My mother isn't a major radical, but I guess the coverage of the war has been a wee bit much for her. Two weeks ago she sort of lost it and sent me the following rant via e-mail.
\Hello Darling, In today's newspaper there is a photo of our latest weapon of mass destruction, 'THE MOTHER OF ALL BOMBS.' As your mother, I don't want a 21,500 pound death machine to share the same title! Perhaps we could call it something else. How about 'Barbara'? Let's name it after George's mother. Maybe Bush would be less inclined to use it if the media reports were to say, 'Barbara was dropped on Baghdad today and she slaughtered thousands of innocent people.' I want to know why we've given this bomb a feminine nickname when it looks very phallic in design. Consequently, it should be called, 'Dubya's Dildo of Destruction.' Or, maybe call it, 'Bend Over.' How 'bout, 'The Dick Cheney'? After all, one of Bush's infamous quotes is, 'Saddam Hussein has been dicking the world.' Yes, the President of the United States used the frat-boy phrase, 'dicking the world.' George now has the perfect weapon to do the same ... Love, Your Mother""
I'm not infatuated with Freud and believe that all weapons are basically unconscious stand-ins for the phallus: the bigger, longer and more destructive, the better. Arguing that nations wage war merely to show off the strength and prowess of the men (and women) who run them represents a gross oversimplification of military action. On the other hand, coverage of our involvement in Iraq thus far has been delivered with the sort of snarky, macho tone that suggests news and government commentators might have lost the ability to distinguish between an honest -to-God war and the newest version of Grand Theft Auto.
The first night of the bombing, I was shocked to hear NBC's Tom Brokaw smugly comment that the United States' reliance on precision guided bombs was smart because ""we're going to own that country soon, and we don't want to do too much damage."" NBC, along with most other networks, opted out of providing footage of actual war casualties in favor of graphics featuring computer animated bombers; complete with stats on their destructive capabilities, speeds, distances and price tags. Watching the vaguely pornographic parade of military hardware that first night my housemate mumbled, ""Christ, it's like a video game. Do we get to pick which plane we want to attack with, and when we choose characters can I be the hot chick?"" Even coverage on Europe's resistance to U.S. involvement in Iraq has stooped to characterizing anti-war nations as weak, feeble or scared. As if sheer wussiness is the only reason other countries don't go around just invading anyone they feel like. As if going to war really were just about proving how tough you are.
For most people, ultimately, even short and ""successful"" wars are about loss. People lose their loved ones, their homes and their lives. Obscuring that by treating the invasion of Iraq as a collection of special effects and cool battle footage, all viewed from a safe and bloodless distance, prevents us from having to really consider the consequences of our government's actions. If anything is cowardly, it's that.
