Because If The New York Times Doesn't Report It, It Will Just Go Away
Kerry Howley | October 28, 2005, 9:00am
Editor and Publisher reports that a military spokesperson asked major newspapers to ignore Wednesday's gruesome milestone:
Going against the expressed wishes of the Pentagon, several top U.S. newspapers treated the tragic arrival of the 2,000th American military death in Iraq as a major milestone Wednesday...
On Tuesday, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, a military spokesman in Iraq, wrote in an e-mail to reporters, "The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."
Whole thing here.
Not a Bama | October 28, 2005, 10:56am | #
I am a recently discharged member of the armed forces, so take all of this with a grain of salt. I am very biased.
I do believe 2,000 is a significant number, but I understand people's objections. Is the 2,000th death any better or worse than the 1st or 589th? No, they are all the same. And are those opposed to the war using this to buttress their case? OF COURSE. Therefore, claims that this benchmark is arbitrary are not without merit.
However, I think it's unfair to suggest it's completely arbitrary. As humans we work with whole numbers all the time, both out of habit and for purposes of clarification. Nice round numbers surround us everywhere. We wake up and have one or two cups of coffee, not 2.357 cups. We live in cities that we tell others have nice round numbers, e.g. NYC has 8 million. We see it on ourselves: barring tragedy, we have a round number of fingers, toes, and limbs. Admittedly, these are slightly artifical demarcations, but the point is not necessarily how real or unreal the measurements. Thinking in whole number terms is a natural inclination that happens to make things easy to grasp. Part of the whole number phenomenon is manufactured by us and part of it is visible in reality. Regardless, we use it ALL THE TIME.
Also consider previous tragedies. How many people died in Veitnam? 58,000, right? Well, no, but that whole number provides an easier way to understand it. How many died from the 1918 influenza? 50 million worldwide, right? Not exactly, but that's not really important. What about 9/11? 3,000 right? Not exactly, but putting it in those terms makes the transmission and comprehension of that information easier.
2,000 is a just natural benchmark in our minds. And here's something to consider: 3,000 and 4,000 and 5,000 will also be benchmarks. We will be having this debate again. Round numbers help us to process the information and serve as natural demarcations, whether we like it or not.
So yeah, the left is totally using this to buttress their cause and yeah, 2,000 is no more important a death an 1,999, but the number 2,000 is also an unavoidable line in the sand.
Stevo Darkly | October 28, 2005, 4:36pm | #
1) You know, I'm really conflicted about the war in Iraqi. Unfortunately, I'm also really short on time today, so I may be making the following points badly.
2) I am not only a libertarian but an anarchist. However, of all the branches and bureaus of government, I see much to admire in the military. It is the most honest, honorable, and least threatening branch of government. The people in the military are the best and most moral of all government employees.
- The are the most honest. Government is all about the organized use of force to make people do stuff, or stop doing stuff. The military is open about this. They know it's their job. The NEA and your local school district pretend otherwise.
- Alone among all branches of government, the military has an explicit and detailed code of honor that they actually tried to enforce, strictly and in detail. Imperfectly, of course. But compared to what goes on in Congress or city hall ...
- Alone among all branches of government, it's guns are pointed in the direction I prefer --
away from me.
3) Sometimes violence is necessary. I think we need an organization that does the kind of things the military does. It's a shame that the goverment has seized a monopoly on the military, however, forbidding domestic private competitors, at least on a comparable scale. Given that, if we need large-scale military-type things done, our only choice is to rely on a large government agency, either we must make certain compromises, or we need to forego the goals that we can only obtain by military means, such as large-scale defense.
4) This pre-emptive war in Iraq is a disturbing precendent. Especially since the connections between Iraq and the event of 9-11 are tenuous or indirect at best. However, we are entering the post-nation-state age. This is an era of "war" where the combantants' affiliation with this or that nation-state is becoming incidental. The boundaries between "crime" and "war" are more blurred than ever. The fact that we have one state (the U.S.) claiming to fight "terrorism" by attacking another state (Iraq) is very anachronistic. But it may be the only means we have, because we have to fight this transnational violent crime, and just about the only means we have available to tackle such a job are statist agencies. Mostly. And at least for now. The US's pre-emptive war against Iraq is a very troubling precedent, but it might be a necessary, if very clumsy, attempt to adjust to the new realities of violence in a post-state world.
5) Also, ever since the first time I took "the smallest political test in the world" and learned I might be a libertarian, the isolationist strain of libertarianism has troubled me. Why should Americans be concerned only with the freedom of Americans? This seems like a weird kind of impacted statism to me. Why should we freedom-loving anti-statists only care about freedom within the boundaries of our own state? Are the people who live outside our government's jurisdiction any less human? Isn't "nationalist libertarianism" an oxymoron? Certainly "nationalist anarchism" is, for those of use who are anarcho-capitalists. Shouldn't we be "internationalist libertarians"?
6) The problem, of course, is that if we have to resort to violence to promote freedom outside our state, our only option is to use the military, which is owned by the state. Is that deal with the devil worth making? See also paragraphs 3 and 4 above.
7) If I were president, my private-sector solution to terrorism would be to keep our military at home and say, "I will pay a reward of $5 billion to whomever brings me the head of Osama bin Laden." (Or Saddam Hussein, if he's really a threat.) I'd add, "Any death benefits or damages that must be paid to innocent bystanders as a result of your actions will be deducted from your bounty." That would be cheaper than what we're doing now. It might be more effective. But it would require some changes in national and international law and custom, and we'd have to give private military organizations a lot more freedom to operate than they have now.
8) Finally, I don't think it's quite fair to say, "Hey, freedom-lover, what are YOU personally doing to advance freedom for others overseas?" You know that you and I are legally constrained in what we can do about such things. You can be sincerely against murder and rape and theft and crime, and sincerely pro-lawfulness, but you aren't required to prove it by becoming a private criminal justice system. Legally, all you can do is prepare to defend yourself if the need arises -- IF that. Similarly, you can be a pro-freedom internationalist even if you leave most of the work to the paid professionals, even if, perforce, your only option means relying on paid professional employees of the State.
(That was longer than I wanted. And I could still say more if I had time.)
