ANDREW SULLIVAN seems to think that I should be blogging more about Abu Ghraib, and less about the Newsweek scandal. Well, I think he should be blogging more (er, at least some) about the worse-than-Tiananmen massacre in Uzbekistan and perhaps a bit less about gay marriage. But so what? What people blog about is none of my business. Andrew seems to feel differently....
[W]hile I think that what happened at Abu Ghraib was bad, and that it should be punished, and that Koran-flushing (if it had happened) would have been bad, though not torturous, I don't think it's terribly important compared to the war as a whole, and I think that it takes a peculiar perspective to make it emblematic of the war, and of the American military, which seems to be where Andrew is going these days, at least to judge -- as he invites us to -- by the volume of posts.Well said, Glenn. It is difficult in these heated times -- when moral and political posturing so dominates the national discourse -- to maintain a reasonable perspective on what is taking place in the world. War is war, and nasty things happen. What is remarkable is how humane the US and its allies have been in prosecuting this war, especially when compared to as the incredible inhumanity of our opponents. A little perspective is in order.
Every war has its Abu Ghraibs -- and, usually, its Dresdens and its Atlantas, which this war has lacked, not because America didn't have the ability, but because it possessed a decency and restraint that gets small credit.
In his conclusion, Glenn writes,
I confess, I find the question of what Andrew thinks less pressing than I used to.I agree!
Read Sullivan's comments here.
Read Instapundit's response here.