- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
While I can, to some degree, understand why so many are trying to compare the publication fo these images to the non-publication of the cartoons, I don't believe that's the strongest point to be made.
I also understand the complaint that this is old news - but that's not the strongest point.
Some say they should not have been published out of fear of reprisals - and that's not the strongest point.
To me, my fear is that this is nothing new. That these incidents have happened throughout history. And sometimes it is the good guys who behave badly.
Does this make the good guys bad? Not really. It makes them human. It's a sad fact that people in certain situations can behave very badly. Look at the Milgram Experiment for further evidence.
The strongest point here is something I thought we all learned from Viet Nam. The explosion of media coverage brings an immediacy and reality to the public that the public isn't comfortable facing.
The military has always had to do the dirty jobs - some with valid reasons and positive results, some with shadowy rationales and demonic results. How one feels about the situation is a matter of perspective.
We have to get to a point where evidence of existent evil does not damn a whole culture.
Do I think the images should have been published. No. There's no value in it except for the self-interest of the publishers political viewpoint.
Had the media been capable of such widespread disemination of unfavorable content throughout the Civil War or WWI or WWII - I am certain we would have seen the same type of activity or worse. And even the most liberal find a hard time condemning the end results of those conflicts. Time will tell about Iraq.
Should it be minimized - certainly. Can it be eradicated - no. Not until we find a level of world peace that is a long way off.
