Anti-War Media

Anti-war arguments originate back to the commencing historical structure of the world, cumulatively beginning and ending with each war that shaped the organizational structure of humanity, today. Though reasoning has evolved with time in accordance to pertaining circumstances, today a progressive anti-war activist bases their argument on specific actions and impacts of armed conflict. One of these arguments includes the risk of enemy capability. This implies the consideration to consequences of violent action, which may include further danger to Americans. I noticed much of this articulation on Antiwar.com. Though the interface is cluttered and difficult to navigate, upon entering the site every given user is inundated with articles negatively speaking on the decisions and actions made by the government. For example, one article link was titled, "US Troops Back to Saudi Arabia - to Provoke Iran?" The purpose of such article, and organization nonetheless, is to get the reader to think about the reciprocating threat that violent action threatens to impose. Another downfall that is said to be a result of war is financial drainage. According to CNBC, the United States has spent over $6.4 trillion on wars in Asia and the Middle East, since 2001. Anti-war activists argue that this expense could be better distributed in efforts to solve crises within the country or even at a global level. However, the most powerful and most broadcasted argument is casualty rate. With just shy of 1,000 military related deaths per year, it could be contended that such a considerable number outweighs the reasoning for engaging in war. From my perspective, both sides are reflect exceptionally vindicable persuasions, though, anti-war alignment is not something we often see vocalized by main-stream media.

Why is that? In my opinion, we do not see a this side of the topic in the media in the same way broadcasting outlets acknowledge both sides of any other given scenario. Media and reporting outlets thrive off of an engaged audience, by showing them what they want to hear. As an anti-war standpoint is an extreme one, we are unlikely to be targeted via the media we use, by indoctrination of the sort. Based of recent studies, the Chicago Council concluded that 69% of Americans are in favor of the US being "an active part in world affairs." In other words, to the disadvantage of anti-war  activism, in order to maximize the success of a media outlet, they must fair what the majority wants to see. So, why do some oppose the anti-war position? If you think about the palpability of the devastating impact war can have, you will realize that it does not apply to the vast majority of Americans. There is no draft threatening to dismantle families, and the death of military personnel only prevails defoliation to some. In addition, when people support a position, they are supporting a change. The lack of solution conferred by anti-war organizations results in a lack of reinforcement. With such compelling argument against engagement in war, considering the opposing position is crucial. Without an considering and understanding the reasoned position established, we would not be able to take an educated stance on the topic.




 https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on-middle-east-wars-since-2001-study.html

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2019/09/do-americans-really-want-end-forever-wars-survey-says/159760/

https://www.antiwar.com

https://www.theamericanconservative.com