I see that British journalist Robert Fisk has picked up on this David Brooks quotation I mentioned a few weeks ago (my emphasis):
<< It's not that we can't accept casualties. History shows that Americans are willing to make sacrifices. The real doubts come when we see ourselves inflicting them. What will happen to the national mood when the news programs start broadcasting images of the brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt? Inevitably, there will be atrocities that will cause many good-hearted people to defect from the cause. They will be tempted to have us retreat into the paradise of our own innocence. >>
Fisk's comment on Brooks' statement was as follows (Telling the truth won't set you free Seattle Post-Intelligencer 11/27/03):
<< What is one to make of this vile nonsense? Why is The New York Times providing space for the advocacy of war crimes by U.S. soldiers? I doubt the U.S. channels will broadcast any images of "brutal measures" -- they've already had the chance to do so and have declined. But atrocities?
<< Are we now to support atrocities against the "scum of the Earth" -- Brooks' word for the insurgents -- in our moral campaign against evil? >>
My take on Brooks' statement in my earlier post was that it represented "an unhealthy degree of enthusiasm for colonial-style war. Think the Phillipines, a century ago. It's really pretty disturbing to see respectable conservative pundits - we're not talking a junkie fanatic like Rush Limbaugh here - start manufacturing blanket excuses for war crimes."
No comments:
Post a Comment