She mattered, yes -- as all lives that are cut unnecessarily short matter. What matters most to me, I think, is that this was the direct result of political foolishness ... or, perhaps, evil.
Oh yes, and an excellently pointed commentary on the perspective of the news media. Though I'd suggest that Smith's life, too, might have been cut short -- many years ago, as far as mattering to the world in any real sense is concerned. (I seem to believe that people are significantly shaped by their physical & social environment, probably starting at conception.)
For the modern American news media, trivial things like a Celebrity's death (or life) seem to be much preferable over dealing with the hard stuff, like the unnecessary deaths of young soldiers every day, or the investigations into the graft and corruption that has profited the people who are, ultimately, responsible for those deaths. There seems to be some merit in G. B. Shaw's quip that ends something like "...and 85% of the people would rather die than think".
Why does the spin always have to be put on it by the antiwar folks? Why is it every time a soldier gets killed y'all want to "unnecessary death" or "direct result of politcal...." These are your words, but if you'd like I can point you to a few dozen that I've read this afternoon.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, though I do make some speculations based on what I consider reasonably-informed opinion.
I think you'll see more usage of "unnecessary deaths" as more people realize or decide that this war was unnecessary, as well as stupidly-handled, and make the plain logical conclusion that the deaths resulting from it were also unnecessary. And quite a lot of people give some weight to being human beings, so they apply this to all the deaths -- from a low estimate of 50,000 to more than twice that, mostly civilian non-combatants -- that have resulted from it.
I'm not a Pacifist, but am convinced that many countries -- including the U.S. -- have too-often resorted to war when it could have been avoided and when other courses of action would have been to their greater long-term advantage. I'm damned sure this Iraq War has done the U.S. much more harm than good, is continuing to do so, and would probably have done so even if we had "won". It has turned hundreds of thousands of people, in a dozen or so countries, from people who didn't much like us (mostly for fairly good reasons) into people who hate us. That's going to be harming us for several generations, at least.
Somewhere in here, also, are some concepts I don't fully understand. Quite a lot of people in the modern world consider that killing human beings is not a good idea, and either should be avoided entirely or done (as seems to me more reasonable) only under real necessity. I don't think that necessity came close to existing in this case. Nor do I think it does with Iran, though the Administration's propaganda machine seems to be trying to convince us that it does, and I am concerned that this is part of the groundwork for involving us in yet another war, under the guise of "conducting foreign policy" and against the will of the American People.
If we're to change, and do better in the future, I think people need to be reminded of the emotional, as well as the purely monetary, cost (& waste) inherent in military solutions, in order that we might try to chose leaders who are less inclined to do stuff like this.
Actually, I'm rather in favor of Negative Population Growth, but don't think that starting wars is a morally-acceptable (or genuinely effective) way of achieving this.
The backlight on my moniter is broken or I would so get back to you on this.
When I get it fixed I'll try to remember to check my inbox so we can explore this some more.
And an aside: I think we should have invaded Iran in 2003 and not Iraq, They are way more of a threat than Iraq ever was, both to regional stability and the pax Americana.
I think the idea of a Pax Americana is probably the most dangerous thing we are doing.
1: It (with good reason) makes other countries (and a lot of people) worried about our motives, and course of action, because it demands that we interfere in there courses of action.
2: It requires us to make some public statement of intent. Our national interest isn't a Pax Americana. That's just bully-boy nonsense. The US averring it has the biggest stick, and so gets to do what it wants, is a disaster waiting to happen.
In part because the only stick we've got is military. The French are out diplomatising us, the Russians and Chinese are working around us, and we have more debts outstanding than we can hope to cover.
Could we have a spasm and blast someone off the planet? Yep. But that's not policy, it's a temper tantrum. Military force is only useful (as a political tool) when it supports a policy which can be executed. If we e.g. nuke Iran, we are going to be ostracized. The Chinese and the Russians have a strong interest in Iran, the European Union will abandon us, and we will be left to stew in our own juice. A depression will be seen as better than letting us run riot in the world. And without the capital the rest of the world is willing to gamble on us repaying, we won't be able to keep the forces we have.
Which will take away the big stick.
Our greatest strength, the oceans which make invading us damn near impossible, are also our achilles heel, because we have, from the get go (barring Mexico and Canada) a huge supply/communication line to cross/keep open.
Honestly, the greatest threat to regional stabiluty (in the past six years) is us. We disengaged, rejected offers to negotiate (such as Iran saying they were willing, in exchange for help/concessions, to forgo their legal [per the non-proliferations treaty] right to pursue nuclear power) and otherwise left the region to go it's own way.
And then we manufactured a case for war, (after we declared we had the right to attack anyone who might be thinking of attacking us), which has been a miserable failure, both on the ground, and as a matter of policy.
Thanks for that. The idea of a Pax Americana gives me the collywobbles because we clearly can't afford it, because I don't think we're capable of doing it well or honestly (even with Democrats in Power), and because I think the rest of the developed world has decided that it cannot tolerate such a uninational militia domination. (It's not "the U.S. as the World Police" because police authority is established by the general consent of the community -- the UN might get this, but no single country is likely to, in the modern world.)
Taking off on one of the other points.... I know little about the area, but I have no reason to think that we'd have done any better if we'd attacked Iran instead of Iraq. In any case, the eggs are already scrambled -- we have de-stabilized the Middle East so thoroughly that anything Iran does would be trivial. And attacking Iran now would probably do little more than encourage the Fanatical Extremist groups in that country.
And if President Bush does succeed in provoking a violent conflict with Iran, I'd do everything in my power (very little *sigh*) to encourage a Bill of Impeachment. Preferably with the word "Treasonable" in it if I thought it could be made to stick. The intent of our Constitution (which the President swears to uphold) is clear enough -- war is sufficiently important to all of the People that the responsibility for declaring it is given to Congress, as being more responsive to the popular will than either of the other branches of our Government. I consider it despicable for a President to evade the intent of the Constitution by acting in such a way as to cause a war, without (and maybe even with) the clear and explicit approval of Congress. Mr. Bush obviously does not have that (and I hope he doesn't manage to get it), yet he appears to be continuing to try to initiate such a conflict.
Thank you for this. I’m on two different email loops with groups of women writers. One has been dominated by talk of Anna Nicole and I’ve been hitting the delete key a lot. The other is a group of female veterans (Korea to present) who are writers. The talk there has been focused on the astronaut who attempted to kill her rival, what it means in terms of a potential backlash against women in the military/NASA. A while back, we were discussing the oldest female server member to die (Afghanistan, I believe, and she was 52).
I've been pretty horrified by the Smith coverage and many people (including otherwise sensible family members) seem to think that I'm being cruel or callous in my reactions. In general, I don't have much sympathy for the mad party crowd, junkies, alcoholics or those who dessert young children.
It's amazing reading those comments. I think that's what I really hate about the internet. I dare them to put a name on it, to go and say things like that to someone's face. I fucking double dare 'em.
But yeah, I enjoyed the article. I'm not sure why there aren't more of them out there like that. The day I got back to Atlanta after OIF 3 the war in Iraq was on page ten.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 06:31 am (UTC).
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 08:58 am (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 07:59 pm (UTC)For the modern American news media, trivial things like a Celebrity's death (or life) seem to be much preferable over dealing with the hard stuff, like the unnecessary deaths of young soldiers every day, or the investigations into the graft and corruption that has profited the people who are, ultimately, responsible for those deaths. There seems to be some merit in G. B. Shaw's quip that ends something like "...and 85% of the people would rather die than think".
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 09:42 pm (UTC)I'm asking seriously here.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-12 03:49 am (UTC)I think you'll see more usage of "unnecessary deaths" as more people realize or decide that this war was unnecessary, as well as stupidly-handled, and make the plain logical conclusion that the deaths resulting from it were also unnecessary. And quite a lot of people give some weight to being human beings, so they apply this to all the deaths -- from a low estimate of 50,000 to more than twice that, mostly civilian non-combatants -- that have resulted from it.
I'm not a Pacifist, but am convinced that many countries -- including the U.S. -- have too-often resorted to war when it could have been avoided and when other courses of action would have been to their greater long-term advantage. I'm damned sure this Iraq War has done the U.S. much more harm than good, is continuing to do so, and would probably have done so even if we had "won". It has turned hundreds of thousands of people, in a dozen or so countries, from people who didn't much like us (mostly for fairly good reasons) into people who hate us. That's going to be harming us for several generations, at least.
Somewhere in here, also, are some concepts I don't fully understand. Quite a lot of people in the modern world consider that killing human beings is not a good idea, and either should be avoided entirely or done (as seems to me more reasonable) only under real necessity. I don't think that necessity came close to existing in this case. Nor do I think it does with Iran, though the Administration's propaganda machine seems to be trying to convince us that it does, and I am concerned that this is part of the groundwork for involving us in yet another war, under the guise of "conducting foreign policy" and against the will of the American People.
If we're to change, and do better in the future, I think people need to be reminded of the emotional, as well as the purely monetary, cost (& waste) inherent in military solutions, in order that we might try to chose leaders who are less inclined to do stuff like this.
Actually, I'm rather in favor of Negative Population Growth, but don't think that starting wars is a morally-acceptable (or genuinely effective) way of achieving this.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-13 07:58 am (UTC)When I get it fixed I'll try to remember to check my inbox so we can explore this some more.
And an aside: I think we should have invaded Iran in 2003 and not Iraq, They are way more of a threat than Iraq ever was, both to regional stability and the pax Americana.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-14 09:24 pm (UTC)1: It (with good reason) makes other countries (and a lot of people) worried about our motives, and course of action, because it demands that we interfere in there courses of action.
2: It requires us to make some public statement of intent. Our national interest isn't a Pax Americana. That's just bully-boy nonsense. The US averring it has the biggest stick, and so gets to do what it wants, is a disaster waiting to happen.
In part because the only stick we've got is military. The French are out diplomatising us, the Russians and Chinese are working around us, and we have more debts outstanding than we can hope to cover.
Could we have a spasm and blast someone off the planet? Yep. But that's not policy, it's a temper tantrum. Military force is only useful (as a political tool) when it supports a policy which can be executed. If we e.g. nuke Iran, we are going to be ostracized. The Chinese and the Russians have a strong interest in Iran, the European Union will abandon us, and we will be left to stew in our own juice. A depression will be seen as better than letting us run riot in the world. And without the capital the rest of the world is willing to gamble on us repaying, we won't be able to keep the forces we have.
Which will take away the big stick.
Our greatest strength, the oceans which make invading us damn near impossible, are also our achilles heel, because we have, from the get go (barring Mexico and Canada) a huge supply/communication line to cross/keep open.
Honestly, the greatest threat to regional stabiluty (in the past six years) is us. We disengaged, rejected offers to negotiate (such as Iran saying they were willing, in exchange for help/concessions, to forgo their legal [per the non-proliferations treaty] right to pursue nuclear power) and otherwise left the region to go it's own way.
And then we manufactured a case for war, (after we declared we had the right to attack anyone who might be thinking of attacking us), which has been a miserable failure, both on the ground, and as a matter of policy.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 06:26 am (UTC)Taking off on one of the other points.... I know little about the area, but I have no reason to think that we'd have done any better if we'd attacked Iran instead of Iraq. In any case, the eggs are already scrambled -- we have de-stabilized the Middle East so thoroughly that anything Iran does would be trivial. And attacking Iran now would probably do little more than encourage the Fanatical Extremist groups in that country.
And if President Bush does succeed in provoking a violent conflict with Iran, I'd do everything in my power (very little *sigh*) to encourage a Bill of Impeachment. Preferably with the word "Treasonable" in it if I thought it could be made to stick. The intent of our Constitution (which the President swears to uphold) is clear enough -- war is sufficiently important to all of the People that the responsibility for declaring it is given to Congress, as being more responsive to the popular will than either of the other branches of our Government. I consider it despicable for a President to evade the intent of the Constitution by acting in such a way as to cause a war, without (and maybe even with) the clear and explicit approval of Congress. Mr. Bush obviously does not have that (and I hope he doesn't manage to get it), yet he appears to be continuing to try to initiate such a conflict.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 10:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 01:01 pm (UTC)No conclusions, just observations.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 04:31 pm (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 09:38 pm (UTC)But yeah, I enjoyed the article. I'm not sure why there aren't more of them out there like that. The day I got back to Atlanta after OIF 3 the war in Iraq was on page ten.