I disagree with many of the conclusions Brendan O’Neill draws in his Reason piece, “Is Our Empathy Killing Us?”, but his premise is quite interesting, especially insofar as it addresses a few points I’ve been thinking on recently:
This insurgency is best understood, not as a band of freedom fighters or evil incarnate, but as a movement with an intuitive grasp of the West’s fearful psychology.
Insurgents who pay attention to our debates about the war will notice one thing: We are terrified by death. The authors of the war promised this would be a “clean” invasion in which few would die, while their anti-war opponents obsess over numbers of dead and images of the dead. Both sides have helped to turn death into the defining issue, so it is not surprising that the insurgents should focus on that same issue.
From the beginning, Coalition officials advertised their fear of spilling blood, whether Iraqis’ or their own. Their unrealistic desire for a bloodless battle was summed up by one journalist as follows: “We want to have a clean, crisp, sanitary war in which we suffer few casualties. We want the unfortunate deaths of civilians removed from the process completely…. And, by the way, we want the entire thing wrapped up by next Thursday.” Through their trepidation, officials guaranteed that deaths, when they inevitably occurred, would be taken as evidence that the war had gone horribly wrong.
When large numbers started dying, the Coalition became defensive. The Pentagon’s ban on photographing returning military coffins suggested it was mortified by its dead, seeking to sneak them in the backdoor and hurry them into the earth without anybody noticing. Bush stopped attending military funerals, reportedly because he did not want to bring attention to the number of dead Americans. Last year officials revealed that he spent Easter “praying for American casualties to ebb.”
In turning shamefaced from their dead, embarrassed by their sacrifice and unable to justify it, American leaders sent a clear message to the insurgents: “If you want to get one over on us, kill people. We cannot bear this burden.” Indeed, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most notorious insurgent, seemed to taunt America over its inability to deal with death. A couple of weeks after the controversy over photographing military coffins hit the headlines in April last year, Zarqawi’s group decapitated American civilian Nick Berg, as Zarqawi said: “As for you, Bush, you will only get shroud after shroud and coffin after coffin slaughtered in this manner.” Here, he seemed explicitly to exploit America’s embarrassment about returning coffins by promising more of them.
Of course, “body-bag syndrome”â€â€where people tire of the sacrifices being made by their friends or fellow countrymenâ€â€is a side-effect of many wars, especially unpopular ones. But the war in Iraq seemed to come with a top-down body-bag syndrome built in. This suggested a crisis of conviction among the makers of the war; in other times, our leaders have been willing to send young men to die if it is for something they truly believe in, but here they promised few deaths from the very outset. And by raising this issue of casualties even before the war had begun, they ensured that numbers of deaths would become a major focus.
[…]
The anti-war movement has, unfortunately, made things worse. It has morbidly fixated on the dead. Visit any anti-war website and you will see an Iraq Body Count counter with a ticking toll of civilians killed; it was an anti-war websiteâ€â€The Memory Holeâ€â€that challenged the Pentagon to release photos of American coffins.
Anti-war journalists call for more scenes of death on our TV screens. British columnist Michela Wrong wrote in the New Statesman that she is “sickened and disgusted by the outrageous lack of graphic violence on our screens today,” and called for more “blood and guts” because “we are literal-minded creatures. To believe something we need to see it.” The insurgents have been only too happy to provide this blood and guts. Anti-war activists have pushed the moms and dads of dead U.S. soldiers to the forefront of their campaigns, and demand body counts of Iraqis.
These may seem like radical demands. They can also be seen as a failure of political conviction. In place of a hard debate about new forms of Western intervention and why they’re a problem, we get shock-horror snapshots of dead kids and mangled body parts. This is an attempt to emotionally blackmail the public, rather than politically convince us, into opposing the war. Anti-war activists hope the gore will make us anti-war.
And they, too, send a powerful message to the insurgents: “Blood and guts changes minds. Give us more of it.”
[…] Through our fevered debates about risk, fear, injury and death, we have shown the insurgents how to hit us where it hurtsâ€â€by killing people. We have made injury and fatality into the currency of the conflict, and effectively given a green light to the insurgents to continue killing civilians if they want to make a big impact on the our frail and risk-averse consciousness. Our bombs killed; now our humanity kills.
[My emphases].
It should be noted that O’Neill thinks the Iraq war an unmitigated disaster—and his glancing shot at Bush’s seriousness in taking us to war (“in other times, our leaders have been willing to send young men to die if it is for something they truly believe in, but here they promised few deaths from the very outset”) can be dismissed inasmuch as it comes from a worldview that would characterize as a “bloody disaster” the freeing of 27 million people from decades-long Ba’athist tyranny. But I think O’Neill is correct that we “fear death” in this country, particularly in the context of war—though he misses the reasons why we are so apparently fixated on it.
And that is because it is not death as such that we fear—particularly those of us who support the war—but rather the inevitable spectacle of a parade of “deaths” pushed by an anti-war media that we fear will break our national will and fuel the kind of political opportunism we’re seeing today among many Democratics. This feeling is a defensive reaction to the recycled tropes of the Vietnam War era—the favored weapons in the arsenal of our media elites –and the knowledge that 55 thousand Americans died, ultimately, in a war that was lost here at home in the halls Congress, when political opportunists joined with self-righteous anti-war activists to break the national will, largely through a media-driven propaganda effort. In short, we fear the syndrome moreso than we fear the body bags.
Like O’Neill, I have no doubts that the insurgency has interpreted this ostensible fear of death among the American populace and its elected leaders to mean that it is the deaths themselves that Americans cannot abide; but if I’m right, innocent civilians are dying for a misinterpretation of our true concerns—that what the terrorists who target civilians take as our greatest fear is really only the fear that their actions will be used as a rhetorical tool to nullify the sacrifice of those who died in service to their country.
Or to put it more simply, we fear how the deaths will be used moreso than we fear the deaths themselves, which most of us recognize are an inevitable part of any military engagement.
Anyway, I’m really just kinda thinking aloud here—so please don’t hesitate to chime in with your thoughts. To be clear, though, I don’t mean to minimize the deaths of soldiers; instead, I’m straining to make the case that Americans don’t fear sacrifice provided the cause is just and we have the will to see it through.
It doesn’t help much, Jeff, that Brenden’s premises are false.
Let’s start with this canard: The invasion was a disaster.
Ridiculous assessment for a charge across the desert to a strategic target that will be studied in textbooks for the next few centuries.
Now, in the aftermath, we are faced with an insurgency that is violent for twin reasons. First, to cower Iraqi democracy–and on that account it has been a resounding failure.
It’s second purpose is the one to which Jeff alludes–to make the conflict distasteful to the American public. The terrorists and analyses like O’Neill miss a key distinction: The American public may think Abu Ghraib or fireindfly fire accidents are distasteful, but random car bombs and hostage murders pretty much just make them angry.
I have faith in most people that if given the facts they can distinguish between evil men who kill for the “effect” and military action that kills only when necessary. Now, if we could those who call for retreat to understand the difference.
Anyone that has paid any attention whatsoever to what the jihadis have to say should understand that they see our perceived distaste for death versus their love of death (and the resultant raisins) motivates them on a fundamental basis.
It’s why they think they can win, despite the fact that our guys remaining alive leaves in place them to kill more hajis. The math sucks for them, but they seem not to notice.
That said, mass cowering, cringing and whining is not fucking helpful.
Reason the Nth why you should not expect an honest or even coherent discussion from the left: the same journalistic establishment that refused to show us the victims of 9/11 jumping to their deaths because it might “provoke” us now demand to show us dead American servicemen because they expect it to do exactly the opposite…
Great comment, Mr. mcenroe.
Regarding the article:
I agree with Jeff, that he has a valid point. Unfortunately, Mr. O’Neil dresses his argument in, at best, questionable claims, that he holds as facts. Yet another of our many reasons why this whole political divide thingy won’t end well.
But who the eff knows?
Yikes.
Funny, I remember lots of people saying “Long, hard fight”, not “Clean and easy.”
Our military went in expecting fierce urban combat and chemical weapon strikes. No one sold that as “clean”.
Yeah, I get the feeling Mr O’Neill cheated a bit and is picking things up after the fall of Baghdad.
yeah, sortelli, while reading this the little voice in my head was asking “where did he hear this stuff?” cause i sure don’t remember being told it would be easy.
and i agree with you jeff about how we were more concerned about how deaths would be used by those opposed to our actions.
i’ve discussed with rto about how we don’t usually hear about numbers of combatants we’ve killed, and he seems to think it’s because that’s not a focus/shouldn’t be a focus of the military. we don’t want to encourage troops to kill just to meet some number. or trying to compete with each other or some such.
tw: hundred. so much for avoiding numbers. :(
I think he misses a major point.
For me at least, and I think for many others, it’s not necessarily that death is “feared” or that we’re ashamed of it, but rather we worry about whether a death is “in vain”. I think this can be considered at two levels – Strategic and Tactical.
At the Strategic level, the question is: “Is the Iraq War worth soldiers dying for?” If you accept that at a macro level it is, in that it will help reshape the Middle East into a more friendly place for America AND meets the simple goal of freeing millions under a brutal dictator, therefore making it a noble cause, then you probably agree, the deaths are not in vain. This is my view. This is what makes the mindless rhetoric of many on the Left so annoying. They’re already decided that there is no worthy goal (and in most cases never was), so they immediately want to cut and run, therefore making the over 2000 dead Americans’ deaths completely worthless. They’ve also decided that the war in Iraq on a strategic level has nothing to do with the broader war on Terrorism. I disagree with this as well. The only real alternative they offer for fighting this global war (assuming they even accept that there IS a war), other than hiding in our beds I guess, is to go concentrate on finding Osama Bin Laden. Sure, we’d all like to get the rotten bastard, but is anyone stupid enough to believe that once we have his head on a pike, it will all end? And why Osama, but not Al Zwaqari? Does that mass murderer get a pass? As usual, the Left has no answer here.
Secondarily, from a tactical point of view, the question becomes this: Is a particular policy on the ground causing unnecessary deaths in Iraq? Here’s where my major concern is (coming from someone of course who, though in the military years ago, is nothing more than an armchair General and has never been to Iraq). I’m old enough to remember Vietnam quite well, and I remember one of the major frustrations of the vets was that they’d go in and pay for taking a village or a hill in blood and guts, only to leave said village or hill and watch the Viet Cong come in a retake it. Then they’d go in again and repeat the process. This policy of not taking and holding ground, due to concerns about being labeled “occupiers†I guess, seems to be happening in Iraq as well. This seems to be totally the opposite of what was done in WWII where a town, city or island was taken, held and then guarded, giving the enemy less and less places to hide in. Why we aren’t doing the same thing in Iraq, at least from what I’ve read, it APPEARS we aren’t, I don’t understand. If this is as a result of not having enough troops in country, then that’s probably a valid criticism to throw at our policy. This in particular, at a tactical versus strategic level, is where I worry about useless deaths happening. About young guys “dying in vain” so to speak. However, I could be way off here as well. If there are any folks here that have more insight than me, I’d appreciate your point of view.
O’Neil draws the wrong conclusion about our being inordinately scared of death because he’s likewise fallen for the idea that the war is a failure. Americans can stomach casualties; they just won’t stomach casualties when half their leaders and the MSM relentlessly paints those casualties as a waste of lives. What people would?
We’ve witnessed an amazing turn of events in warfare—the press of democratic nations’ serving as their enemies’ psy-ops.
The minute Bush started talking about why we need to stay the course in Iraq, support for the war began to turn to the positive again. Why?
Simply because Bush demonstrated that he has no intention of cutting and running, which reassured people that the resolve is firm where it counts—in the nation’s leadership. Bush is no LBJ or Nixon, looking to mollify the anti-war kooks at the expense of the troops in their mission.
Even people who don’t remember the Vietnam era personally had to be reassured by that.
I guess we should be slightly encouraged that he seems to be getting a clue how terrorism works, but his idea that it is a new phenomenon and somehow our fault doesn’t leave room for much.
Get us out of Gay now!
What’s this “stay the course” bullshit our Leadership is trying to hand us.
Matthew Shephard died in vain and more Gays die every year.
Show the pictures of “blood and guts” hate violence. Show the coffins. Show them that Gay is not worth it!
Keep our Gays safe. Redeploy them to an already Gay-friendly region, over the horizon and if there’s an interest in the gay lifestyle they’ll be close enough to react quickly.
When you take the time to understand what motivates the Gay-bashers, you’ll see so clearly why we must get out of the way and let life return to normal.
Gay-bashers know that we don’t have the stomach for the useless death of OUR fine Gays.
Show the pictures and the Gays will withdraw.
Get us out of Gay now!
Dammit, replace “Gay” with “Freedom”, or “Black”, or pick one.
The comments by Richard McEnroe and Maggie Katzen are right on the money and I agree wholeheartedly.
One thing I’d thought about when presented with the “our presence in Iraq is producing terrorists” was that terrorists may be producing a resurgence of the Jacksonian Tradition in American politics.
“One thing I’d thought about when presented with the “our presence in Iraq is producing terrorists†was that terrorists may be producing a resurgence of the Jacksonian Tradition in American politics.”
Perhaps, but more than anything I think Americans are getting sick of the world in general. Don’t know if it corresponds with an increasing desire to fight more ruthlessly. We’d never know even if it did, we can barely get poll numbers on torture 2 years into the debate, after the media has presented one side systematically.
“O’Neil draws the wrong conclusion about our being inordinately scared of death because he’s likewise fallen for the idea that the war is a failure. Americans can stomach casualties; they just won’t stomach casualties when half their leaders and the MSM relentlessly paints those casualties as a waste of lives. What people would?”
I think that’s full on target. I read somewhere that the realization the United States would spend 50,000 lives for a shit-hole like Vietnam before tiring shocked much of the Soviet leadership. I mean, even as a totalitarian nation with little avenue for public expression, about 15,000 crippled them in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, our elites drew the wrong message, the one that they wanted to learn in order to restrain the country. “Americans won’t accept casualties.” No, they will, but only so long as they believe the cause is worthwhile and presented as winnable.
“This insurgency is best understood, not as a band of freedom fighters or evil incarnate, but as a movement with an intuitive grasp of the West’s fearful psychology.
Insurgents who pay attention to our debates about the war will notice one thing: We are terrified by death.”
I can’t agree with this characterization of some alleged brilliant familiarity of the West’s weak spots.
When Islamists boast that they aren’t afraid of death, this is a desperate attempt of the embarassed adherents a failing culture to find a single thing in which they are superior. It’s just macho posturing, even if it has a grain of truth.
The anti-war movement has, unfortunately, made things worse. It has morbidly fixated on the dead.
This may have something to do with caring about the troops, and actually honouring the responsibilties civilians have to the troops they send into harms way.
Chief among these responsibilities is to never ask soldiers to die needlessly or for a lie.
well, it’s funny, most of them don’t think they have been lied to. and a lot of them were ready to go well before the u.s. finally took action.
and something else that keeps popping into my head is Somalia, most soldiers i’ve talked to, that really bothered them, and i think that’s why you hear a lot about “finishing the mission” because if it was worth putting people in harms way it’s worth finishing the job.
well, it’s funny, most of them don’t think they have been lied to.
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” – HL Mencken
i think that’s why you hear a lot about “finishing the mission†because if it was worth putting people in harms way it’s worth finishing the job.
Well, let’s see. You’ve been in there for, what, two and half years now, killed tens of thousands of “terrorists”, imprisoned, tortured, beaten to death god knows how many, your finances are strained, your moral credibility is in tatters, your traditional allies look at you with disgust – and the estimated number of people fighting you is getting LARGER.
So, when exactly is the job going to be finished? When you’ve finally bombed people into loving you? When you’ve killed everyone in the country you claim you came to “liberate”?
um, maybe we should wait and see how the elections go. and i think you need to do some more research on force numbers. or provide some sources.
By “you,” you must mean the terrorist insurgents?
everytime I hear someone refer to OIF as a ‘disaster’, I am tempted to ask:
If this is a ‘disaster’ for the West, exactly what word do you think a German/Japanese/Russian would use to describe WWII?