Friday, March 08, 2002

THE FIRST SENTENCE OF MICHAEL MORAN'S PIECE ON THE WAR READS:

FOR THE FIRST time since the bombardment began in early October, American command miscalculations have produced significant American casualties.

Moran then spends the rest of the column criticizing the Pentagon for being too casualties-phobic, since this is not Vietnam, and the American people can take it.

My question is what are there "aggressive policies" that would have cost fewer than eight lives? Moran seems to be eating his cake and having it, too. American casualties are the result of "American command miscalculation," but at the crux of the article is that we shouldn't be so afraid of casualties. So, which is it? Are casualties an unavoidable consequence of a neccesary war, or the result of "miscalculations?"

Moran says that the military shouldn't be concerned about support from the homeland, since households aren't being toran apart. Perhaps Moran didn't read the story about Katha Pollitt and her daughter, who wanted to fly the flag in their home, against her mother's protestations -- and this was in early October!. It's eerily similar to the story Moran recounts about the peace sign he wanted to hang on his door as a child. Oh, Pollitt is a marginalized figure, you say? Maybe, but don't tell me that there aren't similar stories that have unfolded in the last six months.
Post a Comment