What was the purpose of Ted Koppel's little stunt the other night?
I don't know, Nadine. I haven't seen more than a few Koppel shows--way past my bedtime--so I don't have a good enough sense of the guy to assert a motive. I can say, though, that his explanation is plausible. That doesn't mean it's true, only that one cannot reasonably insist that he has nefarious motives.
Why did he call this a war that should never have been fought
I can do something that you can't, Nadine, which is to look at the event from the perspective of someone who thinks that this particular war shouldn't have been fought, as apparently does he.
First of all, there are lists of the fallen all over the place. Making those available is, I think, considered in good taste and a form of respect. The Post has one. They used to have one for Afghanistan. They had one for the victims of the DC Sniper. SOP. If you're a TV show rather than a newspaper, you can only do it orally, which is what Koppel did.
I posted to Suma a few weeks ago that I had steeled myself to the fact of heavy casualties way back when it became clear that we were really going to invade Iraq, not expecting it to be feasible let alone a cakewalk. Having anticipated the death toll, I was not as upset by the growing numbers as she was. But I can tell you this--this current casualty pace has started to intrude on my mind, too. This pace is brutal and I wonder about people who aren't affected by it. And when people are affected, it is natural and normal to want to express that in some way. If you have a TV show, reading off the names would be an understandable way of doing that, seems to me.
If you think the war shouldn't have been fought, you have what I think is a different kind of sadness over the fallen--the sadness that comes from thinking that their sacrifice was unnecessary and, thus, even more tragic. And if you're a bleeding heart liberal, to boot, I imagine that your blood is flowing hard and fast over this. People who didn't approve the war feel the losses, too, Nadine.
To encourage a pullout, in effect a total surrender, without acknowledging the costs of defeat or the potential benefits of victory, is that what you call "pro-American"?
You're taking a lot of logical leaps there. First you assume the purpose of reading the names is to destroy morale to effect a pullout. Even it that's so, a pullout (which, to be perfectly clear, I don't support) is not necessarily a "total surrender." There are good Republicans who are now toying with the notion of declaring victory and getting out. It is a legitimate option that should be weighed along with any other options. We are, after all, between a rock and a hard place at the moment.
As far as pro-American, if you legitimately think that a pullout, even a surrender, is in America's best interests, then you're pro-American. You keep confusing anti-war and anti-Bush with anti-American, and your POV of what's best for the country with pro-American, and that's not necessarily so. They may be misguided, but you cannot conclude that they have nefarious motives.
If the media were working on purpose to destroy morale, what would they do differently?
I take your point on that. If it quacks like a duck... But if someone believes that a pullout is the best option, what is he to do? He pushes his perspective just as you push yours. It seems more constructive to me to point out to him the consequences of his "well-intended" approach rather than to challenge his patriotism. That does this country no good. |
