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.That is, his anti-war activism couldn't have had any causal relationship to the death of his son because American politics are so beholden to the rich that it has no effect. These are dark, despairing thoughts by a man whose son has died. Is he finding some comfort in his own ineffectuality? But he still writes. It's not nothing, though it is powerful writing to say it's "nothing." That your arguments have not persuaded powerful individuals to abandon their deep commitments does not mean that they never listen and never respond.
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 maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics....
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.
May 27, 2007
"I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose."
Andrew J. Bacevich contemplates the accusation -- "a staple of American political discourse" -- that his vocal opposition to the war caused his son's death. You might expect him to say the accusation is repulsive, and he was, in fact, trying to stop the war, which might have saved his son. But he goes beyond that:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
A front-page profile of Bacevich in Friday's Wall St. J.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118013715744415303.html?mod=home_we_banner_left
Is his mistake not changing American society fast enough to save his son? Or not moving to another society where wealthy institutions or individuals have no sway? Or even not moving to a society where they agree with his point of view, such that 'opposition' isn't necessary? Perhaps his error is in not telling us where such a land is, so that we all benefit -- if he could.
Of course parents have a right to appropriately grieve. But when they parade it in public all nicely dolled up in anti-war rhetoric - Cindy Sheehan comes to mind as the most pathetic excuse for a grieving parent - I want to vomit. They dishonor not only the voluntary sacrifice of their adult offspring, but all the other parents who quietly live with their losses and their grief.
I am familiar with Mr. Bacevich's story. He is a career vet himself, an officer, briliant man, and now is a professor in a New England college. He has been opposed to the war,his son knew that and it is a very very sad story. His son was one of America's best and brightest. We have lost many of those in Iraq.
What can anyone say even a senator? It is how wars turn out very often.
I do think the father is showing extraordinary acumen and battle skills by pointing the finger at the so-called elites and their NGO insitutions. They have far too much influence on our government.
"I do think the father is showing extraordinary acumen and battle skills by pointing the finger at the so-called elites and their NGO insitutions. They have far too much influence on our government."
True enough, but is that really the only reason the war is being fought - "wealthy individuals and institutions" alone want it? That there are no other, couldn't possibly be other reasons for the war?
Bacevich is now playing politics, too, by discounting and dismissing those reasons. No parent, no matter how popular the war and its aims are, wants their son or daughter to die fighting it. Period. But the nation's leaders really cannot decide national security policy on the exclusive basis that no parent wants their child to die fighting a war, for what should be obvious reasons.
There's a lot of personally poisonous writing on the commentaries of Ann's blog regarding the war; to each side their position is clarity, reason and light; the other is the exact opposite.
But it really isn't all that clear, and it never is. I'd bet, notwithstanding Bacevich's accusation that politicians listen only to " wealthy individuals and institutions" that most of them (not all, on both sides) are terribly conflicted by the war, regardless of their current position on the war. I'd bet most want the war over, and want its outcome (reasonably) best for the US. I know I sure as hell do.
And in the end, that decision will be made by politicians voted into office by Bacevich and all the other voters across the land, no matter how much Bacevich thinks they only listen to " wealthy individuals and institutions."
PS: I wonder how long before this thread goes septic? I'm betting by the 15th comment.
As a Viet Nam veteran myself, may God bless him and his son.
Tim, nicely stated. And you're quite correct in stating that most are terribly conflicted about the war. I certainly am.
My prayers for him and his family. There is nothing to say that could salve this wound.
He needs to put the blame where it lies; Islamists and those who aid them. He might recall 12 years of ceasefire violations in Iraq as well as 9/11. He has a huge blind spot brought on by his politics. Blaming rich people for this war is retarded.
Tim:
I to agree with your comments.
Sgt Ted:
I don't think he is literally blaming rich people per se. He is just saying America is "out of balance" with respect to how its big decisions are deliberated. That may not be eye-opening news but it needs to be said more and more often.
Is he finding some comfort in his own ineffectuality?
I sure am. Anyone who believes that "bellicose evangelicals" are part of the moneyed class can't possibly be too ineffectual to suit me.
Let's not forget Mr. Bacevich is suffering from a very recent and incredibly devastating loss. And he wrote about his opposition to the war well before his son's death.
So can we agree to refrain from any and all comparisons to Cindy Sheehan?
Publishers such as WaPo would be wise not to publish the ruminations of parent who lost a son a mere 2 weeks prior. First, the unbearable pain cannot help but impact upon the writer's reasoning. Second, the fact of the writer's terrible loss functions as a argument from emotional intimidation barring potential opponents from a the vigorous response they might otherwise offer, even when the writer's argument is weak.
No harm in waiting 2 or 3 months, particularly when the opinion piece contains no new facts.
I doubt a parent's grief is any less profound in what Americans generally consider necessary wars like the Civil War, WWII, Afghanistan - than in controversial ones.
So in a way, the modern media's frequent public mating of personal grief as corollary, emblematic proof of "the folly of being in any war" is duplicitous nonsense meant to serve the pacifist/Left agenda.
I'm sure there were plenty of Gold Star mothers in WWII that would have moaned that no matter how bad the Nazis were, it wasn't worth the price of their dead son to beat them...
Bacevich does have insight on the politics of war. We have a "wrongness" to our society now, where wealthy Ruling Elites from Hollywood to the Bush Family Donors are immune to the personal consequences of war - if they wish to be - yet have vastly more influence with the government than ordinary, productive citizens do.
That wrongness, that skewing, that Bacevich alludes to can be moderated by voters finally sickening of the corruption and courtier lobbyist culture of the Imperial City. It can be moderated by returning to the Draft so that any future war risks putting the now "exempt" scions of Ruling Elite familes in jeopardy or hardship as well.
But the fatcats will always have that extra edge money gives them.
Let’s see if I’ve got this right.
Bacevich’s duty to his son was to be a “good citizen” which meant criticizing the Bush Doctrine. He and others persuaded the electorate to empower the Democratic Party to reverse course.
However, the Bush Doctrine remains because America is a de facto oligarchy of the rich.
Therefore, Bacevich failed his son because Bacevich believed in democracy instead of getting rich.
How very tragic, in a very ordinary sort of way.
P. Rich said..."Of course parents have a right to appropriately grieve. But when they parade it in public all nicely dolled up in anti-war rhetoric - Cindy Sheehan comes to mind as the most pathetic excuse for a grieving parent - I want to vomit. They dishonor not only the voluntary sacrifice of their adult offspring, but all the other parents who quietly live with their losses and their grief. 1,000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since last Memorial Day."
Now that's what I call an objective and fair representation of a mother's grief.
Did you have Sean Hannity write it for you?
*Oh, and by the way...1,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq since last Memorial Day.
So can we agree to refrain from any and all comparisons to Cindy Sheehan?
Nope. If he keeps this up, the Rove machine will make sure he is demonized, just as they demonized Cindy Sheehan.
I'd assumed that the bit about not comparing Bacevich to Cindy Sheehan was meant ironically, since both of the facts that supposedly make the comparison unseemly are also true of Sheehan.
Paul:
I don't know how to be ironic- my request was a sincere one.
Based on the derogatory comments directed at Cindy, can we assume you also think the Tillman family is merely whining (behaving in an un-patriotic manner?) when they ask what really happened to their son?
And was it okay for the Bush administration to stonewall them about the truth?
If some of the right leaning Americans here were less concerned about Cindy...and more concerned about the following, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess...and beat people up about the way they mourn:
U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq that ousting Saddam Hussein would create a “significant risk” of sectarian strife, encourage al-Qaida attacks and open the way for Iranian interference.
The Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday released declassified prewar intelligence reports and summaries of others that cautioned that establishing democracy in Iraq would be “long, difficult and probably turbulent” and said that while most Iraqis would welcome elections, the country’s ethnic and religious leaders would be unwilling to share power.
Nevertheless, President Bush, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top aides decided not to deploy the major occupation that force military planners had recommended, planned to reduce U.S. troops rapidly after the invasion and believed that ousting Saddam would ignite a democratic revolution across the Middle East.
Lucky,
Having been in combat, I can assure you that the officers on the ground are the ones that write the report on casualties.
"And was it okay for the Bush administration to stonewall them about the truth?" Nothing could be farther from the truth. I could say more, and try to convince you that you are wrong, but I don't think that you care what the truth is.
and more concerned about the following -
Monday morning quarterbacking. Of course some intelligence agencies warned of x, others discounted x and warned of y. You're cherry picking "what ifs" to bash Bush. Like the ones that complain we shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi Army. I'm sure if we hadn't, and the enlistees had begun a rampage of ethnic cleansing, the same weasels would be complaining that we should have disbanded the Iraqi Army.
Bacevich is also a conservative. He has acknowledged being a conservative.
He is just one parent sharing his views with the public. Marginalize him if you must but he of all people has lost more through this war than any of us can even imagine.
There were hundreds of thousands of similar examples during the US Civil War. Imagine then with so many opposed to the war and even still with the more wealthy able to buy themselves out of the draft.
Still hundreds of thousands continued to volunteer for that war.
Imagine if the U.S. adopted a government health care system through a partisan process (i.e. rammed through by Democrats). Thousands would be blaming every questionable death in the system on the Democrats - something to think about for the future.
Bacevich is also a conservative. He has acknowledged being a conservative.
To be sure, the pop-Marxist cant in the WaPo piece would have told us that even if the multiple pieces for The Nation hadn't.
Democrats have no accountability for policy failures because they care.
I wonder how many Americans and Iraqis have died in Iraq and Afghanistan because the American left has empowered our enemies to keep fighting, secure in teh knowledge that left will eventually force retreat, like Vietnam.
I wonder how many thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because the American left has sought to excuse Iranian provision of sophisticated bombs and other weapons to the insurgents.
That is, his anti-war activism couldn't have had any causal relationship to the death of his son because American politics are so beholden to the rich that it has no effect.
Perhaps you can explain to us how if not a single American ever said anything against the war, how the war would have gone differently.
Perhaps you can explain to us how if not a single American ever said anything against the war, how the war would have gone differently.
For starters, Al Queda targets Iraqi civllians because they know it will be sensationalized by our media and weaken the will of Democrats back here in America. They can't beat us on the battlefied, so they have wisely chosen to mimic the tactics of the Viet Cong [AQ has even admitted this].
He is just one parent sharing his views with the public.
He's standing on his son's corpse like a soapbox to deliver a political statement. I cut him slack b/c he's in mourning, but I doubt his son would appreciate what his father is doing.
Marginalize him if you must but he of all people has lost more through this war than any of us can even imagine
That would be an invalid assumption.
I served with CPT Bacevich in Germany in the late 70's.
I'd like to make a couple of points. When you join the Army, particularly as an officer, you don't get to pick your wars. You serve to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Bacevich the Elder was against the war from the get go, he's a smart guy. I respect him.
However, at a personal level, I feel about his article the way I feel about anti-war demonstrators carrying signs outside Arlington today. He is taking advantage of the moment to make a more public point.
It's not the time for that. Let us honor our dead for their sacrifices today and debate the war next week.
BTW: The WSJ was wrong. He retired an LT Colonel, not a Colonel. We call both Colonel in polite oral communication.
I see that Fen is trying to deflect attention from the Bush Administration's ignoring of the CIA and professional military's occupation predictions and judgments by accusing luckyoldson of "Monday morning quarterbacking."
It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the utter banality of that response. One of the primary reasons we are in this mess is because arrogant fools like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz blew off the professional opinion of Eric Shinseki, the chief of staff of the Army (for Crissakes) that:
something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.
The Bush Administration was warned in advance that they were going off half-cocked, and went ahead anyway because they "knew better." Four years later it's painfully clear this group of amateurs still doesn't have a clue.
I truly feel that the Bush Administration has been, with the possible exception of Carter's, the most inept and incompetent since the end of WWII. Certainly Bush has caused more damage than Carter, in terms of American lives lost through inexcusable stupidity, recklessness and hubris.
I see that Fen is trying to deflect attention from the Bush Administration's ignoring of the CIA and professional military's occupation predictions
You wrongly assume they ignored them. Its just as likely they chose to go with recs from other CIA [or intell community] and military that they thought was better advice. Its also likely they accepted the warnings you mentioned but determined there wasn't a better option. You really have no idea what happened. You're simplifying the decision making process to score cheap political points.
It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the utter banality of that response. One of the primary reasons we are in this mess is because arrogant fools like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz blew off the professional opinion of Eric Shinseki, the chief of staff of the Army (for Crissakes) that:
Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz were right about alot of things and also wrong about alot of things. As was Shineski.
Fen is right. Without the vitriol opposition here a lot less Iraqi civilians would have been killed.
You really have no idea what happened. You're simplifying the decision making process to score cheap political points.
I can say exactly the same about your "defense" of Rumsfeld, et al.
What we do know is that the long term "we will be greeted as liberators," "democracy is on the march" neocon plan to democratize the Middle East, with Iraq serving as the first domino, has been an abject failure. It has cost over 3400 American lives, and 25,000 wounded, many of whom have suffered traumatic brain injuries and/or multiple amputations. It has cost billions and billions of dollars.
The Bush Administration still doesn't have a clue what it's doing in Iraq, either (assuming it ever did).
I think General John Sheehan one of the three generals who said “no thank you” to the position of “war czar” got it exactly right when he explained his reasons for declining this way:
We cannot "shorthand" this issue [Iraq and Afghanistan} with concepts such as the "democratization of the region" or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to "win," even as "victory" is not defined or is frequently redefined.
It would have been a great honor to serve this nation again. But after thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan -- and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff dramatically underestimated the number of deaths of US Armed Service-members in the Iraq War.
"When you take a look at the life of a nation and all that's required to keep us free, we had more than 3,000 Americans murdered on 11 September, 2001. The number who have died, sacrificed themselves since that time is approaching that number,"
Sorry, but the number as of today is :3,455.
And, please..what does 9/11 have to with the 3,455???
And, please..what does 9/11 have to with the 3,455???
Ahhh... because maybe we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq now? Duh!
We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan -- and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq.
People, including generals, were saying this about Korea in the 1950s. That it is was a total failure. Today, almost no one considers Korea a failure.
"PS: I wonder how long before this thread goes septic? I'm betting by the 15th comment."
On the 15th comment, the board went septic. Maybe we should start a pool.
Post a Comment