As I've watched the TV news coverage of the war in Iraq over the past few days I've had a few thoughts about how it is to see the war live on camera. I find that I mainly watch Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC because their coverage is 24 hours a day. They also have fewer commercials. I think that this is one of the most surreal events thus far for me...watching a live report from an embedded reporter with a unit deep in Iraq that has been taking fire, and then to see a commercial for new cars or deodorant or fast food. We sit in the safety of our homes while watching soldiers being shot at, in danger, and then we can watch as corporations try to sell us the "latest thing" - it is just a bit disorienting.
My opinion on the use of "embedded" reporters is that it is essentially a good thing. I don't think there is anything else that could give the average American a better idea of what these soldiers go through, of what parts of the war are really like. The caveat here is that what we see is only small bits and pieces of a very large war. There is a tendency to think what we see is all that is happening, and if we think that is true, then we can be surprised when we hear of some major development in another part of Iraq. But in general, the live reports coming in as troops advance into Iraq are absolutely fascinating, scary, shocking, heart-warming, and informative, depending on the report. I think I most appreciate the reports that inform me about some aspect of the military or of war that I never knew before. Watching the other night the feed from the reporter with SkyNews, a British news station, I was intrigued by how carefully and slowly a "skirmish" between Marines and Iraqis progressed. I think because of the movies, movies about war, my impression has always been that if there was a confrontation between armies, the action would happen very quickly. Like, they would see the enemy, target their weapons, and shoot and it would be over. But this incident went on for hours, with careful maneuvering, additions of tanks to the area to add firepower and also proceed in a way that kept the Marines safer. At one point in watching this long live report, I found myself getting up for a snack, feeling like it was boring - then I caught myself thinking that and was horrified. Here I was watching soldiers in danger, Iraqis getting killed, buildings being destroyed, and because of the classic American short attention span, I thought it was boring! Now granted I only had that thought for a moment, and felt guilty for having it for hours afterward, but still...it pointed up to me how much I didn't understand about military actions and how even the way the war is being reported, with live info and constant updates, had influenced me into wanting an immediate result.
Of course, all this is leading up to my main point, which is a statement I've heard mentioned over and over again - that this war is like none other in history. The way in which I've heard that statement most often used is in regard to the television coverage, how we have never been able to see action live as it happens, or get information about conflicts so quickly. I've also heard it used to drive home the point of how superior our weapons technology is now, with bombs guided by GPS, stealthy airplanes, the use of computers for targeting and communications and much more. The bombing of Baghdad being called "shock and awe" (a phrase I am heartily sick of!) is also used in relation to this being a war like none other.
However, my take on this is that yes, this war is like none other in history, but for a very different reason - and the reason is that I don't think there has ever been a war where the dominant military force tried so determinedly to avoid collateral damage, to avoid killing or harming non-combatants. As one reporter today stated outside Nasariyah, if the US military wanted to just get through here (where a variety of battles have raged for the past 24 hours as control of two bridges is exchanged between sides), the US could have just dropped a lot of bombs and cleared out all the opposition fairly easily, and probably with less harm to our troops. But if they did that, there would be high civilian casualties. In the hours-long report I watched mentioned above, I'm sure it could have been resolved much more quickly if a bunch of bombs had been dropped - but again, it would mean more civilian casualties, more damage to the infrastructure. Troops have been ambushed and wounded, even killed, when approaching Iraqis appear to be surrendering. If we had a policy of just shooting any Iraqi seen approaching, there would likely be less military casualities - yet our goal is not to kill every Iraqi but to give them a chance to surrender. Have you ever heard of such a war? I watched footage from airstrikes shown at today's CENTCOM briefing, showing how carefully bombs are targeted that are being dropped on Baghdad - how the bombs destroyed the building of Iraqi secret police, but nothing else nearby was destroyed, with even the walls around the building still left standing. This is unheard of in any military conflict.
I know there are a lot of people against this war, people who see the US as trying to "take over" a country, steal its oil, destroy the Muslim religion, and so on. But I don't think you can really take that view if you watch the TV coverage closely and let yourself see how carefully our military is executing this war, carefully in terms of taking care of civilians. I will not enter into the argument here about whether or not we should be having this war to begin with, but I do think since we are now in this war, we should all do what we can to be supportive of the military troops that are over there. We are in it now, this very unusual kind of war, and to leave now would be disaster for the Iraqi population. So my support is with the troops as they go about the novel idea of waging war while minimizing death.
Posted by pam at March 24, 2003 02:33 PM | Comments (0)