Skip to content Skip to navigation

The Media Beat - a multimedia commentary by David Tereshchuk

Massacre story sparks both outrage and reflection

Thursday, March 15, 2012

AMID THE WORLDWIDE HORROR and revulsion over nine Afghan children and seven adults evidently murdered by a US soldier, it was remarkable how in the immediate wake of the shootings, the Afghan media were so restrained in their coverage.

Restrained is a relative term, of course. Outrage ran high, inevitably and appropriately, but it didn’t reach by any stretch the fury and mayhem - on national TV and radio and in slews of newspapers - that greeted the US Army’s inadvertent burning of Korans in February … all incendiary fuel for the deadly protests that followed.
 
After the Kandahar massacre, both the state-run and the increasing number of privately-owned media outlets took pains to carry Allied commanders’ promises of a thorough investigation and prosecution of the perpetrator. TV services like Channel One, Tolo TV and Shamsad TV that are increasingly reaching the country’s non-reading rural population as well as the emerging urban middle-class, all emphasized US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s assurance, during an airplane briefing to reporters, that the killer could face the death penalty.
 
This contrasted with last month’s coverage of the Koran-burning - and indeed the earlier outrage over American marines urinating on dead Taliban bodies, and the so-called “Kill Team” soldiers, who maybe significantly came from the same Washington State base as the current accused shooter, murdered Afghans for sport. In these instances, official American expressions of regret were largely brushed aside in the understandable hue and cry.
 
Some western observers have been tempted to ascribe a cultural significance to the (comparative) calm this time around. An ex-British Army man, Mark Urban who’s now a defense and diplomatic editor at the

 

BBC, expressed the belief that when it comes to deaths, Afghans (especially if they are not of the community immediately affected) “just did not seem to care.”
 
Urban spoke of a distinction in Afghanistan that he sees as important, labeling it as “violence, real or symbolic”, by which he meant that Afghans take more seriously the latter kind of violence. He claimed: “in that fractured, querulous society, religion and certain aspects of traditional culture … remain the great touchstones for generating fellow feeling or indeed outrage”. (As if, incidentally, outrage in Western society doesn’t similarly get sparked by “symbolic” attacks - remember the perceived threat to the “hallowed ground” of New York’s World Trade Center from a proposed Islamic Cultural Center nearby?)
 
Such sweeping judgments as Urban’s, repeated as they’ve been across American and British media outlets this week, sound to me like a repeat or variant of a familiar old rich-world fallacy. Crudely characterized, it says: 'these third-world societies don’t value individual life as we do'.
 
 

As a reporter who’s covered massacres of civilians by military men from Northern Ireland to Southern Africa to South Asia (Pakistan, in fact) - and in consequence followed the lasting agonies suffered by the populations left alive - I want to insist yet again that this is simply not true.  
 

 
(Anzala Khilji’s compelling photograph for The New York Times - above - gives visual testimony to that, showing 60-year old farmer Abdul Samad phoning President Hamid Karzai in grief over his eleven relatives killed by the rampaging American.)
 
What is probably true is that some careful political calculation is going on. Afghan societies may indeed have some different values from ours, but the country has a commentariat these days, not unlike the US, and among its politicians there’s a degree of representativeness that obliges thoughtfulness as well as emotional rhetoric.
 
There’s no doubt that opinion leaders like editorialists in the Faryad-e Qalam newspaper of Mazar-e-Sharif in the north to even the commentary-writers of Rana Radio in Khandahar itself want to see control of their own country in Afghan hands again, and sooner rather than later – but there’s also great concern that the American and Nato withdrawal should be a well-ordered one.
 
What an enormous, heart-stopping story like the Khandahar massacre could result in is a reflective determination on the part of both occupiers and occupied to examine just what, exactly, they want after ten years of warfare.
 
It’s certainly becoming even clearer for Afghans. And one lesson is being clarified for Americans too - a sharply focused specific conclusion within the broad picture of a world power having disastrously overreached itself.
 
The Al Jazeera news network, which has certainly developed a body of knowledge about America’s two 21st century wars, carried on its website an especially telling analysis from Princeton University international law professor Richard Falk.
 
When War Turns Pathological …” ran the headline on Falk’s piece, “Get Out”. 
 
Citing conflicts through history, Flak explored how American public support for a war inevitably drains whenever our government has (as in Afghanistan) “placed young Americans in intolerable situations of risk and enmity … [with] … “historically high suicide rates in the lower ranks”.
 
Falk’s main claim was that events like the Kandahar massacre are not so-called "aberrations" at all, but rather “pathological reactions of men and women caught up in a death trap not of their making”. He pointedly recalled how the early 1970s phenomenon of “fragging” came about and “the White House finally speeded up the American exit when it became evident that soldiers were murdering their own officers”.
 
It may well not come to that with our forces in Afghanistan. But Falk raises a challenging question – just when does a war, in that arresting phrase “turn pathological”?
 
For many of us, both soldiers and journalists, it can happen pretty early … a long time before ten years have elapsed.
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

You can follow this column on TWITTER – by clicking HERE  


EVERY WEEK THE
CONNECTICUT NPR STATION, WHDD, AIRS A DISCUSSION BASED ON THIS COLUMN, with program host MARSHALL MILES joining DAVID TERESHCHUK
 
- Broadcast on Fridays at 7.35am, Saturdays at 4.45pm and Sundays at 6.45pm.

Listen to THE MEDIA BEAT podcasts by clicking HERE

  - and subscribe to a weekly feed of the show

 

 (Also available at iTunes - click here)

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Send to a Friend

Add comment

Please fill in all fields in the form below. Don't worry about giving us your e-mail address - it won't be displayed online and we will never give or sell it to anyone.


  • 07/05/13 11:07 PM Elizabeth:

    Yup.Hairest Boxer I'd ever seen.Great combo for pig hunting. Run like the wind, great eandrnuce and have good take down.Some schmuck shot it by accident.Burrs kept gettin in its coat so we buzzed it with a body length mohawk. guess at some point it looked like a boar. RIP Bob.Seriously.If these women actually make it to the Olympics it'll be a milestone in the face of the most sexually frustrated men on earth.I have a feeling they'll be seeking asylum in some western nation shortly there after.They'll be executed one way or the other.If they lose they'll be stoned to death in public and I can hardly see them dookin it out in burkhas so then they're faced with punishment for showin skin.I'm not talkin about Taliban. Mainstream Muslims cant be too crazy about this idea either





new york web design by Ecommerce Partners