End of the War?

Posted on April 15, 2003 in War

Talk is that the “war is over”. Faux anti-war activists (who will suddenly turn pro-war once a Democrat lines one up to save his or her political ass) have said goodbye to “hysterics” like me and are preparing to lose the 2004 election by pretty much running things like they always have.

Many are prepared to rest, to dismiss us pacifists as no longer politically useful for their attacks on Bush, and go back to watching their regular programming.

What’s really happened is that the media has given the signal that the 24 hour a day coverage has ended and we can go back to watching unreality TV shows that don’t demand more than a superficial emotional involvement.

In my opinion, too many people tried to walk the dividing line in this one, in the name of “reason”. The real word they should have used is “comfort”. It was psychologically debilitating to watch the 24 hour a day coverage of the war. Which is why I refused to do it and counseled others to avoid it, too. I read, I thought, I nursed a dying cat, I played Flight Simulator, i chatted with international friends, I worked on a short story. I lost friends because I spoke my mind. I didn’t choose comfort in the political arena. I chose to evaluate the quality of the media reports, uncover the subtexts behind the choices we were offered, and made stands based on conscience rather than political expedience. Strangely, though I dreaded that I might be alone, I found new friends and rediscovered a few old ones, stronger ones, who appreciated me for who I was.

Declaring the war over at this point because it is no longer filling our television screens is like saying that a tree falling in the forest doesn’t make a sound if there is no one there to hear it. It’s arrogance of the highest order, suggesting that if news of an Afghani or Iraqi death doesn’t reach us in our comfortable homes it doesn’t happen.