I shouldn’t need to make the case that, in a just war, it would be an unjust tactic to use our military casualties as support for an antiwar movement. But what I wonder about is whether or not the reverse is true: In an unjust war, is it just to use our military casualties as support for an antiwar movement?
Naturally the question arises from the antiwar movement’s heavy reliance upon our armed forces’ mounting losses in Iraq as part of the argument that the war should be concluded. But how effective is that line of reasoning from a logical perspective?
I think it depends on where and how the issue of casualties is raised.
First, I have to point out explicitly that I am talking about casualties in our own military. These are the deaths that our antiwar movement is latching onto, even though the deaths and suffering of the Iraqi people are far more compelling to me personally—because they’re civilians and their death rates are huge. Nevertheless, in a desire not to be pigeonholed as un-American—which right-wingers were able to pull off with much success for years after September 11—we among the antiwar movement have preferred to focus on American fatalities. I will do that here, as well.
I have already provided that the war is unjust, as a given. But it is necessary to go back and see whether our troop casualties helped to determine that unjustness in the first place. If so then I think we have a problem, because of another premise I offer: As the institution responsible for physically executing the war, and absent other strategic concerns, the wellbeing of the military is less important than the achievement of military objectives. This premise is an inferred corollary of the fact that we raise militaries in the first place so as to fight wars and protect ourselves. Because militaries serve the purpose of war, the depletion or exhaustion of a military in wartime is not itself enough to invalidate that purpose, even if the entire military is lost in the effort.
Thus, all else being equal, if the American casualties themselves are being used as an argument that the Iraq war is unjust, I would not be inclined to consider that a just tactic, or even a valid one. And, indeed, many people in the antiwar movement do in fact make this argument.
Naturally, all else is not equal. As always, there are complicating factors: "Other strategic concerns" always exist, and, for purely humanitarian reasons as well as institutional and economic ones, we would be prudent to revisit the importance of any war in progress should our military losses become significant.
That does indeed complicate things considerably. First, the strategic concerns: If our commitment in Iraq is debilitating the military at a time when we are likely to need to use it in other conflicts, then troop casualties can become a source of unjustness in the present war after all. Then the questions follow: What is the true condition of our military? What is our capacity for replenishing it? To what extent, and how, are we likely to need to use the military elsewhere in the near future?
Unfortunately for those of us looking to make a powerful, persuasive argument based on troop losses, none of these questions leads to a strong case for de-justifying the Iraq war: Our military is heavily strained at the present time, but we have ample capacity to refurbish it, should that become necessary. And we are not likely to actually need to fight another war in the near future, much less defend our country against a foreign invasion. Even if the administration were to desire more war, as it surely does, the political liabilities of doing what must be done to sustain a separate campaign at this point in time, make the prospects of war, for instance, with Iran, very low.
Also, I should note that equipment losses and the sheer expense of everything are just as important as human losses when it comes to being able to field an effective military. And, while it is understandable that human deaths make for a stronger emotional appeal than material losses, that is a logical fallacy which cannot bolster the case that using troop casualties to protest an unjust war is a just tactic. Thus, to the extent that we would focus on the human losses to the exclusion of our losses in war materiel and treasure, any troop-fatality argument loses integrity—from the logical perspective.
Next, there is the humanitarian issue: If we compare the overall course of the Iraq War—in the operational sense, not in the strategic sense—with the losses (and injuries) being sustained by the military, what conclusion are we likely to draw? Well...again, not one that is very friendly to our cause. American losses in this war have been spectacularly low. Our advanced technology and obscenely generous military budget make it possible not only to better protect our troops, but also to better treat them when they are injured. Look at these maps of war-related death rates and tell me that America’s forces are fighting so much as a cold, let alone a war. From the perspective of our death rates, we aren’t even in a war. If the Iraq War were a just conflict (which it’s not, but...), then the current 3632 American deaths would be an incredibly light price to pay. I say that from the perspective that each successive death is less acceptable than the one before it, until an arbitrary point is reached at which the losses become too high. Because such a number is indeed arbitrary, I wouldn’t be able to tell you what it is. But the "I know it when I see it" test applies: 100,000 American deaths (and probably far less than that) would be cause for us to reevaluate our priorities. But 3632? For a war that is well past its fourth birthday? I doubt it. If we could have fought World War II with so few casualties, would we have? You bet. Indeed, knowing what we do now, I think we would have been willing to sacrifice far more American lives than we actually did in order to prevail.
Now we have the institutional question: Is this war causing fundamental damage to the American military institution? I think we can agree that our military is under a tremendous strain and will be feeling the effects of Iraq for decades to come. Therefore, here we have a much stronger case for bringing up the troop death issue. Or we would, except for the fact that these institutional concerns have little if anything to do with our military’s fatalities.
That leaves only the economic question: The expense of dead American troops, including the implicit costs of replacing all that lost talent. To be generous, I will include nonfatal casualties as well, here. This is no cosmetic concession; the American war dead are an easily absorbed loss when speaking solely in economic terms. However, many of our injured will be a drain on the economy for the rest of their lives. These medical and psychological expenses, as well as the training of replacement forces, funeral costs, family compensation, and all the rest of it, is going to cost billions if not trillions of dollars when all is said and done. Are we bankrupting ourselves with this war? Yes, we are...at this point in time. However, we could make up most of that money with relative ease by imposing taxes, selling war bonds, rationing consumption, and invoking other cost-saving wartime measures that, so far, President Bush has not seen fit to implement—because he knows he would lose support for the war if he did so. In any case, if the war were worth fighting, then the trillion dollars we shall have blown on it by the time it runs its course, and the extra trillion for medical and military costs afterwards, is probably within the realm of what is acceptable.
What I am compelled to suggest is that none of these complicating factors lends any significant justness to the tactic of using our war deaths as a means of establishing the war as unjust.
Thankfully, we already know the war is unjust, and we needn’t use troop deaths to support that argument. The reasons by which the administration originally propelled us to war turned out to be lies, negating the original justness of the war, while, after the fact, the powerful insurgency, civil war, near-genocide, and constant state of terrorism that has enveloped Iraq, have all negated any incidental justness that might have resulted from the war. So we hardly need to count American war dead to make that case.
Which brings me to one instance in which I do see a good reason for invoking our troop fatalities as a part of the larger antiwar argument: Because the war is unjust, mounting American casualties help to establish the degree of unjustness by deepening the ethical and emotional costs of the war.
Unfortunately, this is a fine distinction and I rarely see it made by our antiwar voices, here or elsewhere. That ambiguity has long made me uncomfortable with personally endorsing the American death argument, even though I am very eager to do so in the limited way outlined above. Thus, I wanted to flesh out my reasoning here, in an attempt to document the crucial nuances of my views on the issue.
Thoughts?