About That Marine
INDC Journal
Monday night on CNN I heard the dreaded comparison of the recent Marine shooting of a wounded man to the Abu Ghraib scandal, and my immediate thought was ... "no."
No. We are not going to let the MSM do this. We are not going to let them blow up an incident that took place in the heat of asymmetrical urban combat amid booby-trapped bodies and enemy atrocities into a full-scale worldwide spectacle of American self-flagellation. When Abu Ghraib took place, I was disgusted by the repellent actions of the soldiers that casually abused their prisoners; I wanted them punished for the damage that they did to US credibility as well as the shocking impropriety of their actions. But within two weeks, after dozens of front-page stories and top features crowded major dailies and cable news broadcasts, my sentiments shifted to anger at the US media for once again sensationalizing and taking an issue out of context, and incessantly editorializing condemnation of the Bush Administration and the much larger effort in Iraq.
How many front-page items has the NY Times run about the construction of schools and the supply of hospitals? How many front-page pieces have featured the stories of American soldiers' courage and charity to local Iraqis? How many reporters have delved into the torture and oppression of the previous regime and the post-war reactions of its former victims? These angles that might provide beneficial context to the larger conduct and aftermath of the war have represented an infinitessimal sliver of the news coverage coming from Iraq. In comparison, the MSM marinated in weeks of features about the misconduct at Abu Ghraib, effectively practicing a form of moral equivalence that is ultimately destructive to the war effort and harmful to our society.
Most MSM outlets can't muster up the outrage to energetically condemn the extremist forces that decapitate innocents on camera and wave the severed heads in the air, or shoot blinfolded women in the head, but are all too ready to swarm over primarily non-fatal psychological abuse conducted by a cadre of undisciplined soldiers and their incompetent management, or the possibly criminal execution of a wounded Iraqi in the heat of urban combat, because the negative incidents selectively lend credence to their predetermined narrative: the war is a misguided, ignoble effort that dehumanizes all participants. And it's always more comfortable for liberal elitists to practice self-critical moral equivalence within their own societal sphere than to label extremist elements of a foreign culture as psycopathic murderers that demand extermination.
To be clear - I am not suggesting that Abu Ghraib and the shooting in Fallujah are incidents that should have been buried by a patriotic press corps. As a society that gains strength from openness and self-criticism, it's usually in our ultimate best interest to obtain as much information as possible - good or bad. But the revelation of these stories need to be editorialized and reported in the proper context, along with a small fraction of the thousands of unreported tales of positive conduct by Americans, shockingly improper conduct by our enemies and systematic US Military justice that typically sets our actions apart from those of our terrorist enemies.
We will not let them get away with demonizing this Marine and in turn extrapolating the incident to a demonization of America and the greater war effort. If Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Zahn, Woodruff and the editors of the NYT want to subject America to incessant prejudgment and critcism of the actions of one Marine that was under an incredible amount of stress and had been shot in the face the previous day, go for it. Because now that the election's over, I've realized that they're surely losing their monopoly on narrative and audience share. The MSM threw everthing and the kitchen sink at the Bush Administration and the efforts often backfired, and we now know that this country still maintains a healthy majority that rejects moral equivalence and underconfidence in America. As a result, if the MSM decides to overzealously pursue this story, they will also continue to diminish themselves in the eyes of their audience, and alternative media sources will once again be on hand to grimly enable their departure from relevance.
Comments
I disagree. Let the MSM hyperventilate, let them blow this into the next 60 minutes segment, let them slobber over this for weeks. Most Americans, certainly the Red-staters, will shrug and say,"Well, yes, that's what happens in war. You shoot them before they shoot you." I, myself, don't understnad why this non-story is being touted at all. It may just be me, but I thought this was how war went. You fire on the enemy--wounded, feigning dead, whatever. The Left is demanding a defense for an action that wasn't criminal in the first place. Perhaps this is a new tactic--re-define the rules of war to impose the greatest limitation on our military. But even worse than a few miscreants playing Abu-Grabass, now they're trying to impugn soldiers actually engaged in combat?? Fine. Let it run. Americans will shake their heads and wonder what world Brokaw, et al. inhabit. Ironically, this being war and all, it was a French guy that said it best--when your enemy is busy making mistakes, take care not to get in his way.
Posted by: T Marcell at November 17, 2004 01:52 PM
A. Not sure where your disagreement lies. You WANT the media to hyperventilate? The crux of my post is that I'm almost comfortable with it - as it will only hurt their credibility.
B. We don't know the facts or extenuating circumstances. While I tend to give a confused Marine operating in an environment with booby traps and suicide bombers the benefit of the doubt, shooting an unarmed wounded combatant IS a war crime.
The question is how the Marine perceived the situation. I'm confident that with 10 witnesses and video footage, the military will conduct a proper investigation that hashes out the truth of the matter.
indcjournal.com |
