
I just turned off the Republican debate to read more about Marie Colvin, one of the journalists killed in Syria today. She was a deeply committed and intrepid war reporter, working at the time of her death for The Sunday Times of London.
I do not know what the U.S. should do in or about Syria. But I am struck, tonight, by the sharp contrast between Colvin and most of the Republican candidates. (I actually kind of hate to put them all in the same sentence.)
In November 2010, at a Fleet Street church service in honor of slain journalists, Colvin described the role of the foreign correspondent: “our mission is to report these horrors of war with accuracy and without prejudice.”
Colvin was experienced in the horrors of war, to say the least. She had reported from scenes of conflict in the West Bank, Sri Lanka, Kosovo, Zimbabwe, East Timor and the recent Arab uprisings in the Middle East. She bore witness to suffering, injustice, civilian casualty–the direct and indirect consequences of violence. (She lost her eye, and temporarily her hearing, from a flare blast in Sri Lanka.)
And now, we come to the Republican candidates. With the exception of Ron Paul (who, despite the occasional castigation of the crowd, expressed an awareness of the truth that war necessarily costs life,) the candidates seem scarily eager to flex military muscle. Although they talk frequently of grand theoretical horrors (nuclear attacks), they seem cavalier about rather actual and all too commonplace horrors (plain old shells). I certainly do not mean to diminish the horror of nuclear attack–it’s just that despite the seriousness of the threats, the candidates come across as unconsidered, macho, extremely inexperienced, almost courting confrontation in order to come across as tough. Rather than viewing the horrors of war with accuracy and without prejudice, in other words, one senses bravado and fact-avoiding partisanship.
It’s extremely worrisome. And somehow makes the loss of people like Colvin feel sadder than ever.
Recent Comments