily be and has been swayed for nefarious purposes, as well. How about the photos of 9-11 flashed over and over to incite patriotic sentiment?
I should add that "journalism" and "truth" have always had a precarious relationship. Mass communication has done some good in history, but it has also had many devastating effects.
"As we learned from Gitmo, those suspected by America are overwhelmingly innocent" absurd
"Gates, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama—and the U.S. Congress that supports wars of naked aggression that serve no American purpose, but which keeps campaign coffers filled with contributions from the armaments companies.' inanane
" The most likely outcome of the CIA assassination program is that the agency will be manipulated by rivals, just as the FBI was used by one mafia family to eliminate another" oh boy!
Please Mr. PCR, give it up already. Instead of joining the conservatives against the disastrous Obama presidency quit these morality lectures that noone believes in. US has established order in the world from Asia to Europe. US has made the decision what the world needs to be like in order to function. PCR does not aknowledge the existence of international commmunism and international jihad as the two forces that are at war with capitalism and America. It is not about International Jewish banking cabal, The pain in the neck of the fringe nuts like PCR.
Jack Bailey stil believes in the existence of ample "international communist" powers to inferentially effect another mythical Domino Theory and embellishes his own fringe political status by expressing faith in the supremacy, benign nature and peacemaking abilities of degraded, post-Christian, American materialist sub-culture.(even as Iraq experiences another fluorish of unsquashed insurgency today.)
Ken @18 - Or maybe Jack is just another hopelessly brainwashed neocon idiot.
I was first labelled a "terrorist" by outraged feminists who objected to my displaying pictures of aborted babies and was even sued (unsuccessfully) by an abortion clinic (now out of business) for distributing literature with such pictures of what the abortion business really is. Those who want bloody business to continue are those who also want no pictures to possibly cause mass revulsion. My main concern with contemporary American society is that dozens of splatter, slasher, and torture movies have conditioned many people to tolerate or actually enjoy murder and torture.
So this Mr. Bailey is another neocon Republican party apparatchik. The U.S. has decided, the U.S. has established order, etc. I could have taken those words right out of his mouth. The words of some guys by the name of Jefferson and Washington, concerning what the government of the American Republic is constitutionally authorized to do in the world, would make neocon jack pretty upset. Hopefully afterwards he would rethink his crazy ideas, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Dr. Wilson @#8
Quite right and according to Niall Ferguson in "The Pity of War" "The first world war was at once piteous, in the poet's sense, and a 'pity'. It was something worse than a tragedy, which is something we are taught by the theatre to regard as something unavoidable. It was nothing less than the greatest error of modern history."
It seems that the best and brightest and most highly educated people are bent on consistently leading their people along the path of war. So much for education being an answer to the issue. Certainly WW1 set the stage for WW2 and on and on we go. The nasty thing is our science and technology are making war gruesomely destructive and extremely dangerous for all mankind. Will we ever learn?
We might be better off today if our leaders would learn from their all too apparent mistakes. It is a pity young men (and sadly now, even young women) are dying in these elective wars. But Mr. Meng @#10 is quite right, they are all volunteers.
Dr. Roberts is right to point out the hypocrisy of the U.S.
I'm an Army Officer heading to Afghanistan in a few months.
Agree with PCR and others about the photos- they ought to be published, and all over the front pages. And we should televise the caskets coming home as well.
The realities of war are not hitting home for the vast majority of Americans out there. War is a vile, dirty business and maybe publishing these photos would help put a stop to our Middle Eastern Adventurism.
And to hell with Sean Hannity, his ilk, and Pop-Country music, which really has become Neoconservatism's "Internationale."
War is not romantic or fun, and the Army is not a jobs program. I'm a volunteer, "mercenary" some might say, but I haven't been co-opted.
May God watch over the troops in harm's way and bring all home safely. And in combat may we find the strength and the courage to return home and remake our communities, rather than continue to tilt at globalist windmills.
AWLC
AWLC,
God Bless you and your fellow soldiers. I just finished reading, We Were Soldiers Once and Young. Same obstacles we face in Afghanistan, Pakistan is to the Taliban what Cambodia was for the NVA -- after we whipped them in the La Drang Valley, they crossed to Cambodia to regroup and reorganize where we couldn't follow just like the Taliban uses Pakistan. As General Vo Nguyen Giap said about the Viet Minh war with the French: " They must drag out the war in order to win it, yet do not possess the means to do so. Thus, the enemy will pass slowly from offensive to defensive. The blitzkrieg will transform itself into a war of long duration." The only civilian leaders still stumping for more wars over there are the folks who never fight them, and as you know only too well, "one can never answer for his courage when he has never been in danger." Again, may God bless you and your troops and let the devil do what he will for the current pretenders posing as courageous leaders of the free world.
jack bailey wrote:
"US has established order in the world from Asia to Europe. US has made the decision what the world needs to be like in order to function."
I see you've finally lost your mind, jack bailey. Please seek help before you snap and kill us all.
I have been thinking about this issue some more. I was reminded about the times a few years ago when a video was published of Nick Berg being decapitated in Iraq. I googled him to find out more information and came across an article about it posted at that time.
The article showed two pictures, one of Nick Berg in an orange jumpsuit kneeling before his captors, moments before his death, and a picture of his father, who had collapsed on his front lawn when a reporter informed him that a video of his son's beheading had been made public.
I skimmed through the comments section of the article and found a small amount of sympathy, a small amount of "deserves" and Bush bashing, and an overwhelming response of hatred and punitive retaliation.
I think it is difficult to claim that a picture or video can hold too broad or deep a truth in it. It is dangerous then to claim them as solid weapons in sure hands. The only thing close to a real education I have received about the horrors of war, since I have thankfully never had to fight in one, has come from the men in my family who have as well as friends of family who have, and not as much from books or pictures.
Hypocrisy is a strange but common thing, and pictures can contain hypocrisies of their own.
Pop-country music as the neocon's "Internationale," that's putting it brilliantly. In the early days of countrypolitan one could at least get a "Galveston" or a "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town," where the horrors of war were dealt with honestly. The difference between "Ruby" and the Hannity anthem is the difference between the picture of the dead soldier and the typical abstractions of "embedded" journalism.
Thank you for the kind words.
May I suggest another movie- Breaker Morant (1980) with Bruce Beresford and Jack Thompson. A fine film focused on the Boer War, and, for my money, the best war film ever made.
Every American should watch this movie. As for my comrades in arms, we would do well to consider "the costs of empire-building," in the context of our current fight, with its increasingly restrictive Rules of Engagement.
AWLC
Along with Breaker Morant, Gallipoli comes to mind. Not the best film, admittedly, certainly not the equal of Breaker Morant, but if ever there was an example of imperial arrogance and stupidity, the Gallipoli campaign in WWI was it. Sending men to die--English generals sending Aussie and Kiwi men to die--for what? Surely it would have been a marvelous thing for the West to recapture Constantinople, but landing men onto a narrow strip below entrenched machine-guns on cliff-tops was not the way to achieve such an end. AWLC, God bless and keep you, sir.
@Mr. Higdon:
My main concern with contemporary American society is that dozens of splatter, slasher, and torture movies have conditioned many people to tolerate or actually enjoy murder and torture.
But that is precisely the point. I want, first of all, to commend your tireless fight against murderers of children, but as you point out, constant exposure tends to desensitize the public. Sordid pictures of the reality of war and of abortion will affect public opinion only so long as they are perceived as sordid. It may work in the short term, but in the long run I fear it will only set a bad precedent and open the door for an orgy of visual gore.
There have always been wars and there have always been abortions, but isn't it true that the most gruesome waves of both have come since the dawn of the twentieth century--after the invention of the photograph? I am not saying one causes the other, only giving reason to doubt the viability of what is being proposed.
@AWLC: I am obliged in conscience that I think your decision is quite mad, but I think I understand why you are going (I have thought about it from time to time) and will remember a prayer for you.
There is some suspicion as to why 2 tankers happend to show up loaded with fuel, and then NATO planes blew them both up before they had distributed their cargo around the village. What lucky timing! It's being proclaimed a "false flag" operation by the highly suspicious right-wing, since it's happened before. Nothing like a blazing tanker to make a great front-page photo for the America-haters.
"The neocons, especially those associated with Commentary magazine, wanted the New York Times indicted for treason. To the evil neocon mind, anything that interferes with their diabolical agenda is treason."
Since Commentary is primarily Jewish, is PCR insinuating that evil neocons are Jews?
Mr. Moses, I think we are in agreement on the dangers of desensitizing the public, but the question is whether or not we have reached the point where the use of bloody photos for dissuasion is either completely ineffective or counter-productive. The fact that militarists and their supporters oppose bloody photos of war (and even photos of flag draped coffins) and abortionists and their supporters oppose the showing of bloody pictures of abortion indicates that the photos are still effective with many people even though an increasing number are becoming desensitized. The Catholic Church should have given up crucifixes centuries ago if sensitivity to blood and gore was the only issue. In fact, it is the crucifix that marks the Catholic Church as the one which expects its members to take Christ most seriously and not just as a God of wish lists.
@33: Fair enough, and I am happy to give the nod to practices to which abortionists are opposed, but I am still as awful as abortion may be, it is not equivalent to deicide--treatment of God should be the exception that proves the rule. (It is also true that the typical Crucifix qualifies for "stylized realism" rather than "photorealism"; an exact replica of a crucifixion--which probably involved a naked victim with half the skin torn off--would be unlikely to hang over the altar of a Church. That former, by the way, is one of many reasons who The Last Temptation of the Christ is so over the top.) As for the topic at hand, knowing my generation, I think it is fairly safe to suppose that the Kill Bill crowd will only get fired up by such photos. I don't know whether your family has suffered the effects of video games, but I have seen firsthand what they do to the human mind.
@34 - Did you intend to refer to The Passion of the Christ? I know some people in my own family who did not see it because they wanted to avoid the graphic violence and gore. But I also have friends who took fairly young children to see it - and these were people who are very strict on the kind of movies they let their children see. And the Vatican itself gave at least unofficial endorsement to The Passion, not withstanding Mel Gibson's schismatic activities. If you intended to refer to The Last Temptation, I did not see that one. I was under the impression that the main objection to it was that it was heretical, not that it was bloody.
Kirt,
Yes, I think Moses is thinking of the Passion. Last Temptation of Christ was blasphemous and pornographic, don't ever see it.
Gervaise,
I believe the vast majority of neocons are Jews, and that PCR is probably implying that as well. Whether Israeli, American, or whatever nation they currently reside in, most Jews desire power, influence, and authority in a world where their customs and faith and traditions are squeezed into a corner by Western civilization. I do understand why they have an axe to grind with the West. Their Talmudic teachers say that their faith, upon completion by the coming of their Messiah, is supposed to bring in an age where Jews dominate the world with their intellectual prowess, among other things. The Christian faith hijacked that outcome, an outcome apparently looked forward to with great anticipation by the Jews, right out from under their feet. It was their birthright, and the West took it. Now a substantial percentage of them, if not the vast majority, are out for revenge. Go ahead and warn me with all the SPLC-ish sanctimony and condescension you can muster, that Hitler and the 3rd Reich thought exactly as I did, and look what they did. But it is not a symptom of a totalitarian ideology, or even any kind of dangerous ideology, to be able to discern who your adversaries are in this world, or what they are thinking, or what they want.
@35 and 36: No, I was indeed referring to Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation and it is indeed theologically off-colour (to say the least) and I object more to its sensuality than to any sort of "sheer gore." The Passion of the Christ is a film I have mixed feelings about, although it certainly has merit and I do not think I would prevent an adolescent son from seeing it. (I would probably prefer that he read Anne Catherine Emmerich's Dolorous Passion first, though.) I would, on the other hand, most certainly interdict Sin City. The difference is of course in the context, but regarding photos of mutilated soldiers in Iraq, I would be more afraid that the press would turn this into a call for enemy blood. See Paul Craig Roberts himself above, on "sociopathic abuser who blames his victims." There is also the question of legitimate wishes on the part of the subject's family.
In any case, I think this has been a quite lively and fruitful discussion and I have appreciated the words of all those who disagreed with my own opinion.
"Since Commentary is primarily Jewish, is PCR insinuating that evil neocons are Jews?"
Perish the thought, sir. Why that would make Mr. Roberts some kind of evil anti-semite, wouldn't it? Let me hasten to enter a disclaimer, since the author and I have the same surname: I am unrelated to Mr. Paul Craig Roberts and I am not an anti-semite.
“Since Commentary is primarily Jewish, is PCR insinuating that evil neocons are Jews?”
There is no need to insinuate: a large number of prominent neoconservatives are Jews. That is simply a fact. It is also a fact, however, that neoconservative Jews are overwhelmingly outnumbered by liberal Democrat Jews, who oppose the neocons vehemently.
@28
AWLC,
Framing this in a non-leading way is difficult; trouble separating the personal from the political, I suppose. And I hesitated to ask you this, not wanting to burden you any more than you already are with preparing to leave home and go into a war zone. But it isn't every day an active duty soldier comes on this site - would that that were not the case! Moreover, anyone who can make that observation about the use of countrypop is already doing plenty of thinking and reading.
You are aware that some think of you as a mercenary.
The question I have is this: what are your thoughts, and feelings, if you are so inclined, on the fact that our troops - that's you - are also regularly being called murderers, dummies, destroyers of villages, and general all-around global inflicters of hell upon the innocent?
The flaw in Mr. Roberts' okaying the publishing of the photograph is that it tends to support the view that anything is permitted in the context of war. Killing prisoners and civilians can be excused by saying that war is hell or by denying that there are limits beyond which combatants should not go. Similarly we have reason to wish that news agencies have limits beyond which they will not go to make a story more sensational. That's why most newspapers won't publish the names and photographs of girls who have been raped.
"Similarly we have reason to wish that news agencies have limits beyond which they will not go to make a story more sensational. "
This is a non sequitur. This isn't a question of senationalizing a story. The view that anything is permissible in war is much easier for the chickenhawks to promote when their opposition has nothing to which they can refer in the mainstream media to illustrate the kinds of horrors being done in our names during a war.
"That’s why most newspapers won’t publish the names and photographs of girls who have been raped."
This isn't true. Pictures of rape victims aren't published to avoid influencing of public opinion prior to an arrest and/or trial.
@42: Granted. But would it be okay to publish pictures of a rape, a post-violation pelvic exam, or an autopsy? I am not, for my part, particularly keen on the whole CSI mania.
"But would it be okay to publish pictures of a rape, a post-violation pelvic exam, or an autopsy"
Obviously not. There is no analogous problem in America whereby the public is exceedingly favorable to rape due to their unfamiliarity with its violent nature. Sorry - it's not comparable.
@42,"This isn’t true. Pictures of rape victims aren’t published to avoid influencing of public opinion prior to an arrest and/or trial."
Actually, I don't believe that is true. Newspapers always publish names and pictures of alleged perpetrators before trials, so the fair trial argument is not valid. Whatever scruples media men do possess seem to prevent them from picturing victim's faces out of concern for the victims.
That poor girl in CA, Jaycee Duggard, has had her name and picture as a youth posted but no current pictures. Her captors' images have been everywhere.
@43, 44, you guys are perhaps as close as you will get in the gray area of civility vs. truth. To me, if we have laid to rest the question of respect for individuals and are just talking abstractly of appropriateness or effectiveness of showing graphic images to achieve some result, I am reminded that man is primarily a social creature. And we have the nasty habit of killing messengers or at least associating them with their message, thus tuning them out if we don't like what we see.
If I meet someone and the first words out of my mouth were, "Nice to meet you, you are really fat." I may have spoken the truth; it may be an important truth, and it may or not be a truth they already know, but I have lost all connection with that person. They did not ask me for an opinion, yet I hit them with it anyway. That is far different from answering someone's question honestly.
It is an important thing to be ready to prove the truth if it is being denied. It is another to assume to know why others believe what they believe and how to change those beliefs.
I tend to think resorting to graphic images is a shortcut. It is much harder and slower to convince someone that there is life in the womb or bad policies behind unjust wars (all wars are violent). It is much harder to pray consistently. But if you do, you have perhaps importantly converted someone rather than spread shock or created/galvanized an opponent.
re #45:
"Actually, I don’t believe that is true. Newspapers always publish names and pictures of alleged perpetrators before trials, so the fair trial argument is not valid. Whatever scruples media men do possess seem to prevent them from picturing victim’s faces out of concern for the victims."
Fair enough, though a victim isn't a perpetrator. As Mr. Toddard pointed out in his post #44, a non sequitur isn't a valid argument, which was also my point in response to #41, though I seem to have expressed it badly.
@44: A couple of points. First, although a large sector of the American public continues to support this indefensible war, a majority has swung at least nominally against it, so I'm not sure the characterization of the public as "exceedingly favorable" any longer fits. It might have been more relevant at the beginning of the Iraq war, but even then there are difficulties. Let's suppose, for example, and if you'll pardon the sensationalism, the soldier lying on the gurney happened to be your younger brother. Would you like the photos to be published in your hometown newspaper where your mother may well pick it up? In the past, there was a very real possibility that she would fall to pieces; in our times, there is a very real possibility that she might turn into a second Cindy Sheehan. (If you cannot see what is wrong with that latter scenario, just have a look at her platform and campaign photos from 2008.)
There are many things wrong with American society, many reasons why this war was allowed to happen and why we can expect to see further blunders until a massive catastrophe snaps us out of it. Resorting to shock effect for a quick "end to this war" is akin to placing a band-aid over a deep gash on the leg and will resolve nothing in the long run except eventually desensitize us entirely to suffering.
"Let’s suppose, for example, and if you’ll pardon the sensationalism, the soldier lying on the gurney happened to be your younger brother. Would you like the photos to be published in your hometown newspaper where your mother may well pick it up?"
No, I personally would not "like" it. That's irrelevant. What matters is that showing the true costs of war more accurately might cause less American boys to be killed. The death is far more of a crime, and far more painful for the family, than the picture. If those pictures can prevent more of those deaths...
While there are many things on which I might disagree with Cindy Sheehan, her relentless opposition to the wars of the US is not one of them. She has been principled in her opposition to both Bush and Obama because of their militarism. If more mothers of those who have died were like her, we might already have been out of these evil and destructive wars.
Even if the claim that government suppression of graphic images helps to "stem opposition to its wars" were true, a dubious assumption, given the public's massive exposure to gore by now in such movies as "Saving Private Ryan" and video games, it does not excuse the opposite behavior.
The only morally correct course is to give the families of wounded and dead soldiers the time to get prepared before being exposed to photos such as this. When I saw Joshua Bernard's photo, a photo which, but for the grace of God and one step to the left or right, might have been taken of me on trails I trod long ago, my stomach churned and I had to look away. If it can produce such a reaction in me, one who might be expected to be somewhat hardened, there can be no doubt that this kind of photo, if happened upon unexpectedly by a loved one, has the potential to cause life-threatening reactions such as heart failure.
Where are those who took me to task with the injunction that no good may come of evil deeds when I defended a use of torture if the fate of a city should hang in the balance? Those who defend the use of these photos to sway public opinion are approving of the psychological torture of the families.
As for the hypocrisy referred to in Roberts' title, I see few better examples of it than in this former government official's rush to defend the fair female reporter who took the photo, in order to indulge his tastes for high dudgeon and attacking present government officials he dislikes.