Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
It may do nothing to answer them, but it does raise the profile. How many times a year does the average person think about the war in Afghanistan? Compare that to the cost, impact and deaths involved. Perhaps it deserves to be a higher profile issue, perhaps it deserves fair coverage?
If you are arguing against these leaked documents it seems based on that same logic you should be against journalists being allowed to travel with troops. Basically if seems as if you are arguing against transparency, against information, against truth.
Does this not also balance out of own biased coverage? When do we hear about the war? Typically only when a Canadian is killed. A soldier signs up and knows he may risk his life in that occupation. Who's speaking for all the dead Afghani's? For all the ones that aren't soldiers, that were minding their own business when they got shot up because their bus driver didn't slow down fast enough or move far enough out of the way? You want their voices silenced?
Sure we can debate the war philosophically without these leaks, but we don't. But leaks like this make it possible. It brings the debate back into the public sphere. It makes it important again. It makes people wonder what is really going on, why we went there, is raises questions.
I guess you don't want the questions raised and a lot of people do.
|
Embedded journalists are first of all, trusted by the soldiers they are covering in action. They have to put a name to what they write and stand by their own words. Something that the cowardly parties responsible for the leaking of these documents will never have to do.
Second, embedded journalists are still governed by rules. For example. they are not allowed to cover or even see special forces units who are doing most of the dirty work.
What is transparency? What is truth? We can't answer these questions if we don't have the philosophical or moral training to judge and qualify them appropriately. Frankly, most people nowadays live in the darkness of ignorance and even with the so-called transparency provided by these documents, they are not capable of making fit decisions for themselves on an issue like Afghanistan.
The state must also operate abroad under some umbrella of secrecy from its citizens. Especially now, where vigilance is viewed more as fear-mongering and courage is viewed as bullying.
War has never been a straight-forward moral process like building a hospital. It involves horrifying aspects of the human psyche (as well as some of the more glorious ones) and perpetuates (but also solves) injustice.
We can argue these premises without the documents. Regardless of the leaks, we know that civilian deaths are occurring (although the documents indicate that even those numbers are rather paltry given the length and scale of the conflict) and we can still ask ourselves basic moral questions like "is innocent death acceptable in the face of accomplishing a greater good?"
Very few people in this thread have shown to me that they are capable of answering that question outside of basic confirmation bias. Yourself included.
What I am decrying is the lack of resolve and courage displayed by so many Canadian citizens in the face of, what seems to me, a moral conflict worthy of our participation, resolve, and hopefully, eventual victory.
During the Second World War, the Canadian Bomber Command firebombed German cities participating in the deaths of 10s of 1000s of German civilians. In retrospect, it appears that it may have not been an essential duty to execute the end of the war. We feel the appropriate shame for our actions, but we also know that, at least, they were done in the name of a higher cause. Defeating the Nazis.
What about the Taliban? Everything I know and have heard is that the Taliban is a vicious and disgusting enemy that scapegoats women and religious minorities in order to maintain its own power. They use cowardly tactics, such as suicide bombing, to kill our soldiers without any hesitation of killing other Afghans.
Why all the relativism now?