On The Media

(just some rough thoughts and comments I had after listening):

Is this not a case of too-little too-late?

I mean yes, at least there is a recognition of the issue, and an attempt (though meak?) at addressing it in the hopes of altering soldiers' thoughts and actions towards civilians.

But when asked why the military waited so long to address this issue (and to edit this manual), Burke manages to manipulate the question (good ol' rhetoric) by responding "I don't think that waiting is the right answer; the question is evolving from what was into what's going to come." (Of course waiting isn't the right answer - it was the question as well as the subject of criticism here.)

Of course the situation is not Burke's fault, nor should he be held accountable for the military institution's (and others') lack of foresight and care.

Still, he does not validly answer the question at hand - the issue of civilians has been an issue since US troops stepped foot on Iraqi soil. We, as a country, through our government, do not even care to keep count of how many civilians have died in this war (let alone how many have died by US hands, moreover, purposefully by US hands). It seems to me that this gesture - these edits and amendments of a manual we hope more than just the Army will read - is like pushing a load with your pinky, when you really need to put two hands on the box and push with all your weight.

He almost has some good points though - I would rather say it is a matter of evolving, instead of a question. But is evolving even the right word? I mean, OK, I can go with it I guess...yes, war has evolved over the past century..., but the problem lies in the fact that we should have "evolved" - should have taken notice of the differences and similarities between past wars and our current ones - a very, very long time ago. So waiting is the issue. Why did we wait? And since we are logically "not waiting" now, will it even make a difference?