I am alarmed by the inability of the Bush administration and our media to address the war in a realistic way. Their credo seems to be, "Keep things simple, stupid." As an American, I am sickened, insulted and embarrassed by this war and its coverage.
The media mistakenly equates being anti-war with being anti-troops, a notion that utterly baffles me. I have heard that it is impossible to separate the troops from the war because "they are the war."
I have seen the "Support Our Troops" signs, but if supporting our troops and being pro-war mean the same thing, where are all the pro-war signs? Why don't the media and the many people who suggest that they, and they alone, support our troops use that language?
The popular answer is that no one is for war; including the people who suggest they support our troops, but who still find it necessary to distinguish themselves from anti-war protesters.
And what about the anti-war protesters? If protesting the war makes them anti-troops, then does that mean their primary concern is to protect Saddam, his regime and the Iraqi people without any concern for the men and women of the Coalition? That doesn't make any sense.
Isn't it obvious that the best way to help our troops is to oppose this war? Apparently, it is not to Mr. Bush or to the American media. By failing to look beyond the polarities of this issue, they have divided the world and done nothing to unite this country or to address the complexity of this war. Beyond its painfully obvious appeal to pathos, the information provided by Mr. Bush has been essentially meaningless. And that is dangerous.
Isn't the complexity of the war also part of the story? Aren't there other ideas besides those expressed by the protesters on our street corners? Have we heard them? Have we seen them?
A few days ago some of our troops took a wrong turn and were "executed." Their images soon surfaced, and the Bush administration protested the release of the photos. The need for this censure, as well as for Mr. Bush's recent refusal to comment "play by play" on the war, illustrates the failure of the Bush administration to understand the cumulative and often contradictory effect of its propaganda.
As far as we know, this war began when the United States bombed a "target of opportunity," a bunker where Saddam was thought to be sleeping. The mission was described as a "decapitation." What Bush and the pundits seem to have overlooked is that the word "decapitation" is inherently concrete, and so it does much more than merely conceptualize strategy: it evokes an image.
Just the idea of beheading someone is horrific and barbaric, and yet the Bush administration spoke of doing this with a strange, self-congratulatory zeal. This suggests Bush and his writers have at least some understanding of the words they are using, which makes all the more troubling their opposition to publish other graphic realities of war.
The implication is that brutality is justified to the extent that we can control it. In reality, brutality is brutality, no matter who commits it. We know this in our hearts and in our heads. Make no mistake: War is a failure of our species.
Who do I think I am to criticize this insane war and the detached way people are talking about it? The more important question is: Whom would I be if I didn't?
Maximilian Werner is an English professor. Reach him at maximilian.werner@asu.edu.
