I find this notion a tad uncomfortable. Sure, it's an emotional
response whenever one avoids some catastrophe. But the humanity in
all of us realizes pretty quickly that one's fortunate experience is
another's disaster. I live in a hurricane prone area, and I have to
admit I tend to feel that way when a hurricane slams into Pensacola
rather than here. At first. Then I think about the incredible
suffering and hardship that people suffer just to my west, and I am a
bit embarrassed for thinking the whole "better there than here" type
of thought. Consider the combat soldier whose buddy gets killed. A
typical first reaction may well be a "better him than me" type of
thing, but that often turns into a "Why did I survive when others
died?" or a "I'd give my own life in exchange" response. I understand
a "better there than here" type of sentiment in regards to Iraq, but
looking at it a bit closer I really wonder exactly what we are saying.
Do we really believe that an innocent Iraqi life is worth less than
an innocent American life? Do we really want to say that the lives of
Iraqi children are worth less than lives of American children? The
patriot in me wants to say "Hell yes. American lives are always more
important than any other country." But then I reflect that it is
innocent human life that is under consideration, and the sentiment
that "better there than here" starts to smack of the same type of
discredited thinking that allowed the "White Man's Burden" and other
thoughts like that. We properly get upset when totally innocent
people are victims of suicide bombers in London. We rightly express
our outrage. But we must also realize that this goes on *every* day
in Iraq. Totally innocent people are victims, often children. Is
that somehow "better"? Who are we and what have we become?