I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

[spence]

I've mentioned a few times the most excellent book "The New American Militarisim" by Andrew Bacevich. Sadly his own son died serving in Iraq this month. I found this Memorial Day piece in the Washington Post quite moving and a very interesting and genuine perspective.

-spence

I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, May 27, 2007; B01

Parents who lose children, whether through accident or illness, inevitably wonder what they could have done to prevent their loss. When my son was killed in Iraq earlier this month at age 27, I found myself pondering my responsibility for his death.

Among the hundreds of messages that my wife and I have received, two bore directly on this question. Both held me personally culpable, insisting that my public opposition to the war had provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Each said that my son's death came as a direct result of my antiwar writings.

This may seem a vile accusation to lay against a grieving father. But in fact, it has become a staple of American political discourse, repeated endlessly by those keen to allow President Bush a free hand in waging his war. By encouraging "the terrorists," opponents of the Iraq conflict increase the risk to U.S. troops. Although the First Amendment protects antiwar critics from being tried for treason, it provides no protection for the hardly less serious charge of failing to support the troops -- today's civic equivalent of dereliction of duty.

What exactly is a father's duty when his son is sent into harm's way?

Among the many ways to answer that question, mine was this one: As my son was doing his utmost to be a good soldier, I strove to be a good citizen.

As a citizen, I have tried since Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a critical understanding of U.S. foreign policy. I know that even now, people of good will find much to admire in Bush's response to that awful day. They applaud his doctrine of preventive war. They endorse his crusade to spread democracy across the Muslim world and to eliminate tyranny from the face of the Earth. They insist not only that his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was correct but that the war there can still be won. Some -- the members of the "the-surge-is-already-working" school of thought -- even profess to see victory just over the horizon.

I believe that such notions are dead wrong and doomed to fail. In books, articles and op-ed pieces, in talks to audiences large and small, I have said as much. "The long war is an unwinnable one," I wrote in this section of The Washington Post in August 2005. "The United States needs to liquidate its presence in Iraq, placing the onus on Iraqis to decide their fate and creating the space for other regional powers to assist in brokering a political settlement. We've done all that we can do."

Not for a second did I expect my own efforts to make a difference. But I did nurse the hope that my voice might combine with those of others -- teachers, writers, activists and ordinary folks -- to educate the public about the folly of the course on which the nation has embarked. I hoped that those efforts might produce a political climate conducive to change. I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond.

This, I can now see, was an illusion.

The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as "the will of the people."

To be fair, responsibility for the war's continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son's death, my state's senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son's wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don't blame me.

To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.

Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed the check. It's roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning once he starts pitching next month.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.

In joining the Army, my son was following in his father's footsteps: Before he was born, I had served in Vietnam. As military officers, we shared an ironic kinship of sorts, each of us demonstrating a peculiar knack for picking the wrong war at the wrong time. Yet he was the better soldier -- brave and steadfast and irrepressible.

I know that my son did his best to serve our country. Through my own opposition to a profoundly misguided war, I thought I was doing the same. In fact, while he was giving his all, I was doing nothing. In this way, I failed him.

Andrew J. Bacevich teaches history and international relations at Boston University. His son died May 13 after a suicide bomb explosion in Salah al-Din province.

[fishpoopoo]

In joining the Army, my son was following in his father's footsteps: Before he was born, I had served in Vietnam. As military officers, we shared an ironic kinship of sorts, each of us demonstrating a peculiar knack for picking the wrong war at the wrong time. Yet he was the better soldier -- brave and steadfast and irrepressible.

I know that my son did his best to serve our country. Through my own opposition to a profoundly misguided war, I thought I was doing the same. In fact, while he was giving his all, I was doing nothing. In this way, I failed him.

This is sad. I understand the parent's guilt, but the father is being a little too hard on himself. Giving your life for your country is an occupational hazard in the armed forces.

[Raven]

the war will not end.....it's global and on-going
for the next 50-100 years

it's not about just Iraq or afghanistan

it's a war of ideology

his responsibilty was to send his son kevlar

he raised a son who proudly defended our country abroad.
so in that act he should have pride.

all life is an illusion
everything solid will someday turn to dust

kerry and kenedy should be touring (as senators)
technological labs to see where funding should
go to the most promising technologies to fight terrorism

the war may have started for misguided reasons but it
certainly has evolved into something
that only persaverence and technology can solve.

for example imo every vehicle in iraq should be
rfid tagged and tracked ....anyone removing the
tracking devices should be imprisioned.

for example:
yesterday i saw a new plant developed that is
ultra-sensative to nitrous oxide that is leaking from
roadside bombs and you can seed it ....by air

it turns from green to red thus exposing land mines.
thats excellent technology

[JohnR]

While technology can provide solutions to individual problems, it is not the be-all end-all throw money and science at issues that have largely plagued mankind due to a lack of leadership.

On the surface, leadership got us into this problem in the invasion of Iraq. Then leadership was at best luke warm with General Franks - after the military operations. Then followed by the leaderships failings in waging a peace an occupation, followed by the problems that required the leadership of Paul Bremmer and the CPA, and every leadership issue that has occurred since then. Many say Patreaus is the leader we need over there now, unfortunately we needed him at the helm before Bremmer's loafers first hit the aircraft stairs.

Would better leadership earlier from Clinton to Bush senior and even Reagan made a difference in what we are dealing with today? Perhaps. But leadership has gotten us where we are today and leadership is what we are truly lacking these days.

This cat was out of the bag long before parents needed to send better armor, baby wipes, or silly string to the front line. Leadership was what was hardly shipped, and now that it may be there, it is too late.

I mourn this soldier's son, and all the sons and daughters. I applaud this man for his honesty and clear conviction. Many of our nation's best and brightest have worn the uniform and many of these accomplished people has stated that leadership screwed the pooch on this one, time and time again....

Rant off

[Hooper]

I shared in some of Mr. Bacevich's beliefs and dismay. Who is more disheartened than those who opposed the war the strongest? Their belief was the Dems would ride in to save the day only to find out, they are truly all the same. I have to admit, I am sick to death over the current direction of our country and the elected leaders on all levels. Money is truly the end-all be-all of modern politics.

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by Hooper

I shared in some of Mr. Bacevich's beliefs and dismay. Who is more disheartened than those who opposed the war the strongest? Their belief was the Dems would ride in to save the day only to find out, they are truly all the same. I have to admit, I am sick to death over the current direction of our country and the elected leaders on all levels. Money is truly the end-all be-all of modern politics.

indeed, especially the money part