The Pentagon sent out a creepy request to US newspapers: Don't cover the 2000th US death in Iraq as a grave event.
Why not cover the milestone? Because, the Pentagon warned, of groups with "specific agendas" and "ulterior motives." This request, according to a story in Editor & Publisher, was rebuked by major US news outlets who covered the milestone despite the Pentagon's request. The E&P story is a good read, and it's nice to see how US papers covered the grim details of the human costs of war. But I'm more interested in the Pentagon's request.
From the E&P story:
On Tuesday, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, a military spokesman in Iraq, wrote in an e-mail to reporters, "The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."
Okay, Lt. Col. Orwell. Just how does the Pentagon get off describing dissent like that? Specific agendas and ulterior motives. And just might those motives be?
I suppose you could say that the Pentagon's way of saying "those opposed to the war" is those with "specific agendas and ulterior motives." But I read more into the phrase used by Lt. Col. Orwell.
"Ulterior motives" sounds sinister, almost like implying that there are motives beyond just wanting an end to the war. And it gets close to implying that the pro-peace activists are actually aiding the "enemy." The suggestion (or hint) made by the military that those who oppose the war are sinister is plain wrong. Americans lobbying the government (that's right, it's our fucking government, you morons!) for a chance in government policy cannot be treated as suspect by our military. Period.
Moreover, Lt. Col. Orwell also urged reporters to think about the reporting of all those deaths might affect families and soldiers in Iraq, writing in the same e-mail (and reported in a related story):
"I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq."
My reply: It's time for the Pentagon's press office to think about why their Commander in Chief keeps sending American soldiers to Iraq to kill and get killed for a war that can't be won. And once they've thought long and hard about that, then perhaps they can ask the press why they were so damn complicit in getting America into this hellhole war of choice in the first place.
Cross posted: Political Porn