It sounds eerily like the Cold War - and that is no mistake.I guess this means we all have time to reread 1984 a few more times.
The 'Long War' is the name Washington is using to rebrand the new world conflict, this time against terrorism.
Now the US military is revealing details of how it is planning to fight this very different type of war.
It is also preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will dominate the next 20 years.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Could it be worse? Well, yes. BBC NEWS | Americas | Planning the US 'Long War' on terror (news.bbc.co.uk, 4/10/06):
Sunday, April 09, 2006
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq three years on: A bleak tale (news.bbc.co.uk, 3/17/06). This article quotes Prof. Cole, of the blog Informed Comment, with a particularly sad status report:
How embarrassing for U.S. representatives to have a double standard about mass graves. As if they are only important if the maker of them is our political enemy. As if the people in them are less dead.
*
Having double standards about mass graves leads to some awkward questions about the attitude toward war in general. It may be a stretch, but I think it would be nice if we can all be appalled equally. I recall being vexed by reporting of mass graves in the past, when it turned out that graves discovered in Iraq contained evidence that they were actually from the Iran-Iraq war. I remember feeling a bit outraged over being... how can I say it. Used? Manipulated. Manipulated into thinking that the mass grave somehow justified the use of more violence by the U.S. there, when it was something else entirely. But STILL VERY SAD. I would have been sad even if the mass grave was filled with people from Iran from that war. Or people from Iran who were killed with illegal chemical weapons by Iraq, an action that the U.S. condoned. (gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/).
Because those people would still be dead. Dead for really unfortunate, unnecessary reasons.
One of the things that creeps me out about the current political situation, is that there are so many people who seem to believe that atrocities that result in mass graves are only horrid if they were committed by people we don't like. The way atrocities are reported, the descriptions are eerie reminders of horrors we read about in history, things that were NEVER supposed to happen again, and yet the justifications have begun anew.
'Same as it ever was.
A belief that humanity can really improve and become ethical should not be a casualty of this war. Yet...
"Some 80 bodies have been found in Baghdad and environs since Monday. On Tuesday alone, police discovered 46 bodies around the capital. They appear mostly to have been Sunni Arabs targeted by enraged Shias attacked by the guerrillas during the past three weeks.There are also quotes from people who think things are going fine. Those people are also not Iraqis, and the sunny things they say are not compatible with news about mass graves.
"Some were in the back of a minibus. Some were in a mass grave in Shia east Baghdad. The latter were discovered when passers-by saw blood oozing out of the earth. Blood oozing out of the earth is a good metaphor for Iraq nowadays."
How embarrassing for U.S. representatives to have a double standard about mass graves. As if they are only important if the maker of them is our political enemy. As if the people in them are less dead.
*
Having double standards about mass graves leads to some awkward questions about the attitude toward war in general. It may be a stretch, but I think it would be nice if we can all be appalled equally. I recall being vexed by reporting of mass graves in the past, when it turned out that graves discovered in Iraq contained evidence that they were actually from the Iran-Iraq war. I remember feeling a bit outraged over being... how can I say it. Used? Manipulated. Manipulated into thinking that the mass grave somehow justified the use of more violence by the U.S. there, when it was something else entirely. But STILL VERY SAD. I would have been sad even if the mass grave was filled with people from Iran from that war. Or people from Iran who were killed with illegal chemical weapons by Iraq, an action that the U.S. condoned. (gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/).
Because those people would still be dead. Dead for really unfortunate, unnecessary reasons.
One of the things that creeps me out about the current political situation, is that there are so many people who seem to believe that atrocities that result in mass graves are only horrid if they were committed by people we don't like. The way atrocities are reported, the descriptions are eerie reminders of horrors we read about in history, things that were NEVER supposed to happen again, and yet the justifications have begun anew.
'Same as it ever was.
A belief that humanity can really improve and become ethical should not be a casualty of this war. Yet...