Entrekin

Because, apparently, the way to make more Americans aware of what’s going on over in a land most people who support the war probably couldn’t point to on a map is to publish an article about how little people care about it:

Even as we celebrate generations of American soldiers past, the women and men who are making that sacrifice today in Iraq and Afghanistan receive less attention every day. There’s plenty of blame to go around: battle fatigue at home, failing media resolve and a government intent on controlling information from the battlefield.

Except, of course, we’re not celebrating generations of American soldiers past, nor the women and men who are making that sacrifice today . . . today stands in memory of those who have made that sacrifice–those whose lives have been lost.

So far:
Since the war began on March 19, 2003–10,770

With, apparently, between 23,000 and 100,000 wounded, although I don’t quite get that disparity; that’s a difference of 75,000 people. I wonder how they’re measuring.

And though Memorial Day is supposed to be for American service personnel who have lost their lives, I thought I’d expand it to include the 91,703 Iraqi civilians who’ve died as a result of US occupation.

(nb–I realize those websites have names that don’t really lend themselves to citation [antiwar.com, for one, seems to wear its raison d'etre on its sleeve], but their information gathering methods seemed mostly sound)

Citing, of course, “a known al Qaeda terrorist.” Killing three women and three children, so far, though the Pentagon won’t release further details and the military says it’s still collecting casualty information.

CNN seems to have spoken to one District Commissioner Dherre, though:

Dherre told CNN he did not know of any Islamist extremists in the village.

The United States conducted similar strikes in southern Somalia in January 2007 against al Qaeda targets, hoping to kill some of the militants suspected in the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

U.S. officials later confirmed they did not believe they achieved that goal.

CNN the other day: Prince Harry sent home from Afghanistan.

For security reasons.

Because apparently, and this might just come as some sort of a shocker, he could have, like, died. In combat, or something, I think. I got the impression from the article that there might be some fighting going on, there. It certainly noted that a lot of people thought there might be some “risk” to his being over there.

He’d been there since December. So he was there for two whole months. In, like, the desert. Because Afghanistan’s mostly desert, isn’t it?

Here’s Harry, at some point during his tour:

Here’s another of him looking extraordinarily stoic, like a British soldier ought to. You can’t see beyond his sporty sunglasses, but I’ll bet his eyes are troubled:

Of his tour, the Prince noted “At the end of the day I like to sort of be a normal person, and for once I think this is about as normal as I’m ever going to get. As far as I’m concerned, I’m out here as a normal JTAC on the ground and not as Prince Harry.”

Okay, let’s shut the sarcasm off and really address this. Because I think we need to.

First, I applaud Harry for having gone. For having enlisted, and for having the cojones to put on a uniform and get his arse out there. It’s kind of like if Bush II had not shirked his every responsibility to the military but instead had ended up serving as a general in Bush I’s Gulf War I, back in ’92. We pay a lot of attention to presidents’ and candidates’ previous military records, but rarely do we look at their progenies’, which is probably why I cannot think of a single sitting president’s child’s serving in a war. I’m sure there have probably been a couple, but my point is we don’t hear about it much. So a “well done” to Harry for going.

Then again, his being a Prince and such, I’m just wondering if a better example for him to set would be diplomatic. Given the old saw that fighting for peace is like fucking for celibacy . . . surely, being a prince, he could establish relations with major entities and help in that way. Like I said, I admire and respect that he went, but I just wonder if he would have been better equipped to serve both his country and the world in other ways. Call me crazy, but Harry, in fact, seems like perhaps the perfect person to finally step boldly up and say, to world leaders in general, “Look, you’ve had your go, and you’re doin’ it wrong. The world’s not yours anymore. It belongs to my generation, and it’s about damned time we fixed it. So we’re going to help you try, because we’ve been letting you try and you’re only making it worse.”

Of course, the sensationalist media has more than a little to do with it. Not just whoever broke the story that he was there, but the media that propagates unquestionable support for the military, much of which consists merely of automata following orders with little to no question whatsoever. The media who roll over and pant for ratings and fail utterly in their delivery of important information to the people who need it. The media who broke the story that the prince was there but so rarely focus on the other men and women who are serving and dying every fucking day of the week?

And what of those other men and women? Is one human worth more than another merely by a coincidence of birth and heritage? Is the risk to a particular human with a photograph-ready smile really that much greater than to every other man and women currently dressed in desert camo? And though I understand that one of the major reasons they withdrew Harry was not so much that he was at risk but rather that his presence in his unit put said unit at somewhat greater risk for targeting, the risk was merely mitigated, only slightly decreased. Because that unit is in a war; they might be at slightly decreased risk now that the prince is no longer among their ranks, but they are still at considerable risk.

Which means I’ll end how I always end when I talk about the current state of global warfare.

Support our troops: Bring ‘em home.