Those Fuckers (or what I learned on TV tonight)
Okay, I know better than to trust TV shows at face value. When one of the cases on Boston Legal tonight (we watch mainly because the wife LOOOOVES James Spader) mentioned that a National Guard enlistee who'd signed up for a "Try 1" one-year trial enlistment had his commitment extended by 26 years (to 2031) under the stop-loss order, I was skeptical.
Lo and behold, it's actually technically true. Of course, the use of that fact in the show was a bit selective, as we liberals can sometimes be. But I found the actual Army message regarding the stop-loss policy, and it basically says that soldiers who were scheduled to "separate" in 2002 (and then 2003 and 2004) would have their separation dates changed to 2031 in the database. They then say that this an arbitrary date and doesn't represent when they'll actually separate. But really, the service could choose to just keep them there that long. I mean, what, you're supposed to TRUST THEM that they'll just let you out in a few months? And hell, even if they did, those few months will mean that some of those guys won't come home, or will come home in pieces.
It's so easy to become complacent and forget how angry we should be, how wrong this war is, how it feels futile to rail against it. But we have WASTED the lives of thousands and thousands of people basically so that our "leaders" don't have to admit they were wrong. And saying that those lives were wasted in no way dishonors them--it's very painful to hear and to say, and I'm sure I would never have the guts to say it to the parent of one of those poor kids. But what I am saying in the safety of my blog here is that those people deserved more. They deserved to not have to die in the desert fighting to basically stay alive. They're not achieving anything there, they're just trying to keep themselves and their fellow soldiers alive until someone decides it's time for them to come home.
It infuriates me to hear Bush and the others say that the reason to stay there and keep fighting is to honor those who have already died. That's such a ridiculous argument. Honoring those men's and women's lives means to me that we try to make sure no one else has to die like they did. Do you really think any of them would want more people to die? Who really gives a rat's ass about "spreading freedom" to Iraq? Do we really think they're going to become a flourishing democracy? Doesn't everyone see the civil war about to explode? Is that really worth us spending more lives on?
This somewhat silly show just made one other good point. Where is the real coverage of this war? All the technology and embedded reporters and live phone cam coverage, and we're not seeing nearly the reality that people saw from Vietnam. We don't see the people dying, the carnage that happens everyday. Twenty Iraqis, forty Iraqis, a hundred Iraqis killed in a bombing, we just don't care. Six Marines died yesterday, and it was just a number on CNN.com. Nothing real.
It's just so hard to stay focussed on the real points with all the crap swirling around. Maybe that sounds like a really obvious point, but it's just dawning on me that the media really is spinning us away from the truth, or at least part of it. I think that if it wasn't for that phenomenon, there would be thousands of people marching on Washington demanding we end this disastrous venture.
Lo and behold, it's actually technically true. Of course, the use of that fact in the show was a bit selective, as we liberals can sometimes be. But I found the actual Army message regarding the stop-loss policy, and it basically says that soldiers who were scheduled to "separate" in 2002 (and then 2003 and 2004) would have their separation dates changed to 2031 in the database. They then say that this an arbitrary date and doesn't represent when they'll actually separate. But really, the service could choose to just keep them there that long. I mean, what, you're supposed to TRUST THEM that they'll just let you out in a few months? And hell, even if they did, those few months will mean that some of those guys won't come home, or will come home in pieces.
It's so easy to become complacent and forget how angry we should be, how wrong this war is, how it feels futile to rail against it. But we have WASTED the lives of thousands and thousands of people basically so that our "leaders" don't have to admit they were wrong. And saying that those lives were wasted in no way dishonors them--it's very painful to hear and to say, and I'm sure I would never have the guts to say it to the parent of one of those poor kids. But what I am saying in the safety of my blog here is that those people deserved more. They deserved to not have to die in the desert fighting to basically stay alive. They're not achieving anything there, they're just trying to keep themselves and their fellow soldiers alive until someone decides it's time for them to come home.
It infuriates me to hear Bush and the others say that the reason to stay there and keep fighting is to honor those who have already died. That's such a ridiculous argument. Honoring those men's and women's lives means to me that we try to make sure no one else has to die like they did. Do you really think any of them would want more people to die? Who really gives a rat's ass about "spreading freedom" to Iraq? Do we really think they're going to become a flourishing democracy? Doesn't everyone see the civil war about to explode? Is that really worth us spending more lives on?
This somewhat silly show just made one other good point. Where is the real coverage of this war? All the technology and embedded reporters and live phone cam coverage, and we're not seeing nearly the reality that people saw from Vietnam. We don't see the people dying, the carnage that happens everyday. Twenty Iraqis, forty Iraqis, a hundred Iraqis killed in a bombing, we just don't care. Six Marines died yesterday, and it was just a number on CNN.com. Nothing real.
It's just so hard to stay focussed on the real points with all the crap swirling around. Maybe that sounds like a really obvious point, but it's just dawning on me that the media really is spinning us away from the truth, or at least part of it. I think that if it wasn't for that phenomenon, there would be thousands of people marching on Washington demanding we end this disastrous venture.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home