It is interesting that we are spending billions upon billions so that we can avoid the kinds of moral questions that emerge in close-up combat situations. Assassinations via car bombs are cheap, and as long as there is deniability, the national or worldwide audience tends to shrug. When there is a name and face, the media takes note, and the media loves to hold a mirror up to our collective face. Bill Clinton therefore always chose the missile or joint action. If a nation wants to wage a big war, though, the opportunities for close-up quick-decision death multiply beyond any way of limiting them.

US Iraq warfare moves in a see-saw between stories about operational initiative success and possible atrocity somewhere or other. The media loves the atrocity. Abu Ghraib provides the sexual depravity and atrocity jackpot. The media interrogates the nation: “Isn’t your hypocrisy sufficient reason for you to quit and head home, shamed and defeated?” A moral elephant gun shot is the greatest weapon against the West. Hiroshima looms in the background. It would be interesting to know what the version of the CIA in Riyadh or Teheran is thinking up along these lines. ‘Islamophobia’ is wearing thin.

One thing the volunteer army does is remove moral culpability largely from citizens to our soldiers (and president). When things go well (and was that re-up ceremony in Saddam’s palace not right out of ‘Star Wars’?), the soldiers are our heroes. When things go bad, we tend to blame them. They chose to join, as opposed to soldiers being drafted in prior wars.

All the more reason to honor our soldiers. And to think ahead to the next good-war/bad-war memes. The brain is the battlefield as surely as any terrain.