Just because a new pair of jeans is at 50% of regular price, would you buy it [although you don't need it] ?
The LA Times is running a wonderful series of articles covering the injuries sustained by soldiers in the Iraq war. Here is the latest story [and here is the first post]
I strongly encourage all of you to read this. The details are gory, but they must be told. Even if you choose to not read the articles themselves, read on with this post..
Some interesting quotes from the article:
Medics collect and bag body parts of the dead and wounded. "I don't want their buddies to have to do it," said Sgt. Tomas Chavez, a flight medic stationed in Balad
...
About 60% of the patients are Iraqi soldiers, police and civilians, including the very people who set the bombs that kill and wound Americans.
...
The hospital sometimes treats insurgents in the same trauma room as Americans they have just attacked.
...
Troops are often disturbed and occasionally enraged by the treatment afforded their enemy, Powell said. But medical workers say they make no distinctions. They compare treating insurgents to treating wounded cop-killers or drunk drivers in U.S. hospitals.
"You're not the judge or jury in the emergency room — you're a doctor," Powell said. "It's irrelevant to me what a patient's status is. I'm going to do what I'd do for an American."
A very nice gesture - reminds me of M*A*S*H.
One of the facts that the article mentions is that the percentage of casualities is much less in this war, as compared to the Vietnam war, owing primarily to better facilities.
And that makes me ask the question:
Just because you can save a larger fraction of soldiers, would you go into a war that was never needed?
I hope the question above ties in with the one in the beginning of the post, and you appreciate the absurdity of this war.
My take - just a set of points/questions. Comments most welcome.
- Thank you LA Times, for daring to show the american people the dark side of war. Nice to see american media finally telling the citizens what their sons and daughters are going through.
- Look at the ages of these people. 17, 20, 22. These kids don't deserve this much suffering, let along dying. How is dying in a war which was not needed different from crashing in a MiG that noone cares to buy proper parts for? [yes, I am referring to the RDB theme]
- Kudos to the medics who have to see this day in and day out. True, war scars a person for life.
- What about the troops in Kashmir? I am sure the situations are similar for our troops stationed there also. Can someone plz report abt the medical conditions there?[ Ms. Barkha Dutt, are you reading this? Please write something like it.]
- Thinking of how it is very possible that our troops may not be getting the care they deserve, how about making it mandatory for all doctors getting certified in India to serve in the armed forces for a couple of years? Hell, if needed, make the same for engineers and others also. What about that?
Too many thoughts, too many questions. Hope to find some answers as the days go by.
As always, comments most welcome.
Animesh
Hey,
ReplyDeleteit took me long to post a comment since I was very busy and as u said - "too many questions..". No doubt, war is an absolutely absurd creation of the mankind and its horrors are beyond words and stories. But these are a few things I felt after reading ur post and the Article in LA Times.
1. The article, at any point, NEVER rationalizes this war just because the medical facilities are better. And also, there is no evidence/argument to suggest that the war was actually NOT needed.
So, your perspective 'Just because you can save a larger fraction of soldiers, would you go into a war that was never needed?' lacks some base. In my opinion, the article is a factoid abt travails of medics in a war-torn region and it subtly hints at the futility of ANY war in general, rather than this PARTICULAR war.
2. Yes, the world media has unanimously voiced their concerns against Bush's Iraq policy, but read some accounts about Saddam (like Mayada - Daughter of Iraq) and you will feel, that though misplaced, Saddam's ouster was imminent and much needed. So, again, the basic point of the post, regarding the war being without a cause is somewhat depleted.
3. Yes, they are young people...but then, only young people join army and only young people go to war. All the national armies world over would be having 18-30 age group commandos and warriors and it's a part of world order/system/necessity. The only way out here is - Having NO armies, no troops, no military services. Highly unlikely, and (unfortunately) impractical too. And the suggestion that all docs, engineers shud also serve on Army contradicts this solution.
4. Kashmir is a different issue altogether, the lines between victim and victimized are still being drawn...but yes, a report about the medical conditions of our troops, and how the daily casualties are handled cud make a nice story. But again, the report will not be as pointed since we don't have a big-picture agenda, as the LA times artcile has. (Agenda being - the futility of war, and why we can't have it here is - both sides are blaming the other for pushing them into it...victim-victimized claims flying high.)
Hope I made some point here...
- Varun
Thanks for your comments Varun.
ReplyDelete1. My bad for not being clear about this, but I am _not_ saying that this article is rationalizing the war. I in fact congratulated LA times for speaking up and showing the true picture.
2. I believe that this war was not needed, not because Saddam is a great guy, but because the reasons for which this war was launched were false - remember the WMDs?
3. Not just Saddam, a lot of others need to go. But just because North Korea does not have oil, and has nukes, the US will not go to "save" their people -- and that is what I feel bad about. Why does the US not intervene in Darfur? I am sure you have read about that too.
4. The low age of the dying soldiers is not my concern, much as the smartness of the dying pilots is not my concern. My concern is the _reason_ for their death. I would feel proud of a country whose young and smart people go and sacrifice their lives for a necessary war, or a much-required air-mission. However, I cannot help but feel sad for the countries that let such promising lives end for no good reason.
I hope I made my points clear. And once again, thank you LA times!
-A
P.S. Still waiting for Ms Dutt to do her thing.
(Animesh, Can you believe it...because I can't...the Word Verification below reads as 'itbhu'!! Amazing...divine...I am speechless....this is a special post...)
ReplyDeleteComing to your point(s)...
1. "One of the facts that the article mentions is that the percentage of casualities is much less in this war, as compared to the Vietnam war, owing primarily to better facilities.
And that makes me ask the question:
....."
This did read like an inference from the article. Ok, you cleared that. But my point remains, how do you justify that the war was unfair in the first place..? Not on the basis of this article at least. Rite..? So in a way, the article simply strengthens the view that a war is bad...and an unjust war is worse because here people die for an unworthy cause. But then, let me ask, which cause is worthy enough to die..? Is kashmir a cause..? And if it is, why ONLY for one side...and not the other..?
2 and 3. (Continuing)
Similarly, in Iraq...if going for a war based on a pack of lies (WMDs in this case) is unworthy, doesn't the ouster of Saddam (a cruel ruler by any means) makes it worthy enough. Or, Can America's lack of interest in other worthy troubled areas (Darfur, you mentioned) make this cause unworthy...? (Or rephrased - If American forces enter korea or Darfur...will you find Iraq invasion justified..?)I might sound like a Devil's advocate, but I guess, numbers can not justify/unjustify a war. (Remember Mahabharata...were all the soldiers fighting for Kauravs and Pandavas directly involved in the conflict..? Was the conflict pervasive enough to take the lives of so many 'innocent, smart' soldiers..?)
4. All said and one, War is the most insane and stupid thing a human being can indulge in...and not a single life should end because of this mayhem. Frankly speaking, I am not sure which cause is worthy enough (in today's times) to go to war and kill another servicemen. Hope the madness ends...someday.
Hey Animesh and Varun,
ReplyDeleteI read through your arguements and counter arguments on the maladies of war. One thing that I have seen missing in all the discussions of these wars is the plight of the soldiers on the other side - The so called TERRORISTs... They are also waging a war to support the beliefs of their mentors just like the US troops in Iraq and Indian troops in Kashmir. An individual soldier does not have his say in a war. No matter what his ideology is, he has to fight the war. There is no way out for them.
When you are showing your concern about the american kids who are being victimised, you should also show some concern about these lesser mortals who I consider are braver in comparison to take on a mighty seemingly undefeatable opposition.
I am posting as anonymous because I am not a blogger.
S
Hey Mister Anonymous...
ReplyDeleteyou can give your name even if you are not a blogger. And read again through the posts above, since here is what you are looking for (from my second post):
"But then, let me ask, which cause is worthy enough to die..? Is kashmir a cause..? And if it is, why ONLY for one side...and not the other..?"
"...were all the soldiers fighting for Kauravs and Pandavas directly involved in the conflict..? Was the conflict pervasive enough to take the lives of so many 'innocent, smart' soldiers.."
In fact, nobody is taking sides here, and your accusations of us being concerned for "american kids who are being victimised" is highly misplaced and under-reseacrhed. Both me and Animesh, have repeated and converged at, that all war is unfortunate, and no soldier (American, Iraqi, Kashmiri, or any other nationality, ethnicity, blood) should ever be thrown into one.
@anon: I completely agree with Varun. He has answered ur questions, I hope.
ReplyDelete@Varun: As we chatted during the previous hour, I guess we are clear on a few things.
1. My article was not meant to criticize the LA times [or the article] for what they said. I think what I was trying to do was to prevent people from using this article [which just presents facts, without taking a side], to justify this war.
2. I still think the Iraq war is an unwanted war, not because Saddam should not have been removed, but because the reason given was not proper.
3. All war is bad, but some wars need to be fought. Wars in defence on ones territory are okay, wars to conquer are not okay. Use of terrorism and killing innocent civilians in ANY war is not okay.
4. We shall not talk about the Mahabharat, since it was a mythical war between good and evil, and in a very different time.
5. Coming back to justifying this war by saying that iraqis were tortured by Saddam is like justifying sudden vanishing of all corrupt politicians [meaning 90%+] from India. While this will cause the previous problem to cease to exist, without proper preparations, it will thrust the country into another crisis, where rule of force will prevails [something similar to iraq currently]. Remember, sometimes the splinter that is causing pain to you by being embedded in your thigh should not be removed before you get to the hospital, since then you will bleed to death.
That's all. Lets move on.
-A