College is technically over for me, but I've still got lots to finish. I can't, however, get over this particular conundrum:
There is a debate over whether Obama should release the images of Osama bin Laden's corpse. There is an argument to be made, an argument that existed BEFORE this debate, that the American people are so shielded from the images of war that they are oblivious to the real pain, suffering, trauma, etc. that it generates. If people are so oblivious to these qualities of war- qualities that are an inherent part of any war - they will more readily support wars, whether they are on-going, currently being debated, or in the unforeseeable future. Indeed, when you make war less atrocious, you make it more palatable. This, I believe, is extremely undesirable.
On the other side of the debate, people claim that the frequent exposure to images exposing the more grisly, ugly, and painful elements of war will eventually desensitize us, making us less moved by the images, and thus reducing our general reaction to violence and pain altogether. I'm not sure about the psychology behind this, but it seems a reasonable point to make.
The reason I bring this debate up at all is that one of my true heroes, Jon Stewart, often a voice of reason, cutting through the cacophony of extremist, alarmist, and over-the-top talking heads, has just come out supporting the release of the pictures. He cites, more or less, argument number 1. While I, in some ways, agree with his sentiment, what kind of implication does releasing Osama's picture as the first of these pictures to reveal war's atrocities have? I know it'll please many - I don't know how many minds will be changed by it. I think, all in all, to call for the release of this photo in particular in order to start a trend of more honest depictions of war, is quite an intellectually dishonest claim.
First of all, this was not a product of war. This was the product of a 10 year manhunt; a concerted Navy SEALs operation. This was devoid of so many of the elements of war, that to say it can help the American people decide whether they truly support war or not is just plain wrong. Second of all, Jon has not hidden how personally biased he is by his closeness to 9/11 (both spatially and spiritually). He said this bias precludes him from being any sort of "reasonable" commentator on the subject. And though maybe I should have taken that claim seriously, I can't help but be surprised by his temporary abdication of the role of most reasonable man on television. He's been the mouthpiece of the people who just can't support or abide by the extreme elements in our society, and we've looked up to him for a long time. But here he has justified his foray into extremism by saying it can help the American people decide about war. He has put "reasonable" make-up on his extreme idea, and when he blurs the line he himself has painted, he loses some credibility in my eyes.
So I say no: we can't start to portray a more honest picture of war with the corpse of former public enemy number 1. I don't know how we do portray war more honestly, but this isn't the place start; we're as bloodthirsty as ever, as a nation, and putting that picture in circulation is the last thing that will make us think reasonably.
i kind've feel like a widespread release of the photo might jerk some of the zealot crowd back to reality. by this crowd, i mean people partying in the streets, jerking off to bin laden memes while playing 'america fuck yeah' on repeat, etc.
ReplyDeletewhich wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to me. but it could also make the same crowd more zealous.
at the end of the day it really doesn't seem that important to me. it's something for armchair intellectuals to obsess over-- pragmatically and realistically, i don't think it will have much of an effect on the war, on american politics, on american culture, on how americans are perceived, etc.
First off, kudos for pointing out the fact that a bullet riddled Osama is a not a depiction of war. A war implies two equally armed groups... and although there have been more lopsided battles than the U.S. v. Osama (cuz he certainly had some resources) it's still a silly use of the word.
ReplyDelete2: Although i'm not sure these pictures would count, I think there is something to say as far as honesty/clarity in the government. We could use more of it, and "getting our way" and having the pictures released might be a good step.
Last: I find it sorta silly to use the word extremist/zealot for almost any political activity in America. There are things people do here that I find to be unimaginable and the extremes of American politics sicken me on a daily basis. That being said if you were to plot the extremes of American politics on a line chart they would be dancing cheek-to-cheek right over the center line as compared with the global scale... be thankful that Glenn Beck is the caricature of American politics that he is.