Are the deaths of our soldiers a waste of life?

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 12:31 PM on February 13, 2007.

This guest post was written by Terry Welch on the occasion of Barack Obama's comment that soldiers killed in Iraq have died in vain. Obama has since apologized, revealing once again that the Democrats still aren't getting it...

Michelle Malkin is, of course, livid that Barack Obama pointed out the obvious--that Bush's war is a waste of American lives--calling his statement "patronizing, infantilizing, and insulting" to the troops. She even quotes some service members who supported and died for the war and family members of other dead troops who believe the sacrifice was worth it. You can't argue with their opinion on this matter, because it is, after all, simply an opinion, no matter how hard it may have been to come by. Should one be interested in debating Malkin on the "uh-uh/uh-huh" playground level she's chosen, it would be simple to find an equal number of service members who feel the war is a waste and family members who believe that they gave a son, daughter, brother or sister for nothing.

A closer look, however, reveals that Malkin's childish fuming is just another version of Bush's spin point:

That only by "winning" the war in Iraq can we "honor" the service members already killed in his war.

When you consider this logical result of this construct, though, Bush and Malkin are saying that those soldiers deaths--and, by extension, their service and lives--only have meaning if the war is just and finished properly. As Malkin's anti-Catholic little buddy Allahpundit tried to spin it, those of us who oppose the war all think that soldiers lives are being wasted, but we "can't say that because it dishonors the dead so they're forced into rhetorical pretzels…"

I have tried to write this post several times, but it usually devolves into the sort of cursing rant which might make it easy for some to dismiss my point, but I want to be very clear here. Malkin and her followers--and, even more importantly, anyone who might think about taking them seriously--must be led to understand something important:

Nothing I can do or say can add or subtract one iota from the honor a service member has earned. Nothing Michelle Malkin, George W. Bush or the entire Fox News staff does or says can add or subtract one iota from the honor (or even dishonor, in rare cases) a service member has earned. The Iraq War does not provide the life of a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine with meaning. The Iraq War does not instill meaning in service. Those who have served know that, foolish war or just, honorable service is a meaning unto itself and has a value independent of context.

Think of the money in your wallet right now. Despite the value it represents, it can be wasted. Or think in economic terms of the true opportunity cost of each soldier's life: The birthday parties of children; the creativity and drive that might have found flower in our culture; the soulmate lucky enough to end her days on this earth in the arms of a loved one. This is a high cost that, no matter the outcome of this war, cannot be won back. I have worn the uniforms of two services. My father and his brothers fought in Vietnam. My grandfather's ship lobbed some of the 165,000 shells which helped liberate Saipan. And, if my great aunt's research is correct, a relative of mine received his pay in the infirmary of George Washington's Valley Forge encampment. I am no pacifist. I understand that there are times when the value of what might be earned could outweigh the cost of a few thousand American lives--or, even, a few hundred thousand lives.

But the lives we have lost in Iraq were lost due to the fever dreams of ideologues, who ignored all historical precedent in both proposing and planning their war. Every rationale for war has proven either false or foolish and the results pyrrhic, at best. We are less respected, less revered and, yes, less feared than before we began it. Our own intelligence agencies think that the war is actually creating more terrorists with even less central command and, while you argue that "we weren't in Iraq on 9/11," it's clear to anyone with the eyes to see that, in the words of Don Rumsfeld, "the harder we work, the behinder we get." Even some of your most erudite of conservative intellectuals (a near oxymoron these days) and mindless, partisan hacks have admitted the war was a mistake, closing a gap of years between them and the American public.

It is not dishonoring the troops to point out--as I do now, flatly--that their lives are being wasted in Bush's ridiculous, pointless and, ultimately, futile adventure. It is simply the truth and does not reflect on their service, but rather on the fact that the loss of their lives has gained us less than nothing. We must leave Iraq. Most Americans and even most soldiers believe that.

Malkin and her supporters to proverbially patting soldiers on the head and saying, "Everything will be all right soon, don't worry, it's going to get better," isn't the same as supporting the troops. It's patronizing the troops. It's infantilizing the troops. It's insulting the troops. And, if there are Americans blinkered enough to look at this debacle of a war and still believe the ridiculousness of Malkin and her minions, thereby lending support to those who would send more soldiers into Iraq's grinding machinery, it might even be killing the troops.

Tagged as: iraq, obama, soldiers, right wing, killed

Terry Welch blogs at Nitpicker.