Regarding the prisoner abuse in Iraq, it is funny that it’s being spun as a mirror image of the ongoing insurgency: “just a few bad apples”, but even army-adorationist Ralph Peters understands that it’s disastrous. Wasn’t it just last week Dave posted that foreign policy review mentioning the symbolic blindness of using a hated prison for essentially the same purpose it had under Saddam? “Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.”
Still, while I’d like to see the Geneva Convention as humane and progressive, there’s a sense in which it’s just a way of legitimating war. One of the great American myths I heard as a child was about how the clever colonial revolutionaries defeated the effete British who were so stupid that they just marched up in well-ordered lines presenting our crafty (guerrilla) sharpshooters with easy targets. In fact, the Brits were practicing “civilized” and “honorable” war as it had been developed in Europe over centuries, ameliorating the martial chaos of the Dark Ages, and they thought that the colonists weren’t playing fair or going by the “rules of war.” (In keeping with the May Day theme, it may be noted that to the Europeans it was evident that the colonials had lost touch with the cultural values of their motherland, having been made wild by living in a wild country.) But what’s with the notion of “we’re going to kill you, but we’ll be polite about it”? When push comes to shove (comes to shoot) this stuff always goes out the window, and there’s a certain level of hypocrisy in pretending otherwise. Being nice about killing is not to be decried, but it’s just a small step on an old road; what we need is a quantum leap. War crimes is a redundancy.
thanks Alex. That articulates something that's been bugging me about all this too. I think that pictures of individual de-humanising acts on individual people serve as a symbol that we can metnally grasp for the bigger cultural fact of dehumanising entire populations (demographics of poverty and crime within our own borders, but that's another issue). It is not hyperbole to liken this to the Nazi holocaust. Then, the pictures were not seen by the world til after the disaster. Now, there may not be an "after," as its unclear just what needs to happen to make this stop.
Funny..? Certain level of hypocrisy...? Quantum leap? ..WE ?... I mean as long as I'm already considered the Necrotizing Fasciitus (VAS-Very Aggressive Strain) on this bower of blissful ignorance I'm just going to have to offer my two cents...only I already forgot what I was going to say. Well there is that scene in Apocalypse where Willard finishes off a quantum of woman & children & Lance saves the puppy. Jesus Fucking Christ I'm glad I've begun to fatten myself on Aztec Batmilk & Black Forest Thornapples for my long climb to the top of the food chain. Prosit!
|
Still, while I’d like to see the Geneva Convention as humane and progressive, there’s a sense in which it’s just a way of legitimating war. One of the great American myths I heard as a child was about how the clever colonial revolutionaries defeated the effete British who were so stupid that they just marched up in well-ordered lines presenting our crafty (guerrilla) sharpshooters with easy targets. In fact, the Brits were practicing “civilized” and “honorable” war as it had been developed in Europe over centuries, ameliorating the martial chaos of the Dark Ages, and they thought that the colonists weren’t playing fair or going by the “rules of war.” (In keeping with the May Day theme, it may be noted that to the Europeans it was evident that the colonials had lost touch with the cultural values of their motherland, having been made wild by living in a wild country.) But what’s with the notion of “we’re going to kill you, but we’ll be polite about it”? When push comes to shove (comes to shoot) this stuff always goes out the window, and there’s a certain level of hypocrisy in pretending otherwise. Being nice about killing is not to be decried, but it’s just a small step on an old road; what we need is a quantum leap. War crimes is a redundancy.
- alex 5-02-2004 7:38 pm
thanks Alex. That articulates something that's been bugging me about all this too. I think that pictures of individual de-humanising acts on individual people serve as a symbol that we can metnally grasp for the bigger cultural fact of dehumanising entire populations (demographics of poverty and crime within our own borders, but that's another issue). It is not hyperbole to liken this to the Nazi holocaust. Then, the pictures were not seen by the world til after the disaster. Now, there may not be an "after," as its unclear just what needs to happen to make this stop.
- sally mckay 5-02-2004 7:58 pm [add a comment]
Funny..? Certain level of hypocrisy...? Quantum leap? ..WE ?... I mean as long as I'm already considered the Necrotizing Fasciitus (VAS-Very Aggressive Strain) on this bower of blissful ignorance I'm just going to have to offer my two cents...only I already forgot what I was going to say. Well there is that scene in Apocalypse where Willard finishes off a quantum of woman & children & Lance saves the puppy. Jesus Fucking Christ I'm glad I've begun to fatten myself on Aztec Batmilk & Black Forest Thornapples for my long climb to the top of the food chain. Prosit!
- Lowly Indignator (guest) 5-03-2004 9:26 pm [add a comment]