Sean-Paul, the Agonist, is blogging up a whirlwind. His war coverage is a stunning display of talent, stamina and resourcefulness.
I have been thinking about the peace, but my thoughts get crowded out by the periodic rants I direct towards the radio. NPR is rather single-minded about opening up every aspect of the negative aspects of the war, which annoys me for some reason. KFI, the local talk radio, indulges in blatant hyperbole and disgusting slander which nullifies the benefits of their common sense approach. A day of listening to the radio gives one the impression that all the intelligent and thoughtful folks are searching for every reason to focus on the pain and tragedy, and all the normal folks are solely jazzed about the superior technology that goes boom on the bad guys.
The question arises, "What is the worst thing that could happen?". The worst thing that could happen is that we could lose the war. Of all the handicapping that goes on, particularly that of the journalists who were wondering aloud what happened to the Shock and Awe (tm) on day one, nobody considers losing to be a real possibility. Therefore we all assume that we indeed will win the war, destroy the Iraqi regime and set up a new one. But few folks seem content with that desirable outcome. Instead of acknowledging the simple fact that the ends are very good, the focus of debate has become what's the worst way we can win, with the tacit implication that is the course we inevitably will follow. The nightmare scenario is thus, everything that upsets the delicate sensibilities of those 'intelligent' and 'moral' enough to criticize this war. So millions of folks will become instant pundits, using the neologisms of the Pentagon as a foil for their insights. Americans will be re-weighing collateral damage and re-assessing bomb damage assessments. It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. Since the game of removing dictators, by some lights involves diplomacy, we have already lost. Grotesque war details only add insult to injury. By the time peace is won, the self-righteous war critics will have already lost interest having made their case.
This is all interesting to me in the way that such opinions will be formed as people attempt to make sense of a thousand things they never before considered. Uhm Qasr. Bridge crossings, laser guided munitions, Ali Hassan al-Majid, and a thousand and one other terms must be wrestled to the ground in mounting a criticism of the prosecution of a war. During the war, when the Pentagon is briefing the world on a daily basis, the critics can only nitpick. When the Pentagon goes silent, the doves will have their way with the ‘real truth’.
I have said that truth serves nobody, and that justice is impossible during war. So I think it is a waste of time to make arguments in search of the truth during war. Now would be a good time to review the failure of diplomacy in the beginning or to think clearly about what is to come in the post-Saddam Iraq.
The Agonist’s play-by-play is as good as any I could hope for, without paying an arm and a leg for insider subscriptions. So I will watch the bombs bursting in air from there. I hope I don’t have to shout at my radio or anyone else who comes along moralizing about the cruelty of battle.