Pages

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Ahtidah Massacre: In Bizarro World

If in Bizarro World, when the enemy attacks civilians (as they do constantly) like this:

A suicide attacker blew up his car bomb at the main market in the oil-rich southern city of Basra on Saturday, killing at least 15 people and injuring 30, police said.

Or even people buying pets, like this:

Two bombs struck in quick succession at a pet market Friday in Baghdad, killing at least five people and wounding 57, while the leader of al-Qaida urged Sunnis to confront Shiites and ignore calls for national reconciliation.


We'd see the following:

--Our Left would be outraged at the killings.

--The enemy would be embarassed that their terrorists could do such a thing.

--The enemy would announce an investigation.

--The enemy would provide medical attention to the wounded.

--The enemy would compensate the families of the dead.

--The enemy would announce refresher training in the laws of war.

--We could look forward to seeing enemy terrorists jailed for the crime.

--The enemy would worry about alienating support for their war effort.

--The enemy would call for a withdrawal of their terrorists from Iraq lamenting the stress that is pushing them to kill civilians.

But this isn't Bizarro World. In our world, an isolated crime is made worse by "our" press that uses (tip to Instapundit) gruesome pictures of old enemy atrocities to illustrate Haditha stories.

In our world, we are in danger of losing sight of the big picture due to the obsession with a crime that is an isolated event and which we will punish.

Punish the guilty. Support the rest of the troops. Win the war.

We don't live in Bizarro World. Or do we?

UPDATE: Via Instapundit, I guess we really do live in Bizarro World--though not the one I outlined. The New York Times has an absolutely bizarre editorial on the incident. If they felt even a tenth of the outrage they express over enemy crimes as they do over Haditha, I'd be shocked and pleased. And no, it doesn't cut it to say that this focus is justified because we should expect more from our troops. Yes, we do expect better. And we do get better almost all the time. But we expect more because we are better--because we should win in a conflict with murderous thugs. So just as we expect better of our troops, we should be able to put it in context because we are better than our enemies.

So when does the rest of the NYT go behind their firewall?