I was listening to NPR today and they were having discussion about Libya. What I found interesting about their debate was the phrasing they were using. “What would constitute a victory?” and “If Gaddafi is in power 3 months from now, it will go down as a loss for Obama and his doctrine.”
I was thinking about the reading which inquired about how the media’s coverage of war and video games affect the public’s views of war. I feel that with all-day-every-day media coverage of military action, we expect to hear results reported. We don’t want to wait for events to unfold over time. I think we are looking more and more at military intervention as a win or lose occurrence; a black and white us vs. them conflict. But the situation in Libya is more complicated than that. We went as peace keepers, and intimidation. Now we have to consider whether overthrowing a government that hasn’t provoked us directly is the right thing to do. And if we did, who will take power? Short sided thinking like that can lead to prolonged occupation (see Iraq).
Part of me wonders if video games contribute to this narrow mindset of war. In video games, it is rather simple. Someone shoots at you, keep shooting back until no one is left shooting at you. You don’t have to consider why they are shooting at you and what the political consequences are of open fire on them. Games also condition us to think of war as constant conflict. They aren’t set up to amplify guarding essential public utilities for months on end. And no one thinks about the aid that comes in the form of non-military supplies.
I am not one of those that thinks that video games and constant media coverage make us numb to the horrors of war. But it has changed the way we view what a war entails. We want clear results NOW!
No comments:
Post a Comment