Because Diplomacy's for Sissies

Well, he did it:

The United States and European allies launched airstrikes on Friday night against Syrian research, storage and military targets as President Trump sought to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a suspected chemical attack near Damascus last weekend that killed more than 40 people.

Britain and France joined the United States in the strikes in a coordinated operation that was intended to show Western resolve in the face of what the leaders of the three nations called persistent violations of international law. Mr. Trump characterized it as the beginning of a sustained effort to force Mr. Assad to stop using banned weapons, but only ordered a limited, one-night operation that hit three targets.

These "limited operations" have a way of morphing into full-scale war.

I suppose this was inevitable, considering that neither Trump nor his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, believe in diplomacy, both being bullies. Of course, we lost the chance for a diplomatic solution a while ago -- not that it's entirely our fault: Assad's a real piece of work, and with Russia and Iran behind him, the stage is set for a real mess. And a condemnation in the UN has about as much force as -- well, come up with your own example of completely ineffectual.

As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether Putin has any control over Trump is open -- and I think that's a real issue here -- but then, Trump is enough of a wild card that "control" becomes meaningless.

We'll see if this remains "limited":

Today in Just Plain Stupid

From none of than that man of staunch, steadfast principle (depending on which way the wind is blowing), Sen. Lindsay Graham:

I don't know what's in the water in Washington but it's making people insane:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said this week that a war with North Korea would be “worth it” in the long term.

Graham made the comments in an interview with CNN.

"All the damage that would come from a war would be worth it in terms of long-term stability and national security," the senator told CNN.

The only one who would come out of a war with North Korea with anything intact would be Vladimir Putin. And "long-term stability"? Yeah, I guess piles of smoking radioactive rubble are stable.

It's worth reading the whole post -- a completely unsettling outline of what would be involved and what the likely result would be. For starters, just forget South Korea as a viable entity.

Today's Must-Read: Memorial Day Edition

I know, I'm a day late, but the heat had built up so much in my apartment that I literally couldn't think. At any rate, Batocchio gets it right at Hullabaloo:

Memorial Day is meant for remembering those who died in military service (a worthy commemoration). It's also a holiday that naturally spurs thoughts of civilians killed in war, of living veterans and how they're treated, and how war is discussed in our country. It's only right to pause and remember the dead. And perhaps the best way to honor them the other days of the year is by challenging the belligerati who believe that casually and aggressively endorsing war or torture somehow makes them tough or makes the nation safer.

I forget who said it, but I ran across this idea as a history student: War is the last resort, after diplomacy has failed. Too many people in this country have started to think that was is the first option. That's not how you keep the peace.

Freedom of the Press

To self-censor?

From Tom Levenson at Balloon Juice:

If there was a golden age for American media, it was long ago and it was short.

Over at The Atlantic, Torie Rose DeGhett has an excellent, utterly unsurprising article about a photograph taken in the last hours in the first Gulf War.

The work of the the then 28 year old photographer Kenneth Jarecke, the image captures a fact of war hopelessly obscured by the shots that angered Jarecke enough to postpone a planned hiatus from combat photography. “’It was one picture after another of a sunset with camels and a tank.” — or, once combat actually began, gaudy displays of gee whiz toys, the disembodied beauty of missile exhausts, or bloodless shots of tires and twisted metal. War as video game, or a spectacle for the folks back home.

The bulk of Levenson's post is an embroidery on DeGhett's article (at the link, where you can also find the photo, which is under copyright and so does not appear here) detailing the history of this photograph and the fact that no major "news" outlet would touch it.

DeGhett goes farther, though:

Let me say up front that I don’t like the press,” one Air Force officer declared, starting a January 1991 press briefing on a blunt note. The military’s bitterness toward the media was in no small part a legacy of the Vietnam coverage decades before. By the time the Gulf War started, the Pentagon had developed access policies that drew on press restrictions used in the U.S. wars in Grenada and Panama in the 1980s. Under this so-called “pool” system, the military grouped print, TV, and radio reporters together with cameramen and photojournalists and sent these small teams on orchestrated press junkets, supervised by Public Affairs Officers (PAOs) who kept a close watch on their charges.

The "free press" has learned its lesson. Granted, it's impossible to present all the news that's happening every day. Editorial choices have to be made, priorities implemented, but if you view more than one news source, you know some stories are being buried. Levenson, though, points out something from DeGhett's article we all need to keep in mind:

The key here, as DeGhett writes, is that there was no military pressure not to publish Jarecke’s photograph. The war was over by the time his film got back to the facility in Saudi Arabia where the press pools operated. The decision to withhold the shot from the American public was made by the American press, by editors at the major magazines, at The New York Times, at the wire service. The chokehold on information at the top of the mainstream media was tight enough back then that most newspaper editors, DeGhett reports, never saw the image, never got to make their choice to publish or hide.

You can guess the excuses. “Think of the children!” For the more sophisticated, a jaded response:

Aidan Sullivan, the pictures editor for the British Sunday Times, told the British Journal of Photography on March 14 that he had opted instead for a wide shot of the carnage: a desert highway littered with rubble. He challenged the Observer: “We would have thought our readers could work out that a lot of people had died in those vehicles. Do you have to show it to them?”

Why yes, Mr. Sullivan, you do.

Emphasis added.

There are days I just want to give up. Read both articles.

Culture Break

I couldn't decide between two versions of this, but either way, it's guaranteed to wake you up.

People do strange things with the staging of Wagner -- I'm not sure why. There was the Bayreuth production of the Ring a few years ago in which Das Rheingold took place in front of a hydroelectric dam. This was at the Met, conducted by Pierre Boulez.

This version's rather more contemporary, and somewhat shorter. And a lot more biting in concept: