Americans are simply not interested in the victims of their wars. It runs counter to every iota of American culture, to acknowledge the failures of their warrior-classes, alas.

But, you should know, the article did mention the casualties, at least glibly. "Many more Afghani's have died than were lost in the 9/11 attacks", is the only context the author can find, to appeal to his readers.

Its a sad state of affairs when the worlds greatest nation is populated with its worst cowards. Americans should have a War Channel that shows them what their military-industrial-pharmaceutical masters are doing around the world, 24-hours a day. Only then would the honour and pride demanded of American servants of its military be placed in the proper context.

> Its a sad state of affairs when the worlds greatest nation is populated with its worst cowards.

To be honest I don't see any evidence of Americans being bigger cowards than anybody else. Also eg European media does exactly the same sort of thing. I suspect it's pretty much a global phenomenon.

I had just hoped that, of all outlets, NYT could at some point grow past it's navel gazing self, given how relatively balanced their reporting is in many other fields.

Nobody wants to be confronted with their nations' real crimes, its true. But Americans have gone far beyond the point where they are able to confront the results of their out-of-control military-industrial-complex.

Still, I suppose you're right - its not as bad as the Australians, for example.

Crickey. I am onboard with your actual point, but consider painting the picture without such broad strokes. There are something like 320 million Americans, and their culture is an impressive mishmash of every other culture that the world has ever produced, held together by string and elbow grease. Give it a little respect, even if you do want to lay out a little of the realpolitik.

"Not supporting the troops" is a conversation ender up there with accusations of racism and sexism. But the issues there are much more complicated than no-one being interested.

I care not a fig for the constitution of a culture which allows the wanton and wilful destruction of civilisation without any recourse, responsibility, or indeed care in the world.

Americans, willing recipients of its treasures, have nevertheless let their military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex run rampant over the worlds "lesser nations" for far too long, and the mechanism by which they fail, as a culture, to take any responsibility for any of it is exactly as you describe.

There is no respect due to a people who allow innocents to be murdered in their name with no recourse, no justice.

Zero respect deserved.

There are between zero and very few that would be left to cast the first stone.

I'm definitely not trying to defend the stereotype of the standard wilfully ignorant US citizen, but I think the stereotype would be representative of most cultures who have had enough 'victories' (or been told they've had enough victories) that they feel they're deserving of their prizes.

To rearrange your wording slightly: I care not a fig for the constitution of a species which allows the wanton and wilful destruction of it's sustaining environment without any recourse, responsibility, or indeed care in the world.

Nighty night humanity.

Meh, more war justification. "But the other kids are doing it too" does not a morally authoritative position make.

If that's what you got from what I said, then I didn't explain myself well enough.

Your replies to other comments indicate, however, that you're more likely to take the inflammatory interpretation. Which I find most ironic given the message you seem to be trying to convey.

>There are between zero and very few that would be left to cast the first stone.

The "cast the first stone" rhetoric is a clue that you're not really convincible regarding war and its machinations.

There are plenty of countries who refuse to participate in the wanton destruction of the Middle East and illegal, criminal, unrestrained warfare. America and its allies are, alas, far too addicted to the economies of such to change any time soon. Not soon enough, anyway.

What culture hasn’t allowed for that?

The list of countries that are not invading others and destroying their civilisation is pretty long. You should educate yourself about the world.

We’re talking about cultures that allow innocents to be murdered in their name.

All cultures allow this. No culture has yet transcended it.

It’s fine not to respect humanity at its current level of development, but nationalism is hardly the solution.

America and its allies are wantonly killing innocents in the name of their war economy. This does not make for a strong moral position...

Why did USA get so up in arms with Korea, Vietnam War, etc but not USA's ongoing Afghanistan/(Iraq?) war?

Because after Vietnam, Americans were not allowed to see the results of their warfare on television. Were it possible to publish war-crimes evidence freely and without military oversight, Americans would have much less lust for the wars they have been conned into paying for ..

Presumably because of the military draft, which was abolished in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, IIRC.

I also suspect fatigue. For a lot of US citizens, the war has taken place a for a majority of their (our) life.

I always thought it odd how our media so heavily focused on the few hundred/thousand soldiers who died in an illegal invasion of iraq but not the hundreds of thousands of iraqi children who died. Is it bias or something else?

Also, the NYTimes is eerily quiet about the role it and the rest of the media played in pushing for the war in iraq. No censure, no penalties, no nothing when they lied to the american people.