I have made a conscious decision to view casualties of war as impersonally as I can because once you make the decision to go to war you have to think tactically and strategically in an effort to win the war in the most efficient and decisive manner possible. And unfortunately, war=casualties.
I realize the horror of creating casualties is an excellent argument AGAINST war, but this world is still a very violent, dangerous place and there are enemies who will not be thwarted by any means short of organized violence. I do not mean to debate the advisability or necessity of the war in Iraq today, but it IS a war and once begun it is critical - I believe - to keep a focus on the big picture and not dwell on the day to day.
But of course there also must be a balance between this kind of emotional distance and impersonal strategy, and honoring those individuals who carry out that strategy - and most especially give their lives in the process of dutifully carrying out that strategy - as individuals and not just fodder for policy (war=politics by other means).
This balance is very difficult to achieve as we are talking about the loss of our fellow citizens, friends and family members. (And I freely admit it is much easier to keep "policy" abstract and impersonal when you do not have anyone immediately close to you in harm's way, as I do not.) It is as if we must divide our minds in two: what is best for the nation, for the world, for the big picture? vs. keenly feeling the loss of every individual who is killed or injured, every one of whom deserves our recognition, appreciation and sorrow.
And that is why Memorial Day, especially in time of war, is so important. It is right that we set aside a day to honor, appreciate and give brain- and heart-space to those who have made - it's a cliche but a totally appropriate one - the ultimate sacrifice, to set aside the big picture and tactics and strategy for a day in order to remember that war is horrible, that there is great nobility and selflessness inherent in defending one's country, and that we MUST collectively, keenly feel the loss of every individual no matter how certain we are of the rightness of our martial cause or we become less human.
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
I appreciate your point Eric, but I tend to take a little different point. I was glad to see Ted Koppel reading off the list of every American war casualty in Iraq.
I don't particularly want or intend to dwell on each of them at great length, but it's important to carefully consider our human costs. As we edge up towards a thousand killed, including the specific names and faces Koppel broadcast, you have to ask whether what we are doing is worth this cost.
To me, the answer is clearly yes. It's unfortunate that even one young American gets killed, but put even a thousand American lives on one side of the scale versus the combination of mass evil unleashed on the whole world by the old Iraqi government- and then add in the threat to US of his overt and covert support of terrorists. My balance scales (forgive me, I'm a Libra) still clearly say we're doing the right thing.
2 - RJ Elliott
Al, this is scary.
We are both libertarians. And we are both Libras.
Coincidence? Ask Art Bell...
3 - Bob A. Booey
RJ: Art Bell? Don't forget to add fringe lunatic weirdo right-wingers and bad writers to the "Al and RJ" list.
Get married. It's legal a lot of places now.
Eric: Nice piece, but I would suggest that the "steeling" you talk about is what numbs us to the horror that is war in the first place. Ethics should never take a backseat to strategy and technique. After all, the decision to GO to war is a moral choice in and of itself. I'll recycle this phrase from a previous discussion: it's a WILLED calculation, not an inevitability. That question of WILL is an eminently ethical one, along with our individual commitments to that willed choice. Particularly for anyone who would define themselves as remotely intellectual, I find it surprising that so many people are willing to overlook or repress the human costs of war and its effect upon them. It's too easy to look at war as distant news or techno-strategic war games with flashing neon lights lighting up the Baghdad sky as it is. The real challenge is remembering what purpose war serves and the reasons we value peace over war.
Finally, don't link 9/11 and Iraq. You're too smart for that.
That is all.
4 - RJ Elliott
The link is simple. No 9-11 means no invasion of Iraq. Right or wrong.
5 - Natalie Davis
Heavy sigh.
6 - bhw
No 9-11 means no invasion of Iraq. Right or wrong.
Not necessarily. The Bushies were cooking up an invasion of Iraq before 9/11. On 9/12, Rumsfeld had his excuse. But the plans were there; they were just waiting for the right moment to try to sell them to the American people.
Unfortunately, for more reasons than one, the moment came.
7 - Eric Olsen
RJ is correct in saying there is no Iraq without 9/11 - it changed the entire caculus of how we operate from reactive - and typically very slowly reactive at that - to proactive, to get to them before they get to us.
Whether or not there were "plans" in place to invade Iraq prior to 9/11, there would not have been a plausible catalyst for such action without 9/11. As to whether there was any direct Iraqi involvement in 9/11, it appears not but you never know. I am assumng not at this point, but stranger things have been shown to be true.
As far as the "steeling" process, I am jut telling how I have to go about it and how I think the leadership has to go about it once the decision to go to war has been made. This is not to imply that lives should ever be casually forfeited, but it means once you decide to fight, you must do it to win as quickly and efficiently and decisively as possible.
But, obviously, this leads to a certain depersonalization of the human cost, and that is what I want to own up to and come to terms with on a day called "Memorial Day." I want - for myself and for the nation - to feel the loss of every individual on this day.
8 - bhw
Whether or not there were "plans" in place to invade Iraq prior to 9/11, there would not have been a plausible catalyst for such action without 9/11.
We really don't know that. 9/11 helped, for sure, though.
As to whether there was any direct Iraqi involvement in 9/11, it appears not but you never know.
There is no known connection. I'm sure lots of people feel the way you do because it helps "justify" the war in the back of their minds. [That and the fact that Bush & Co. implied the connection during the pre-war sales bonanza and that Cheney continues to do it.]
9 - Shark
The justifications for going to war in Iraq have a lot in common with the dead American GIs:
they're all meaningless abstractions.
Yay for our side!
10 - Eric Olsen
Never would I suggest that American casualties, or any casualties, are meaningless absractions. But from the policy standpoint I do think they have to be viewed in aggregate because it is the job of policy-makers to keep the overall interests of the country paramount.
I meant to show that this mental action this may be necessary, but it is not without cost, and that the importance of Memorial Day is that EVERYONE should set aside this kind of impersonal thinking for the day.
11 - Dirtgrain
Where do you draw the line? What is an acceptable level of casualties? I don't know that there is a formula. It does seem absurd to say there is a certain number of casualties that we can tolerate--that a "few" deaths is an okay situation, but a lot of deaths is an unacceptable one. This does something funny to our concept of valuing life.
I think of the pep talk from the movie, Braveheart:
Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade all of that from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take away our lives, but they'll never take our freedom.
When attacked or oppressed, I will defend myself and my freedom. But war is a loss of freedom--death even more so. The Iraq fiasco has to some extent enslaved us. To me this means that we should do everything that we can to avoid war. I don't think we have--rather, we have jumped at the chance. Bush jumped at the chance to invade Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11.There is a tipping point at which the majority of the people will decide that enough is enough. The reasons given for the war/occupation, the number of casualties, the effectiveness of the administration's propaganda, the perception of the enemy, the perception of a threat--all these play a part in determining where the people collectively draw the line.
The scariest thing for me is that our leaders lied to us about Iraq. They tried to trick us into supporting the war. I believe we are in Iraq for profit and power--not to protect us from WMDs, terrorists or a legitimate military threat. I draw the line there.
12 - Sharps Shooter
Several of the commenters up-thread are becoming rather upset, I surmise, now that a BOOK has been published formally detailing the many, many connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq and other Islamofascist groups, especially re 9/11...
Read it and weep!
13 - Natalie Davis
Nah, I shed my tears over the connections between the Bush junta and the Saudis. That there are terrorists in Iraq is not surprising; hell, there are plenty of them in Washington, DC.
14 - Dirtgrain
If it's in a book, then it must be true. I'm sorry, that should read: "a BOOK." In keeping with this principle, we should unquestioningly believe the points made in the following texts:
Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (The Mind-Control Conspiracy Series)
I believe everything I read.Cryptozoology A To Z : The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters Sasquatch Chupacabras And Other Authentic Monsters
Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President
Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
The Lies of George W. Bush
The I Hate George W. Bush Reader : Why Dubya Is Wrong About Absolutely Everything
The Little Prince
15 - Jim Carruthers
The last time I was in the States was in November 2000 (and pesky scoundrels kept trying to get me to vote, yeah, it was that day), and while I was in the lineup at customs, a 'murrican asked me, what was the significance of the red flower I had pinned to my jacket. I explained it was for Remembrance Day, and for all those who had died in war and to commemorate the establishment of peace.
We don't celebrate the military here in Canada in the spring (we do celebrate Queen Victoria's birthday on the May Two-four). I like to think we want to look to the solution, not the symptoms.