(This post could be offensive to some readers, so reader discretion is advised.)
The government has released a bunch of videos of the alleged chemical attacks in Syria. CNN has been playing them practically non-stop and using them to bully anyone who disagrees with a military strike on Syria, asking them if they feel responsible for the deaths if they vote against intervention (will CNN feel responsible for the deaths of civilians resulting from an American military strike? They ought to: they are pushing for one). Supporters of military intervention claim that after seeing these videos they can’t understand how anyone could possibly be opposed to military action, and that by not acting, we are setting a precedent for other countries to use chemical weapons, despite the fact that these videos do not prove who used the chemical weapons whatsoever (and in fact, doesn’t it look like everyone was a little bit too prepared to film this event, almost as if they had planned it?). But I’m afraid this is setting another, possibly more dangerous precedent.
Yes, now it looks like all anyone who wants American military intervention in their country has to do is make horrifying videos of atrocities, and the United States will do a military strike. Is this the best precedent to set? I mean, our government mainly wanted no part of another Middle East war until they saw the videos. And then they had a knee-jerk reaction (or that’s how it looks at the moment). And we’re probably going to strike Syria.
So I’m predicting there will be in influx of horrifying videos from all around the world, hoping for American military intervention. But we can’t stretch our military that thin, as it will be a never-ending series of conflicts, so I guess we’re going to have to have a horrifying video contest, where first prize is American military involvement to help the winner’s cause, and maybe second prize is weapons and training, and third prize is an inspiring speech about how we wish we could help. And since the government and the news seem to love these videos so much, this will be wonderful for them: all the horrifying atrocity videos they can stomach! Maybe they’ll even have a movie marathon or an atrocity video film festival. Then, when we're all horrified, they can use that as an excuse to bomb anyone they want.
Sorry to sound so crass and cynical, but I’m making an important point here: We can’t just go charging into every civil war just because of some horrifying videos; we just haven’t got the resources. And why are dying people on a screen more important than the ones who we don’t see dying? I guess if a person falls in a genocide, but nobody films it, it didn’t really happen, or at least it’s not as important as ones that are filmed, huh? A video is so visceral, but that emotional response can blind us to what the correct course of action might be; and while people say “a picture does not lie”, pictures can be misinterpreted, and they can also be deceiving at times. And making decisions that could negatively impact our nation based on an emotional response to a video is about as irresponsible as you can get, in my opinion. But that looks like what we’re going to get anyway.
