In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

2,000 Dead in Iraq

Jill

A grim milestone.

The 2,000th soldier who died was on this third tour in Iraq. He was 25, and a new father.

The milestone of 2,000 dead was marked yesterday by a moment of silence in the Senate, and President Bush said that “the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission.”

It should also be noted that Iraqis are suffering more than 50 casualties a day. One non-profit group estimates that 26,000 to 30,000 Iraqi civilians, including police officers, have been killed in the conflict.

The Times has more on those who have died.

While I obviously disagree with the war, I want to be clear that recognizing those who have died is not an inherently politicized action, and I’m not doing it now as another way of taking an anti-war stance. The article notes that many of the soldiers’ surviving family members still support the war, and don’t want their loved ones’ lives used as part of an anti-war argument. I think it’s important to respect that. On the same token, many of them oppose the war, and resent President Bush using their loved ones’ lives as a reason to “complete the mission.” We should recognize and respect that too.

What it comes down to is the fact that these people gave their lives for an ideal, and that they should be noted and remembered. Their American-flag-covered coffins shouldn’t be hidden. Their numbers shouldn’t be ignored or brushed aside. For every person on the right who criticizes Cindy Sheehan for using the war dead to further her own political cause, there’s someone on the left who can criticize George Bush for the exact same thing. We can accuse each other of hypocrisy till the sun comes up, but I think on a day like today it’s more productive — and more important — to recognize and honor those who have died.

Posted in War

15 thoughts on 2,000 Dead in Iraq

  1. The article notes that many of the soldiers’ surviving family members still support the war, and don’t want their loved ones’ lives used as part of an anti-war argument. I think it’s important to respect that.

    Does not matter one iota to the f’in media or Mother Sheehan. The extent of the coverage shows that you are not representative of your side on this one.

  2. I think on a day like today it’s more productive — and more important — to recognize and honor those who have died.

    So a liberal pops up once in a while and says “OK, truce” while the rest of your posse runs around all apeshit over this number? That should be well received. I for one am not moved by arbitrary memorials from liberals who continue to spit on the military via political proxy (Durbin, Kennedy, et al)

    …”The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives.” U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan

    ’nuff said…

  3. I can’t believe you didn’t move Rob, Jill. Failure to move Rob dishonors our troops and the sacrifices they make. Not failure to reimburse them for purchases of equipment, extending tours of duty, or using them as props for political rallies. Look upon your new troop messiah!

    And while you’re at it, Jill, could you silence a few Senators who politically disagree with Rob? And a few thousand websites? Jeez, don’t you love the troops as much as Rob? Get with it!

  4. For those who have been following the casualties in Iraq all along, this site has been consistently and simply reporting the deaths from CENTCOM, with links to the DoD news releases.

    I’m not sure the NYT piece identifies the 2000th soldier, actually, and I’m not sure they should. Yes, anyone who has been following the count could do so, but that person and his or her family don’t need to be paraded around forever as the 2000th.

    The extent of the coverage shows that you are not representative of your side on this one.

    She is representative of her “side.” She spoke with compassion and respect for the service of US service men and women.

  5. And, frankly, I don’t think whether Jill is representative of her “side” is all that relevant. Jill speaks for herself.

  6. Actually, I think the 2000 who have perished are actually the lucky ones. It’s the thousands upon thousands who are blind and missing limbs that I feel for. Wait until they back to the states and try to pick up their lives. Do you think the VA is going to help them 5 or 10 years down the road? They’ll just be another bumb sleeping in the snow.

    Ask any Vietnam vet how well our government takes care of our troops. When it comes to cut the budget–which we’ll have to do eventually–those soldiers are going to pay. As if they haven’t given enough already. After all, it’s only a leg and a set of eyes.

    That’s why I say the dead are better off than the “casualties” of war. That word, casualties, is misleading. It makes it sound like a bullet grazed someone’s ass or they fell off a building and broke their foot. No, uh-uh. Those guys are getting blown to bits, losing their limbs and hearing and eyesight. To me, the real numbers that make me cringe are these “casualties.” How many of us have that number committed to memory? How many even pay attention? How many of those milestones have we passed without regard?

  7. And, frankly, I don’t think whether Jill is representative of her “side” is all that relevant.

    Well, I’d like to claim her. 🙂

  8. I don’t agree with much of the outsized play that this milestone stuff gets, but good post.

    Rob – shaddup. This is not how you encourage the reasonableness that you ostensibly mourn, silly man.

  9. Ugh. I was hoping that this wouldn’t happen.

    Does not matter one iota to the f’in media or Mother Sheehan. The extent of the coverage shows that you are not representative of your side on this one.

    First, as others have pointed out, I’m not trying to be representative of any “side” here. I’m speaking for myself and myself only. I don’t represent the anti-war movement, or the feminist anti-war movement, or the American left. I’m definitely not claiming that, although I identify as a part of all of those movements.That said, I would guess that many on the anti-war left would agree with at least some, if not most, of what I said here.

    Secondly, if I was looking to argue with you, I could point out that it doesn’t matter one iota to President Bush and many other war supporters out there that many of our own troops don’t support the war, and many of their families don’t either. As I said in the post, both sides have a political agenda (and I don’t mean the word “agenda” in necessarily negative sense). Both have their beliefs. The opinions of the troops and their families are as varied as those in the country in general.

    So a liberal pops up once in a while and says “OK, truce” while the rest of your posse runs around all apeshit over this number? That should be well received. I for one am not moved by arbitrary memorials from liberals who continue to spit on the military via political proxy (Durbin, Kennedy, et al)

    You know, I can see why people go “apeshit” over this number. 2,000 is a lot of dead troops. It’s a lot of dead Americans, a lot of sons and daughters and husbands and wives and mothers and fathers. To not be upset by it — whether you support the war or not — is simply cold-hearted. One can support the war and understand that war necessarily entails death and sacrifice while simultaneously recognizing that those who have died can (and should) be grieved for. Part of supporting the troops is recognizing when they make the ultimate sacrifice.

    Finally, opposing the war isn’t “spitting on the military.” It isn’t unpatriotic. Good-intentioned people can disagree, and we can support the military and support soldiers by not wanting to put them in harm’s way unnecessarily.

  10. Pingback: Signaleer

  11. *Bows head briefly in respect*

    Ahem, alright…

    Bill from INDC is right, Rob. 😛

    I could point out that it doesn’t matter one iota to President Bush and many other war supporters out there that many of our own troops don’t support the war, and many of their families don’t either.

    Well, given his abysmal PR selling of the war, I’d not dispute that claim, barring an “EEEEVIL MEDIA” reason or something like that.

    Still, that aside, very nice post, Jill. Rob, hold thy venom. 😛

  13. I’m not American, Canadian actually, and I think that the war will, in the long term be viewed as a success despite the huge tactical mistakes made by the White House. Can you imagine the power of the first real, even if imperfect, Arab democracy in middle east?

    However I will respest Jill’s sentiment and take a moment to lament the deaths of both American service men and the innocent (and even not completely innocent) Iraqis who have died in the struggle. I’m a guy who hasn’t cried since childhood but it does make me very sad for every life lost in the struggle.

  14. That’s assuming “the first real, if imperfect, Arab democracy” lasts more than a year or two.

    (And that’s assuming Iraq would be the first real Arab democracy, but I don’t know my history well enough to comment on that.)

  15. I need some of EricP’s diplomacy. Unfortunately, that’s drained out of me by the Left’s unending posturing on this matter. Sorry to say, Sheehan’s left me raw.

    I’m not even a Bush supporter anymore, but, mismanagement aside, I’m taking the long view on the war. Regardless, we need some freakin’ perspective. What do you think about the tens of thousands of dead in Korea and Vietnam, sacrificed for freedom of others? Yes, it sucked, but did any good come of it? If you’ve ever talked with non-Communist Koreans or Vietnamese now living here, as I have, you’d know the answer to that.

Comments are currently closed.