Friday, March 21, 2003

A little reminder over to the left there of the damage we are causing. These are just civilian casualties on their side; it doesn't include deaths to our boys (or theirs). Also, this doesn't count damage we're doing to the priceless historical treasures that Iraq is replete with.

In my last job I worked on military contracts that found me working with US Air Force planners all over the world. One project I worked on involved tracking high-level objectives (like, "win the war") all the way down to individual targets, like bridges or airstrips, so that one could look up why were bombing a particular place. I'm not such a peacenik that I'm ashamed of working on that; it was important, necessary work, that is the logical conclusion of the supposition that we need to have national defense. However, I did not appreciate at all noticing one day that we had high level objectives that were focused on painting rosy scenarios for the press and the people back home. I witnessed it first hand. Our appointed protectors feel that we "can't handle the truth!" about what they are doing.

There's an interesting scene in Graham Greene's The Quiet American where a reporter, after many minutes of wrangling, manages to pin a general into reluctantly giving out an estimate of the enemy losses, in the early days of French/American occupation of Vietnam. Nowadays, the generals just hide behind a veil of self-righteous indignation when asked. Actually, they do more than hide and evade; they attack the reporter who asked, in hopes of discouraging future inquiries. It's funny -- if they're so intent on minimizing civilian losses then you think they wouldn't object to some sort of metric to tell how well they're doing. There's only one reason why they don't answer, regardless of what they say: it makes them look bad.

By the way, our military IS truly intent on minimizing civilian losses, despite what it may seem like I'm implying here. I witnessed that firsthand too. They are probably more intent on it than any other military in history. What I'm objecting to is their refusal to report on it.

No comments: