Poor cutey Afghan war is getting bullied

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4508

tl;dr: Is it too much to expect that the dominant reaction after a grisly atrocity should involve sympathy for its victims rather than pride in the forces whom the perpetrator belonged to?

BTW, it has been ruled that CNPing articles in forums is fair use.

---------
The news that a U.S. Army sergeant killed 16 civilians, most of them children, in southern Afghanistan early Sunday morning was treated by many media outlets primarily as a PR challenge for continued war and occupation of that country.

"Afghanistan, once the must-fight war for America, is becoming a public relations headache for the nation's leaders, especially for President Barack Obama," explained an Associated Press analysis piece (3/12/12). Reuters (3/12/12) called it "the latest American public relations disaster in Afghanistan."

On the NBC Today show (3/11/12) the question was posed this way: "Could this reignite a new anti-American backlash in the unstable region?" The answer: "This is not going to bode well for the U.S. and NATO here in Afghanistan," explained reporter Atia Abawi. "Obviously people here very fearful as to what's going to happen next, what protests will come about throughout different parts of Afghanistan, and how the Taliban are going to use this to their advantage." "People," as used here, would not seem to include Afghans, who are presumably less frightened by protests against a massacre of children than they are by the massacre itself.

The front-page headline at USA Today (3/12/12) read, "Killings Threaten Afghan Mission." The story warned that the allegations "threaten to test U.S. strategy to end the conflict." In the New York Times (3/12/12), the massacre was seen as "igniting fears of a new wave of anti-American hostility." The paper went on to portray occupation forces as victims:

The fact that the massacres occurred two days after a NATO helicopter strike killed four civilians was "adding to the sense of concern."

Another Times piece (3/12/12) began with this:


That sounds as if "outrage" is the most serious problem--the reaction to the actions, not the actions themselves.

Treating the killing of civilians as chiefly a PR problem is not a new phenomenon. As FAIR noted ("The Bad PR of Dead Civilians," 5/11/09), the news that dozens were killed in NATO airstrikes brought headlines like "Civilian Deaths Imperil Support for Afghan War" (New York Times, 5/7/09), "Claim of Afghan Civilian Deaths Clouds U.S. Talks" (Wall Street Journal, 5/7/09) and "Afghan Civilian Deaths Present U.S. With Strategic Problem" (Washington Post, 5/8/09).

Covering the latest atrocity, the Washington Post (3/12/12) reported that "the killings Sunday threatened to spark a new crisis in the strained relationship between the United States and Afghanistan." A separate piece quoted an anonymous U.S. official complaining that massacres "plays to the absolute worst fears and stereotypes" of the U.S. military, and that "it's the type of boogeyman [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai has always raised, but we've never had an incident like this."

But there have been similar single incidents, most notably a 2007 attack by Marines that killed 19 civilians. And night raids by NATO forces have killed Afghans throughout the war.

On the Sunday talkshows, Republicans and Democrats spoke about the massacre--often with little to distinguish their points of view. On ABC's This Week (3/11/12), Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told viewers that "unfortunately, these things happen in war.... You just have to push through these things." He added that "the surge of forces has really put the Taliban on the defensive.... We can win this thing. We can get it right." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) remarked:



On NBC's Meet the Press (3/11/12), Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell, a Republican, said the news was "tragic because we have so many brave men and women, David, for now 10-plus years in the global war on terror, have done marvelous work for the cause freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.... It's too bad and we'll have to see the details. But I'm really proud of what our kids are doing there."

Is it too much to expect that the dominant reaction after a grisly atrocity should involve sympathy for its victims rather than pride in the forces whom the perpetrator belonged to?

Running constantly in Kill Mode will screw anyone's mind up royally. That is why we should let robots do our killing for us.

ruveyn

Oh I have sympathy more sympathy than I use to post 9/11 for the countries we are invading. It makes me sick what are forces are doing over there. It makes me sick see the disturbing trend of not only vitriol and racism toward the people we're supposedly "saving"....what bs, but the crimes committed against humanity like the Abu Ghraib incident and the propaganda about why we were going to war with Iraq in the first place. If this had happened anywhere else leaders would be tried and convicted. Now our nation is impressing the world with our hypocritical and thug-like behavior if it already hasn't in the past. This is my own unprofessional feelings toward not only this recent incident but others. I see a bleak future for both Afghanistan and our country.

While I agree with the former, I seriously hope you're kidding with the latter. I'm see something akin to The Terminator.

Tried it in the Star Wars prequels. All they got were goofball robots.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Calling it a war is too kind. It is a hostile occupation and we will reap what we sow. I suppose that is probably the DoD's objective; justify it's budgets and own existence.

The police just arrested a young man nearby here at the college park campus of maryland university on suspicion that he was about to stage a virginia tech type mass shooting. This was a troubled civilian young man who wasnt even in combat- didnt have the stress of combat- and wasnt issued a high powered automatic rifle as a workaday tool by his employer. Had they not arrested him he might have killed a number of his fellow americans that exceded the 16 death toll of Afgans killed by this american serviceman.

Like this college student ( and like Cho at VT) this soldier may have already been at risk even in civilian life. But im sure being in combat didnt help his head.

There are individuals in the world who are time bombs. Its amazing that this doesnt happen more often than it does in our war zones.

QFT

i dont quite get why the US can justify a military thats larger than the next 10 combined, some of those are even allies.

the money that could be saved there while still being more than powerfull enough are staggering.

I guess on a national level, America might need a big gun, because collectively speaking, we might be "lacking" in a certain other part of our national anatomy.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

As a computer scientist I shouldn't tell you this but I will anyway.

Our robots suck.

So far, it is unlikely it is ever going to be possible to have autonomous armies doing the killing. What will likely happen is that there will be somebody controlling the robots as in with a video game.

This makes things worse probably and the opposite to ruveyn's solution. These unstable people will have the added issue of not being able to even recognize the victims as human, as all they will see is a screen showing what the robot sees. If a marine snaps and he is controlling a robot army he will kill a lot more innocent people. Oh well..

Someone I knew from Missouri was telling me that we should turn Afghanistan into a glass parking lot if we don't get our way with them. Human beings over there get gunfire instead of a good nights sleep and this person is so indignant from Osama's letter to America and 9-11 that things that she would never tolerate are perfectly fine when they happen to others.

I think pure hatred is the only point of view people like her have.

yeah the comentary on the masacre was vile here too. basically julia gillard, our pm, came out on tv and went on and on about how we have a purpose in afgahnistan, we have a plan, we know what we are doing there, we know how long we will be there and we will not be making a hasty departure. it was vile. she didnt even appologise fo the whole afghan war but then why would she? the country is in a worse state than it was before intervention and is a case in point in the argument against imperialism.
it was really heart breaking hearing that woman(i dont know if everone saw the clip) whose son had died saying that she had never seen a 2 year old taliban. it was so senseless. but at the same time i think our leaders apparent bemusement at the incident is a a blatent lie. it isnt shocking or unexpected- the soldiers spend their days killing people which can never be good and the government actively encourages racism to justify the war. as if they did not see this coming.