Impersonal objectification

Neo-conservative Joshua Muravchik is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. I read through his recent LA Times editorial essay.

Neo-con Muravchik says we must bomb Iran


Contrast it to the most recent New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh.

The Next Act - Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?

No surprise here, neo-con Murazchik believes that Iran is coming closer to the development of a nuclear weapon, "day by day." He argues for bombing Iran sooner rather than later. Hersh on the other hand produces reports from the CIA that say nothing doing they are not close to making a weapon. Hersh goes further and states that the neo-conservative office of Vice President Cheney rejects the CIA intelligence on Iran and consequently they also state that because there is no physical evidence then the Iranians must be hiding the nuclear weapon production facility, so all the more reason to bomb them!

If you are wondering where President Bush gets his information about Iraq which allows him to express optimistic words about the occupation effort, look to the American Enterprise Institute. It would be fair to call the Institute a hotbed of neo-conservative activity.

This excerpt is from an article titled Time for a Heavier Footprint written by American Enterprise Institute neo-conservatives Kristol and Kagan.

"...Falluja was cleared in late 2004 and has been held. Tal Afar, cleared unsuccessfully twice before, was finally cleared and effective government established in 2005. Mosul soon followed. The Iraqi military that failed in 2004 was disbanded and replaced by Iraqi units that have subsequently fought well in Tal Afar, Ramadi, Baghdad, and elsewhere. No major Iraqi cities are under the control of insurgents as Falluja and Tal Afar once were. The Iraqi government has supported a number of clear-and-hold efforts around the country, including in many neighborhoods in Baghdad. All these developments are important and even heartening judged against the calamitous situation we faced in 2004."

I was struck by the language used to describe a battle which undoubtedly killed and maimed people. The term is "clear and hold." It is a characteristic of all neo-conservative writing that I have seen to this point, to objectify the result of war in its most violent aspect. The deaths of many civilian and military people on both sides through battle is summed up as "clear and hold" when there is an American victory over an insurgent stronghold. Contrast the coldness of this term to the actual bloodletting, suffering, destruction, displacement, shock, and deep grieving that is the result of war.

Addendum: Its important to remember that many of those "cleared" were Iraqis. Does it make sense for America to use terms like "clear and hold" in a country that we are trying to liberate? This is incredibly bad judgement on the part of Kristol and the neo-conservatvies. This only inflames the Iraqis. It makes me shake my head in disbelief.