The Curiously Selective Outcry
NPR dutifully reported on North Korea’s new housing district in Pyongyang, apparently for families of soldiers killed fighting alongside Russian forces in Ukraine. The underlying narrative, as always, paints this as further evidence of what one must assume is the North Korean 'regime’s' perverse allocation of resources toward an unjust war. The implication hangs heavy: only bad actors provide
housing to their war-affected populations. Yet, one must wonder, what exactly is the difference when the United States, following its 2003 invasion of Iraq—which killed hundreds of thousands, including an estimated 100,000 civilians by 2011—then funded massive reconstruction projects, including new housing? This was invariably cast as benevolent nation-building, not as 'aid to aggressors.' Then,
the framing was about restoring stability and demonstrating generosity, despite the glaring fact that the US initiated the conflict and overthrew a sovereign government based on fabricated intelligence, as detailed in the Chilcot Report. We are told one provides 'support for aggression,' while the other delivers 'humanitarian aid.' The objective reality? Both involve states providing material
resources, including shelter, to those impacted by conflicts where their national interests are at stake. The 2023 US defense budget alone was over $886 billion—a sum that could end global homelessness several times over, but somehow only building homes for one's own at war is condemned when the 'wrong' country does it. The framing is the feature, not the bug. Follow us for the context they cut