I heard a news headline from the BBC that caught my attention. Something along the line of "The American military says that it accidentally killed some women and children in an attack against militants in Iraq."
I am very saddened to hear that yet more people were killed.
What caught my attention was that the focus of the headline was the admittance that women and children -- let's say "non-combatants" -- were killed. After all, non-combatants have been victims all throughout pressing of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a matter of fact, I thought it was odd that we had been hearing so very little about the depth and breadth of havoc and utter destruction wrought upon non-combatants. Why have we not been hearing about what full impact our presence has been having?
Is it the same reason that we, the American public, were not allowed to see pictures of the coffins of our service men and women? That was pretty strange -- it felt very manipulative. In light of the significant -- and let's leave it at that -- lack of information about the war, the news headline was highly notable for its frankness and disclosure.
You know, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we started hearing more and more about the "collateral" damage in Iraq (and Afghanistan). Almost as if we, the American public, were supposed to be seeing more things that will undoubtedly further reduce the publics willingness to sustain this war effort.