Tuesday, March 05, 2002

THEY STILL DON'T GET IT: "Seven U.S. Soldiers Die in Battle." To read the headlines, you'd think our soldiers were fighting and dying in Somalia or some other third world backwater in support of a poorly-defined mission of no national interest. But we're fighting a war -- a war we didn't start, a war that's already killed 3000 Americans, and a war that won't end with a negotiated surrender, or even unconditional surrender, but when sufficient numbers of Muslim terrorists are dead. No one disparages the grief and loss a single soldier's death inflicts on his family, and as a republic, we can't view our soldiers as war materiel to be freely spent, the way despotisms do. But it's absurd for reporters to react to casulties as a major event. What do they expect? People are shooting bullets and high explosive at each other. If there's any news, it's that American soldiers are fighting a fanatical foe in an inhospitable and alien country and winning at small cost. In the first global war of the century, only a few dozen American soldiers have died. That's a testament to the courage, skill, and technological prowess of American troops. And it's a small price to pay for our liberty. The American public seems to get it. Why can't reporters?

No comments:

Related Posts with Thumbnails