Have our dead soldiers died in vain?

This question, in my humble estimation, is why many reasonable, rational Americans (not the crazy winger chaff) still support Bush's Iraq disaster. Changing their minds is the lynchpin to changing the Bush Doctrine and the GOP in its current form.

I think the story of a local soldier killed in Baghdad on June 22 illustrates this point.

So I was actually trying to watch my local news (shudder) the other day, and they were interviewing the family of a local kid recently killed by a sniper in Iraq. They were taking the news of his death understandably hard, but putting on a brave face for the interview. Through an emotional voice, I heard the widow speak about how it was a good and noble thing Arnold was doing over there, fighting for the cause of freedom and all. His father spoke about how he loved giving toys to Iraqi kids and really wanted to make a difference over there.

But now he's dead. Killed for a pack of lies. Did he die in vain? Did all of those killed, 1,745 soldiers so far, die for nothing?

This needs to change. For the soldiers who still have lives to risk, and for the Iraqi people, this insane Bush doctrine needs to be thoroughly and routinely criticized. The Democrats are trying, but continue to walk on eggshells for fear of being unjustly smeared a la Dick Durbin (apologetic bastard).

But just imagine the authority that the voice of opposition would command, if all of those voices came from families of dead soldiers? These are the voices that, I believe, would facilitate the quickest change in Iraq policy.

Think about it. It'd be near impossible for the GOP spinmeisters to deflect this deserved criticism. Does anybody remember Ken Mehlman on Meet the Press? Observe:

MR. RUSSERT:  One family that is particularly upset that is that of Pat Tillman, the former NFL football player.  This is what his mom, Mary Tillman, said:  "`The military let him down.  The administration let him down.  It was a sign of disrespect.  ...he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own men kill him, [it] is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic.  The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.'"
And what she's referring to is that her son was killed by friendly fire, but the Pentagon tried to cast it in a much different light, and the suggestion being they were trying to make Pat Tillman a poster boy for the war in Iraq. And his family is devastated and very angry about that.

MR. MEHLMAN:  Well, Tim, I would agree with his mom that it is heartbreaking and tragic.  

Well. How considerate of him to agree that it was heartbreaking and tragic. What a jerk.

He goes on to bloviate about friendly fire, the guy that did it must feel terrible (duh), and the Pentagon admitted it was wrong. Touchy question, no doubt. It's totally loaded, and can't be answered without Mehlman looking like a prick.

Now, the coup de grace:

MR. MEHLMAN:  [...] But I think it is wrong to that say this was somehow an attempt to make him a poster boy for the Iraq War.  I don't think this was what they were trying to do.

MR. RUSSERT:  Well, many people close to Pat Tillman have said just that.

MR. MEHLMAN:  Well, again, I would respectfully disagree, at the same time recognizing the tragedy, and how hard it must be for his mom and his whole family.

(emphasis mine)

He would respectfully disagree? I would respectfully break my foot off in his ass if I had a kid die over there and he said that shit to me. What a supreme asshole.

This is what it looks like to watch someone morph into the shape of an actual penis, right before your very eyes. Tell me that doesn't expose the GOP for what it is today. And this is how the dialogue would go for every single conversation like this. Eventually, this is what every interview with any pro-Iraq politician should become: "how do you respond to all of the families of dead soldiers who are now demanding answers and demanding change?" Unspinnable.  The GOP would be defenseless. More of this, please!

The 9/11 families did it. I think it's time to see the same from the families of the 1,745 dead American soldiers.

Now. I know there are families out there currently stumping their hearts out to end Bush's imperialistic hubris, but not in nearly the number that I would expect. Again, I think most people will do what it takes to believe that their dead kid/husband/wife/brother/sister is dead for a good reason. Here's how Duplantier's widow rationalized his death:

Tanya Duplantier said her husband liked to buy little toys and candy for Iraqi children. He told her "to make sure people know not to take things for granted because we have so much and sometimes we forget about all those things."

The widow said she is proud of what her husband was doing in Iraq. "They're fighting for all of us, not just myself, but everybody. They're fighting for freedom."   

(emphasis mine)

It's the simple psychology of self-preservation. We see it all over the place, from so many of those with soldiers fighting in Iraq. We've even come to expect hearing this `freedom' rhetoric in various forms from those with loved ones killed in Iraq. Part of it is the byproduct of hearing the duplicitous, hyperbolic freedom rhetoric spewed by BushCo (I can hardly hear the word freedom now without cringing, thanks to that prick Bush). But also, `dying for freedom' is a much smaller pill to take than dying for Bush's greed, avarice, corporatism, and vainglory - that pill's a motherfucker.

Also contributing is the idea of leaving Iraq 'before the job is done'. I've heard this said in a couple interviews as well. One old timer who lost a son was on the verge of tears thinking about leaving Iraq too early. Because in his mind, we're Americans and we don't admit failure or defeat. Leaving Iraq early would be doing so. This mentality most certainly continues to fuel the pro-war establishment and families of those killed in Iraq.

Unfortunatly, our very presence there is considered by many to be problem number one. As long as there is an American soldier in Iraq, there will be an insurgency. In other words, 'staying the course' for the purpose of not forsaking the already fallen is a problem with only one answer (withdrawl) that negates itself, and gets more soldiers killed. Yossarian would say he tried to warn us.

Anyway, understanding this fundamental perspective, held by many who support Bush, should help us change the minds of those whose minds can be changed. Nobody wants to hear their kids dead for no good reason - there needs to be a certain level of respect and tact for the discussion. Once this discussion is properly engaged, however, this question of "did they die in vain" can be sorted out. It may sound like a lot of pseudo-psychological babble, but my gut tells me this is a big hurdle that, if cleared, can really effect change quickly.

Because, right now, that's what this effort is all about: effecting the quickest change possible. I don't want to wait 12 years, watching 12,514 of our soldiers die, before the masses finally snap out of it. Fuck that shit. And I believe the quickest change begins squarely with the families who've paid the highest price. If we can rush them to clarity, I think it starts to reverse the insane Bush doctrine, and may even force the GOP into a looong overdue moderation. We deliver this clarity once we can responsibly broach this question to the people that should be the most pissed off. From that starting point, I believe the sky's the limit.

•  John Kerry said it best....

  .....How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
  

  by tjb22 on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 06:03:55 PM PDT

  •  And I wish....

    ....that he had said that in 2004. It might not have won him the election, but it would have given him more moral clarity.

    by metal prophet on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 07:32:51 PM PDT

•  I look at it this way

  Saddam Hussein was in power, now he's not. He was an oppressive asshole and a bad guy. Maybe, and bear in mind that I've got restraints in place on what I can say, there were a few errors in the planning and undertaking, and had things gone right or been done better (continue to keep in mind that I am restraining myself here) then things might have gone smoothly and as planned, and we'd have both Saddam out of power and removed as a threat, and the Iraqi people happy with us and not interested in being part of any insurgency. Maybe if we'd waited a bit longer and planned a bit more before coming here, things might have gone better.

  Overall, I think that sufficient good has been done by our coming to make it an undertaking that someone can be proud of, despite the shortfalls. At least, enough good has been done by it that I can sleep soundly enough in my tent at night, when I'm not woken up by explosions or gunfire of unknown origin.

  And that's probably pushing the outside limits of what I can say about it.

  by jabbausaf on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 06:14:26 PM PDT

  •  Understood.

    I tried to write with enough tact so as not to totally insult or offend any readers, obviously like you, who this diary relates to the most.

    It's a touchy subject, but nonetheless a subject that I think must be examined should this severe polarization in our country be repaired. I am 100 percent opposed to this occupation and I believe it was based completely on the duplicitous actions of the Bush administration. Conversely, others are fully sold on Iraq and feel our cause there is noble and altruistic.

    Of course I respect any different opinion than mine, but it's pretty hard to reconcile between these two.

    I just hope you stay safe and come home soon. All of you.

    by big dave on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 06:39:32 PM PDT

  •  respectfully disagreeing

    i believe most of the 'awful' things we hear about saddam in the west have been 14 years of outrageous propaganda in preparation for war. saddam hussein was a strong secular nationalist who refused to capitulate to any outside pressure, and this is why you in the usa demonise him even after he fought against the islamists in iran. the so-called facts about his presidency serve only as the last line of defense against those who believe that the invasion and occupation of iraq are illegal.

    by Dreaded Lysergic on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 07:03:22 PM PDT

    •  Chemical Weapons

      There was extensive and conclusive evidence in 1983 and 1984 that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and the Iranians complained to the UN about this. The administration that was in place at that time ignored this and swept it under the rug, issuing bland condemnations of chemical weapons use, but not backing it up with any words or specifically naming Iraq. There's plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein should fry in the chair for what he's done.

      Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal, Saddam wasn't a nice guy or a paragon of virtue, you just have to look at the records that were concealed or ignored when we were trying to make him our buddy.

      by jabbausaf on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 07:53:08 PM PDT

    •  Too often...

      American complicity with Saddam regime gets flippantly tossed to the wayside.

      People need to remember: he was 'our guy' in the region for many, many years. This historical fact is virtually ignored when listening to wingers and pundits speak about Saddam.

      by big dave on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 07:55:43 PM PDT

  •  so why not take out other

    dictator assholes that are as bad?

    why the double standard?

    by MetaProphet on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 08:29:06 PM PDT

  •  also,

    would you sacrifice "YOUR" life for the "GOOD" done?

    Is your life worth what we have achieved there?

    IS IT? If you don't think so, then you're just talking out of your ass.

    by MetaProphet on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 08:32:09 PM PDT

  •  I disagree with you on so many levels

    that it is hard to know where to begin.

    You think that their sacrifice is worth it?  Tell, me, have you had to scrape your best friend's brains off the side of your face?  Have you had occasion to look one of the insurgents in the eye and then cut him in half?  Have you even talked to anyone there who has had to do either?  Wanna look a mother, or wife, or child - in the US or in Iraq -in the eye and tell them that you think that their loved one's death was worth it?

    I am betting not on all counts, because if you had, you would not be here trying to sell the moderate version of the company line, you would not give a damn about any of the "restraints" on what you say, and you damn sure would not be sleeping soundly.

    You want to truly honor their sacrifice? Then stop worrying about what violating the restraints will cost you, and start speaking out, as loudly and as often as you can, about what is really going on over there.  The last time the citizens of the US stopped an unjust war it was because the soldiers spoke out forcefully, both while they were there and when they got back, and there is no reason to believe that it will be any different this time around.

    You bear a very special responsibility because you are there, and your words carry more weight than those of the people who do not have that experience. If you continue to rationalize this travesty, all you are doing is ensuring that more people are going to die needlessly.

    by Wayward Wind on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 12:59:29 AM PDT

    •  Holy Shit.

      Yours is the type of comment I was hoping for when I wrote this. Thank you for replying.

      You bear a very special responsibility because you are there, and your words carry more weight than those of the people who do not have that experience. If you continue to rationalize this travesty, all you are doing is ensuring that more people are going to die needlessly.

      That is the angle I was pursuing with this diary. Searching for a subtle way to energize those with the most credibility to speak out against this war. That is the path to this country's salvation.

      Thank you for articulating that so succinctly.

      by big dave on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 01:54:14 AM PDT

    •  So tell me

      What are you risking?

      You're happy to ask me to speak out, I've already got my ass on the line as it is but I guess that's not good enough for you. What are you risking by the asking? Oh, I know it's shitty here. I know what the problems are and where they are. But I'm going to play by the rules until I'm out, in 2007. Then you'll see the viper's tongue unleashed.

      I came too close to the line and probably went over it during 2004, if there's a scandal, if I'm booted out in disgrace for not mouthing party line, then when I am able to speak, it won't have the impact as it will when I've stayed the course.

      But this is all for me to internalize and worry about. It's none of your business to order me to be your mouthpiece.

      by jabbausaf on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 08:15:50 AM PDT

      •  Been speaking out and taking action

        probably longer than you have been alive, as in refusing to take my men on a mission that carried enormous risks with no benefit, even when threatened with a court-martial, to being targeted by the right wing to the point where even my children were being threatened, to having my patriotism denigrated very publicly by government officials, etc. The financial costs are incalculable. All because I flat refused to ignore my solemn obligations to those who were my responsibility and those with whom I served.

        You want to believe and espouse that the Iraq occupation is a "noble cause?"  Fine, do so, but do not be surprised when folks like me jump up and challenge you.

        by Wayward Wind on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 11:38:08 AM PDT

        •  Unlawful orders?

          According to the UCMJ, the duty to obey orders is specifically the duty to obey only lawful orders. This is stated all over the regs.

          Does anyone know if this has been used by any soldiers refusing to go to Iraq? "I'm not going because I believe it to be an illegal order." A case like this would be a good way to get this Iraq farce into a court of law where people could be subpoenaed to testify, although I'm not too sure if a military court can function in this manner. It seems to me to be a viable possibility, but I'm sure there's a reason why we haven't heard of this tack yet. Guess I'm just sayin.

          Oh man. I'd love to see Doug Feith on the stand answering questions about the criminally underreported Office of Special Plans.
          

          by big dave on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 08:50:26 PM PDT

•  Not in vain

   They did not die in vain, they died in service of their country what their country asked them to do they bravely did and gave the last ounce of courage. The tragedy is their deaths were unnecessary.

  by arkdem on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 06:18:20 PM PDT

  •  vain

    Well said. I was about to say the same thing myself.You said it for me.

    by eastvan on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 07:04:29 PM PDT

•  The right tool for the right job

  Something else I keep in mind always is that the military is a tool to be used to accomplish a job. How well or how poorly it is used is determined by the elected leaders of the country, and the people of the country elect the leaders. In short, the military is the tool of the leaders who are selected by the people. If the leaders don't use the tool well, the people should vote accordingly.

  Anyway, if a tool is misused, it's not the tool's fault. If you try to use a hammer to change a light bulb, it's hardly the hammer's fault that the light bulb broke. If you used it to pound a nail down, you'd be in great shape, and the nail would be pounded down.

  Of course, when you've got a hammer, all your problems look like nails.

  by jabbausaf on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 06:26:21 PM PDT

  •  That's really similar to how I looked at it.

    And that's pretty much how I felt when I served: like a tool.

    Like you said, it didn't really bother me because I was just doing what I was told. Hand grips my handle, arm swings my little ball-pean head and pow! I break the light bulb. It wasn't my job to deliberate on the how's, why's or what if's...I was always just waiting to be picked up and swung again. That's what I signed up for, got paid for, and that's what I did. It wasn't my job to get inside the heads of the policy makers.

    Of course, I was in Clinton's military. Times have changed.

    by big dave on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 06:48:50 PM PDT

  •  jobs

    The job of the military,besides the obvious need to defend the country is in fact to execute the foriegn policy of the nation. Sometimes (like now)that policy is incorrect.It is truly tragic when those mistakes cost the lives or health of those that are prepared,in good faith,to stand up.

    by eastvan on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 07:10:07 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, but the oath sworn is to the

    Constitution, and then down the chain of command.  I think there's a good reason for this as outlined here:

    "I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic (emphasis mine); that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...

    and after this comes the following...

    ...and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    I think this precludes any argument that "I'm supporting the president and the country" since obviously the country comes first, then the other slobs...

    I'm not saying we should take to the streets, but I'm just saying that things aren't as black and white as Bushco, LTD., would like to think.  The worm could turn, my friends (in a totally legal way - carnivore).

    by seronimous on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 02:42:17 AM PDT

•  Check out this group

  Military Families Speak Out

  and figure out ways you can support them and get your local area engaged.

  by RedDan on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 06:30:20 PM PDT

•  the lessons will be repeated until they're learned

  They haven't died in vain if the American sheeple will wake the hell up and start demanding accountability of the press and the government, but even more so, our fellow citizens. Nearly every damn one of us (Americans) has blood on our hands. Every Democrat who allows the Republican majority to stomp on them time after time is guilty. Every freaking citizen who was too damn lazy to vote or to pay attention to the issues and be informed instead of watching the latest missing persons report on Fox or CNN.

  They won't have died in vain if we can learn something from this liar's war, that we must never allow such a mistake to be made again, never to have blind trust and faith in our leaders.

  Did all the thousands who died in Vietnam die in vain?

  It's just so sad that we can't learn from our own history just a generation later.
  Our memories are so short. And we are responsible for not holding our leaders accountable. That's really what it is. A Democracy doesn't work unless citizens participate. We've simply become fat lazy sloths in this country, for the most part.

  by Buffmom on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 06:53:59 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately....

    ....they did die in vain. They were murdered by a government that didn't give a damn about their lives or about the truth. They might not have if Bush had learned anything from that murderous debacle, but obviously he has not. Apart from making the news media more malleable.

    by metal prophet on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 07:35:41 PM PDT

  •  That's where the Iraq lesson should lead.

    This current regurgitation of history will, again, attempt to serve as the lesson on how not to let your leadership behave. These days though, the administration is so dolled up in the fucking flag that you need the special x-ray vision glasses to see them for the crooks they are. Unfortunately, that populist bullshit they dispense gets eaten up by the public, rancid parts and all. Nobody likes to have the assumption that the President is looking out for you challenged. Baseball and apple pie, man. It just wouldn't be the American way.

    But, you're right about salvaging this as a 'lessons learned' kind of thing. It should provide warning signs for actions, behavior, rhetoric and other flags that allow a people to know what their politicians are selling. It's just heartbreaking to constantly have to learn the hard way.

    by big dave on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 07:50:07 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    Vietnam...Iraq...<insert next bogus war here>

    history?  we don't need to learn no stinkin' history.  We're Americans.

    by MetaProphet on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 08:49:32 PM PDT

•  Yes and No

    As far as the much ballyhooed "defending freedom" crap goes, they certainly died in vain. Not a single American is any more "free" than they would be if we had not lost a soul in Iraq. They are not bleeding and dying to protect the United States, which is what they volunteered to do.

    We are less safe because we invaded Iraq. Our Army is less capable than it was, our casualties have been amazingly rank-heavy with disproportionate losses in the middle-NCO ranks, we have lost a LOT of equipment there that is not available elsewhere if we needed it, recruitment and retention are down, and will stay down for the foreseeable future...

    On the other hand, an unknown number of our losses were incurred when one soldier was assisting another soldier, or an innocent civilian.

    No soldier who ever died doing that died in vain.

  by The Baculum King on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 08:14:40 PM PDT

•  Capitalism and

  those who are so greedy they would kill to preserve it are to be blamed as well, since we are blaming. I just spent the evening with a friend who is back from Iraq and he said to me, "Hey, it's my job. I have to do my job and speaking out against the boss is a 'no-no' like in any other job. Yeah, it sucks, but what can I do about it now."  

  Man, is he right. He is doing a job that I wouldn't want to do or that I couldn't do because I would be giving my middle finger to the boss's face left and right. He is the guy/girl that cleans the toilet where you work. Someone has to do it, but most of us won't because amongst other reasons, the pay doesn't seem worth getting dirty. For some people, it's their only opportunity in this "land o' plenty".

  This is purely an economic war and those guys/girls know it, but somehow they have to make meaning so they can sleep at night. Oh, and they have bills to pay and kids to feed.

  by loba70 on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 08:36:07 PM PDT