The Calling; why we join

[Britney Spears]

One can easily get the impression that some lies were told here and there.

 

[mdh]

So what are you trying to say? That her son's death wasn't a loss to her? That because her son went to his death voluntarily*, she has no right to protest the war? Obviously, Cindy Sheehan planeed her son's death all along, just to promote her own "agenda" of opposing the war in Iraq, right? Sheehan... sounds French to me..   "Disgrace", indeed.

Aren't you avoiding the main point here? - No one is suggesting that Sheehan's loss is not real or tragic - but she has chosen to use her son's death to arrogate supreme moral authority to her anti-war stance. Which is something different altogether. As Hitchens noted above - she has effectively decided to ventriloquize the dead. And I will quote him one more time for emphasis:

Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? (a claim that has brought David Duke flying to Ms. Sheehan's side.) This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.

This seems to be a strong argument against Sheehan - and it's not only a right wing one.

mdh
neocon-PNAC oiler of the right-wing hate machine

 

[Britney Spears]

What do you mean "Ventriloquize"? She has admitted publicly that Spc. Sheehan was in support of the war, no one is debating that. Ms. Sheehan has not attempted to misrepresent her son's views, if she did, well, she just lost a son, and now she's getting divorced, cut her some fsucking slack, eh? His (Spc. Sheehan's) views don't matter much now anyway because he'd DEAD! Was this your main point?  Her son's death was her loss, so I'd say she's got a little more moral authority on the subject than you or I or Bush.

 

[mdh]

No I won't cut her any slack as long as she continues to make a spectacle of herself and her "cause" surrounded by the usual Hollywood types trying to exploit a good PR event.

And you're wrong about her "loss" - it was actually PFC Sheehan who suffered the bigger loss - it was his life - not hers.

And if you want to separate out her actual argument about the Iraq war - fine - then if you really believe that the Iraq war is the result of a Jewish cabal in league with the Bush family, I guess that's an anti-war argument of sorts - but that's not why Ms. Sheehan is in the media spotlight.

As for her ultimate moral authority - sorry it doesn't fly - any more than it did on the Michael Moore documentary when he tried a similar stunt. No one possesses supreme moral authority - not even a "little more" as you put it - to make political statements or public arguments.

If Ms. Sheehan does have that supreme authority then the war in Iraq is therefore - by definition - immoral - and we who support the war are immoral. By that reasoning the US must withdraw or continue fighting an immoral and unjust war - because Ms. Sheehan's unassailable moral authority demands it.

I just can't accept that logic.

mdh

 

[paracowboy]

Okay, I can't stay out of it, it's just bothering me too much. I sympathize with anyone who loses a child. I know how hard that is, and I never really got the chance to know mine. She knew hers for two decades.

What offends me is her complete dishonesty. She has left out of all her interviews is that she is one of the founders of the groups she is claims is supporting her, Gold Star Families For Peace. She created the Gold Star Mothers for Peace, knowing most Americans would associate it with the Gold Star Mothers, a completely different, and much more beneficial, organization. She claims that she wants a meeting with President Bush and that he is ignoring her, but he has met her already, and presented her with the condolences of the nation, her son died for.

Cindy Sheehan was anti-war and anti-President Bush years before Casey Sheehan died. However, she has made comments that she was not anti-war until her son's death. Does that mean she supported the war prior to that, in which case she did not have a problem as long as others were doing the dying? Either way, she's a liar. She has not been truthful since the start of this and if it were not for the work of some bloggers we would not have known about her previous meeting with the president or the fact that she is a founding member of the GSFP.

She campaigned against President Bush during both elections and joined moveon.org during the second election. It's her belief and she's stated it in her "Open letter to President Bush" that he stole both elections, and the Supreme Court helped him steal the second. But, again, she has come out in several MSM sources saying she WAS NOT an anti-Bush activist until AFTER the death of her son. This is the same woman that met with the President prior to her son's death and stated that he was a "warm, caring person" who she felt "was genuinely concerned about the welfare of our troops." Again, which is it?

I cringe every time I see Cindy Sheehan on TV, knowing that her son Casey would probably be in complete opposition to his name being invoked and his service and sacrifice being used in a crass political stunt. Mrs. Sheehan, if she had any respect for the fallen at all, would do better to devote this time and energy to reach out to others who have lost their children, including those who do not share her views. I am surprised that this woman has not used the death of Cpl Jostes to further her agenda as well. After all he died right by her son in the same fight. Unless, she does not care about the dead, just her agenda.

Cindy Sheehan was present at the rally in Sacramento for the Peavys, the couple who hung in effigy a U.S. soldier from their rental property in Sacramento, the Peavys live in Berkeley. Cindy praised the Peavys for their courage. That was after her son had died in Iraq.
Her son, Casey Sheehan, was an Honours Student, an Eagle Scout, and had three years of community college before his first enlistment. He enlisted as a mechanic, and re-enlisted with the Army in August 2003. From what I understand, he volunteered for a QRF to relieve a convoy under attack, the QRF was ambushed en route and he was killed. It would seem Casey Sheehan had a very different set of values and sense of honour than his mother. I wonder what their relationship was like. I wonder how much his life was guided by rejecting her influence.


In her defence, I think grief can be selfish, and for a time needs to be. But, I think we owe it to a lost loved one, to move on, to live what life we have left with our lost loved one living on through our memories. I'm grateful for her son's service. I grieve for her loss.

 

[Britney Spears]

No I won't cut her any slack as long as she continues to make a spectacle of herself and her "cause" surrounded by the usual Hollywood types trying to exploit a good PR event.

She isn't making a spectacle of herself, it's a spectacle because it just so happens that a huge number of people also share her views, hence all the support. I don't understand why you pubbies cannot reconcille yourselves to the fact that most people around the world, and now in the US, opposed the war. It must be some crazy Arab/Saddam conspiracy, huh.

And you're wrong about her "loss" - it was actually PFC Sheehan who suffered the bigger loss - it was his life - not hers."

Go back and read my post again. Did she suffer a loss or did she not?

As for her ultimate moral authority blah blah blah

I never claimed that she or anyone else had ultimate moral authority over the war, I said that she has more moral authority over the matter of the death of her son than any of YOU. Is she "using" her son's death? Sheesh, that's the ONLY REASON WHY SHE'S THERE! What is YOUR moral authority for telling her she has no right to do it?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The wishes of her dead son.........?

 

[Britney Spears]

She has left out of all her interviews is that she is one of the founders of the groups she is claims is supporting her, Gold Star Families For Peace.

Did it ever occur to you that she might not be the only member of the organization?

She claims that she wants a meeting with President Bush and that he is ignoring her, but he has met her already, and presented her with the condolences of the nation, her son died for.
...
She has not been truthful since the start of this and if it were not for the work of some bloggers we would not have known about her previous meeting with the president or the fact that she is a founding member of the GSFP.

What is your cite for this? It sounds completely ludicrous. She's DENYING that Bush ever met with her? Didn't Bush have anyone else (like, um,  a TV crew) around when he met her? How exactly do you deny such a thing?

Cindy Sheehan was anti-war and anti-President Bush years before Casey Sheehan died. However, she has made comments that she was not anti-war until her son's death.

Again, cite please?

This is the same woman that met with the President prior to her son's death and stated that he was a "warm, caring person" who she felt "was genuinely concerned about the welfare of our troops.

Bush may very well be all of these things, I've not seen any evidence to the contrary. How does this make Cindy Sheehan a liar?

I cringe every time I see Cindy Sheehan on TV, knowing that her son Casey would probably be in complete opposition to his name being invoked and his service and sacrifice being used in a crass political stunt.

It's completely beyond me as to how you reached this conclusion. People who drink and drive and get themselves killed generally do so voluntarily, so it's impossible for their mothers to campaign against drunk driving, yes? After all, if they REALLY cared about their children's wishes, they would support their children's decisions all the way, right?

Her son, Casey Sheehan, was an Honours Student, an Eagle Scout, and had three years of community college before his first enlistment. He enlisted as a mechanic, and re-enlisted with the Army in August 2003. From what I understand, he volunteered for a QRF to relieve a convoy under attack, the QRF was ambushed en route and he was killed. It would seem Casey Sheehan had a very different set of values and sense of honour than his mother. I wonder what their relationship was like. I wonder how much his life was guided by rejecting her influence.

So he disagreed with his mom. Well, he put his money where his mouth is, good for him. that's more than what I can say for most of the pro-war crowd.








EDIT: Even if she did change her mind about the war, changing one's mind doesn't make one a liar. Also the death of a loved one sometimes compells people to change their minds! Crazy, huh?

 

[Britney Spears]

The wishes of her dead son.........?

And those would be what? Obviously her dead son's wished for her are more important and binding than her wishes for her dead son?

 

[mdh]

I never claimed that she or anyone else had ultimate moral authority over the war, I said that she has more moral authority over the matter of the death of her son than any of YOU. Is she "using" her son's death? Sheesh, that's the ONLY REASON WHY SHE'S THERE! What is YOUR moral authority for telling her she has no right to do it?

Britney,

I don't want this to turn into a dog-pile so I'll just offer up one more point - when you say

she has more moral authority over the matter of the death of her son than any of YOU.

isn't that effectively saying that she has more moral authority than me on the issue of Iraq?

After all what is the "matter of the death her son" - surely it's the war - and by extension it means that she has a morally superior position to mine since I haven't suffered such a loss.

But if I had lost a son - would it mean that my pro-war views were now on an elevated moral plane - that "in the matter of the death of my son" - my pro-war views trumped your political position on the the war? I would hope not.

But isn't that the end result of your argument? And isn't the naked politics of this anything less than concerted attempt to discredit the Bush Administration - and to embarrass Bush himself?

I could accept the notion that Sheehan is just a grieving Mom if there wasn't so much obvious calculation at work behind the scenes - but the evidence is overwhelming that this is not the case.

cheers, mdh 

 

[Britney Spears]

I could accept the notion that Sheehan is just a grieving Mom if there wasn't so much obvious calculation at work behind the scenes - but the evidence is overwhelming that this is not the case.

OK, so when Bush <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/bushtext_020205.html>uses the death of a soldier and the support of his family</a> during his 2005 State of the Union Address, the family of that soldier is just using their son's death to blatantly advance their pro-war agenda, correct? Or maybe us liberals are just nice enough not to $hit on a grieving parent because we disagree with their politics?

Pile-on? Where? So far paracowboy's the only one who has made a point that I can't refute right away (about her changing her mind about Bush), a point for you if it's true, I suppose. It's a pretty lame pile-on if that's all you guys have. 

 

[Infanteer]

So, you guys like that new Tacvest?

PS: What's all this bruh-ha-ha over "The Calling"?  The only reason I joined was MCLMM....

 

[Britney Spears]

The only reason I joined was MCLMM....

I would start posting over at LF, but their "profile" demands are just too onerous. 

 

[scm77]

From another parent who lost a child in Iraq...

She Does Not Speak for Me

BY RONALD R. GRIFFIN
Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.

I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.

The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times portrays Mrs. Sheehan as a distraught mom standing heroically outside the guarded gates of the most powerful and inhumane man on earth, President Bush. Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us. How can we all possess "absolute moral authority" when we hold so many different perspectives?

I don't want that title. I haven't earned that title.

Although we all walk the same sad road of sorrow and agony, we walk it as individuals with all the refreshing uniqueness of our own thoughts shaped in large measure by the life and death of our own fallen hero. Over the past few days I have reached out to other parents and loved ones of fallen heroes in an attempt to find out their reactions to all the attention Mrs. Sheehan has attracted. What emerges from those conversations is an empathy for Mrs. Sheehan's suffering but a fundamental disagreement with her politics.

Ann and Dale Hampton lost their only child, Capt. Kimberly Hampton, on Jan. 2, 2004, while she was flying her Kiowa helicopter. She was a member of the 82nd Airborne and the company commander. She had already served in Afghanistan before being deployed to Iraq. Ann Hampton wrote, "My grief sometimes seems unbearable, but I cannot add the additional baggage of anger. Mrs. Sheehan has every right to protest . . . but I cannot do that. I would be protesting the very thing that Kimberly believed in and died for."

Marine Capt. Benjamin Sammis was Stacey Sammis's husband. Ben died on April 4, 2003, while flying his Super Cobra helicopter. Listen to Stacey and she will tell you that she is just beginning to understand the enormousness of the character of soldiers who knowingly put their lives at risk to defend our country. She will tell you that one of her deepest regrets is that the world did not have the honor of experiencing for a much longer time this outstanding Marine she so deeply loved.

Speak to Joan Curtin, whose son, Cpl. Michael Curtin, was an infantryman with the 2-7th 3rd ID, and her words are passionately ambivalent. She says she has no room for bitterness. She has a life to lead and a family to nurture. She spoke of that part of her that never heals, for that is where Michael resides. She can go on, always knowing there will be that pain.

Karen Long is the mother of Spc. Zachariah Long, who died with my son Kyle on May 30, 2003. Zack and Kyle were inseparable friends as only soldiers can be, and Karen and I have become inseparable friends since their deaths. Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack. Karen cannot comprehend why Mrs. Sheehan cannot seem to come to grips with the idea that her own son, Casey, was a soldier like Zack who had a mission to complete. Karen will tell you over and over again that Zack is not here and no one, but no one will dishonor her son.

My wife, Robin, has a different take on Mrs. Sheehan. She told me, "I don't care what she says or does. She is no more important than any other mother."

By all accounts Spc. Casey Sheehan, Mrs. Sheehan's son, was a soldier by choice and by the strength of his character. I did not have the honor of knowing him, but I have read that he attended community college for three years and then chose to join the Army. In August 2003, five months into Operation Iraqi Freedom and after three years of service, Casey Sheehan re-enlisted in the Army with the full knowledge there was a war going on, and with the high probability he would be assigned to a combat area. Mrs. Sheehan frequently speaks of her son in religious terms, even saying that she thought that some day Casey would be a priest. Like so many of the individuals who have given their lives in service to our country, Casey was a very special young man. How do you decry that which someone has chosen to do with his life? How does a mother dishonor the sacrifice of her own son?

Mrs. Sheehan has become the poster child for all the negativity surrounding the war in Iraq. In a way it heartens me to have all this attention paid to her, because that means others in her position now have the chance to be heard. Give equal time to other loved ones of fallen heroes. Feel the intensity of their love, their pride and the sorrow.

To many loved ones, there are few if any "what ifs." They, like their fallen heroes before them, live in the world as it is and not what it was or could have been. Think of the sacrifices that have brought us to this day. We as a country made a collective decision. We must now live up to our decision and not deviate until the mission is complete.

Thirty-five years ago, a president faced a similar dilemma in Vietnam. He gave in and we got "peace with honor." To this day, I am still searching for that honor. Today, those who defend our freedom every day do so as volunteers with a clear and certain purpose. Today, they have in their commander in chief someone who will not allow us to sink into self-pity. I will not allow him to. The amazing part about talking to the people left behind is that I did not want them to stop. After speaking to so many I have come away with the certainty of their conviction that in a large measure it's because of the deeds and sacrifices of their fallen heroes that this is a better and safer world we now live in.

Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too.

We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories.

Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did.

Mr. Griffin is the father of Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, a recipient of the Army Commendation Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal and the Bronze Star, who was killed in a truck accident on a road between Mosul and Tikrit on May 30, 2003.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122
--------------------------

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

What is your cite for this? It sounds completely ludicrous. She's DENYING that Bush ever met with her? Didn't Bush have anyone else (like, um,  a TV crew) around when he met her? How exactly do you deny such a thing?

She was definitely implying that Bush "owed" her a meeting: I don't know if she ever flat-out denyed ever meeting, but the supposed point of her protest was to get Bush to meet with her to explain why he "was murdered": it was not discovered until recently that he has already met with her.  Surely none of us is so naiive as to believe that she wants "an explanantion": she is simply using her son's death as a platform.

It's completely beyond me as to how you reached this conclusion. People who drink and drive and get themselves killed generally do so voluntarily, so it's impossible for their mothers to campaign against drunk driving, yes? After all, if they REALLY cared about their children's wishes, they would support their children's decisions all the way, right?

How is this analgous to drunk driving?  Certainly I don't know, but all of his relatives suggest that he would have felt that he died honourably (unlike getting hammered and wrapping his car around a telephone pole).

So he disagreed with his mom. Well, he put his money where his mouth is, good for him. that's more than what I can say for most of the pro-war crowd.

What she is doing is a disgrace to his memory.  She has a "right" to protest the war, and even to invoke her son's name (or anyone else's) if she so chooses: it doesn't make it right, nor does it justify the spectacle. 

So what are you trying to say? That her son's death wasn't a loss to her? That because her son went to his death voluntarily*, she has no right to protest the war? Obviously, Cindy Sheehan planeed her son's death all along, just to promote her own "agenda" of opposing the war in Iraq, right? Sheehan... sounds French to me.. : "Disgrace", indeed.

I don't share her view that the US must withdraw from Iraq (her "agenda"), and I'll agree that she's somewhat a by-product of a slow news cycle, what's another dead American soldier and grieving mother in the big scheme of things anyway? But the impunity with which the right wing hate-machine can insult and belittle a grieving mother is sickening, and so are the lot of you for toeing this line lockstep.


* Spc. Sheehan enlisted in 2000, but renewed his enlistment in the wake of the war. Let's see, what would John Galt do? If he didn't personally support the war, then the only reasonable, in-line-with-self-interest thing to do is to get out and leave his buddies to go to war themselves right? What an idiot he was eh?

Others have already responded better than I can to the first part of this, but I will add that most of the criticism I've seen relates to the attention given to her, which you attribute to a "slow news cycle" but I find rather difficult to believe (350 bombs in Bangladesh, Iraniain Nuclear Threats, etc., etc.)).

As for the latter part, without going off on too much of a philosophical tanget, the Objectivist understanding of "selfiless acts" is that all acts are ultimately undertaken for purely selfish reasons, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not: in this case, Casey Sheehan felt that his heterogeneous valuation of the reasons for re-enlisting outweighed the reasons not too.  Respect and honour are both ultimately selfish: if it was important to him to re-enlist because his buddies would do the same, he is doing what makes him feel better.  More generally, even in the case of certain death, it is "worth" more to the individual to do what s/he believes is "right" at that moment than it is to live with the guilt or dishonour (or whatever) of not undertaking action (the Bushido code is the extreme example).  The individual chooses death before dishonour (or not).

OK, so when Bush <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/bushtext_020205.html>uses the death of a soldier and the support of his family</a> during his 2005 State of the Union Address, the family of that soldier is just using their son's death to blatantly advance their pro-war agenda, correct? Or maybe us liberals are just nice enough not to $hit on a grieving parent because we disagree with their politics?

Gee, and I thought "you liberals" were only giving her all this attention because it advances your anti-war agenda ... I can't wait for the wall-to-wall news coverage of the parents of soldiers who died and yet they still support the war.  Do you not think that some of these other parents might be a little bit offended by Ms. Sheehan's efforts to disgrace the sacrifice of their families (for the Zionist neocon agenda)?  Can't wait for the CNN coverage of that one [EDIT: and scm77 just slipped-in there with the prvs. ... smooth, buddy] ...

 

[Infanteer]

http://www.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=59189

Maybe Ms Sheehan's moral authority and Ms Healy's moral authority can have a lightsaber dual over this one.

My only thoughts on all this stuff is that it all sucks - these soldiers who died over in the Sandbox are better than all this partisan shit....

 

[Britney Spears]

She was definitely implying that Bush "owed" her a meeting: I don't know if she ever flat-out denyed ever meeting, but the supposed point of her protest was to get Bush to meet with her to explain why he "was murdered": it was not discovered until recently that he has already met with her.  Surely none of us is so naiive as to believe that she wants "an explanantion": she is simply using her son's death as a platform.

This I can agree with. Bush, being the president, did not owe her a meeting. He did as much as  could be reasonably be expected of him, giving her 2 meetings and being considerate of her wishes. I applaud his frankness in this regard.

How is this analgous to drunk driving?  Certainly I don't know, but all of his relatives suggest that he would have felt that he died honourably (unlike getting hammered and wrapping his car around a telephone pole).

What she is doing is a disgrace to his memory.  She has a "right" to protest the war, and even to invoke her son's name (or anyone else's) if she so chooses: it doesn't make it right, nor does it justify the spectacle.

Because there is an underlying implication in all the above articles that because her son's views disagreed with hers, Sheehan has no right to her opinion "out of respect for her son's memory". This is BS. The bottom line is that she  lost a son, to a war she opposed. How is further opposition to the war a "disgrace"? Nobody has disputed her son's courage and character, least of all his own mother.

Gee, and I thought "you liberals" were only giving her all this attention because it advances your anti-war agenda ...

Well, since it wasn't the anti-war lobby that sent her son to Iraq, I don't see any issue with her taking up with us.

I can't wait for the wall-to-wall news coverage of the parents of soldiers who died and yet they still support the war.  Do you not think that some of these other parents might be a little bit offended by Ms. Sheehan's efforts to disgrace the sacrifice of their families (for the Zionist neocon agenda)?  Can't wait for the CNN coverage of that one [EDIT: and scm77 just slipped-in there with the prvs. ... smooth, buddy] ...

Umm, you realize scm77 just provided evidence contrary to your assertion, right? Do you need me to find more? Why, the families of the VOLUNTEER US military are actually supportive of the war? Whodathunkit?

 

[P-Free]

This Sheehan lady is USING her son's memory and sacrifice for HER personal gain. She was FOR the war until her son was KILLED. Now isn't that a little bit SELFISH of her? It's like saying, "Oh, let those other boys go off and die" and then when "those other boys" turns into her son she changes her tune to "war bad, bush terrorist, Israel evil".

Her son volunteered to join, and then volunteer to go on the mission. It SOUNDS like she just wanted the REWARDS without having to PAY for them.

Maybe she should have convinced her son to become a ballarena.

 

[a_majoor]

Maybe the mods can do a split; I wanted to illustrate through the actions and ultimate sacrifice of one young man who's name has been thrust into the spotlight some of the reasons we, as soldiers, choose to serve.

The opening article was overtly religious, saying Casey felt there was a higher calling. I am not particularly religious myself; being there for my family and friends is first and formost, luckily for you I have "adopted" their friends and relatives in ever expanding circles; yes Britney, I don't like a lot of what you say in your posts, but I am here for you too.

Heinlein says something similar in "Starship Troopers", suggesting the mark of a moral man is one who will step into the line of fire to defend more than just himself and his immediate family.  Casey Sheehan felt that, he chose to re enlist, and in the end, he chose to come out with the QRF to try to save his fellow soldiers, who he may or may not have known, but who he obviously felt needed his help. He joins the ranks of soldiers in every war and conflict who choose to go and fight, and choose to take action in a desperate and dangerous situation, when the safer course would be to hang back and do nothing (he was a mechanic, and not really obligated to go into the fight).

Ultimately,that is the message his mother and her various media handlers and hangers on choose to ignore.

 

[Britney Spears]

Sorry for the hijack, then. In my defence, I didn't start the debate, I was objecting to the snide remarks some of the internet tough guys  here felt they needed to make about Ms. Sheehan's protest, egged on no doubt by the right wing media.

In the spirit of the OP, here's one of the reasons why the chickenhawks get my blood boiling.

<a href=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10E17FA395F0C738EDDAF0894DD404482&n=Top%252fOpinion%252fEditorials%2520and%2520Op%252dEd%252fOp%252dEd%252fColumnists%252fBob%2520Herbert>Original article, have to pay</a>

<a href=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062005G.shtml>Free version</a>

Someone Else's Child
    By Bob Herbert
    The New York Times

    Monday 20 June 2005

    It has become clearer than ever that Americans do not want to fight George W. Bush's tragically misguided war in Iraq.

    You can still find plenty of folks arguing that we have to stay the course, or even raise the stakes by sending more troops to the war zone. But from the very start of this war the loudest of the flag-waving hawks were those who were safely beyond military age themselves and were unwilling to send their own children off to fight.

    It's easy to be macho when you have nothing at risk. The hawks want the war to be fought with other people's children, while their own children go safely off to college, or to the mall. The number of influential American officials who have children in uniform in Iraq is minuscule.

    Most Americans want no part of Mr. Bush's war, which is why Army recruiters are failing so miserably at meeting their monthly enlistment quotas. Desperate, the Army is lowering its standards, shortening tours, increasing bonuses and violating its own recruitment regulations and ethical guidelines.

    Americans do not want to fight this war.

    Times Square in Midtown Manhattan is the most heavily traveled intersection in the country. It was mobbed on V-E Day in May 1945 and was the scene of Alfred Eisenstaedt's legendary photo of a sailor passionately kissing a nurse on V-J Day the following August. There is currently an armed forces recruiting station in Times Square, but it's a pretty lonely outpost. An officer on duty one afternoon last week said no one had come in all day.

    Vince Morrow, a 10th grader from Allentown, Pa., was interviewed across the street from the recruiting station, on Broadway. He said he had once planned to join the military after graduating from high school, but had changed his mind. "It's the war," he said. "Going over and never coming back. Before the war you'd just go to different places and help people. Now you go over there and you fight."

    His mother, Michelle, said: "I'd like to see him around awhile. It was different before the war. It's the fear of not coming home. Our other son just graduated Saturday and he was planning to go into the Air Force. They told him college was included and made him all kinds of promises. They almost made him sign papers before we had decided. We thought about it and researched it and decided against it."

    Last week's New York Times/CBS News Poll found that the mounting casualties and continuing turmoil in Iraq have made Americans increasingly pessimistic about the war. A majority said the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq and only 37 percent approved of the president's handling of the war.

    What hasn't changed is the fact that the vast majority of the parents who support the war do not want their children to fight it. A woman in the affluent New York suburb of Ridgewood, N.J., who has a daughter in high school and a younger son, said: "I would not want my children to go. If there wasn't a war it would be different. I support the war and I think we need to be there. But it's not going well. It's becoming like Vietnam. It's a very bad situation. But we can't leave."

    I don't know how you win a war that your country doesn't want to fight. We sent too few troops into Iraq in the first place and the number of warm bodies available for Iraq and other military missions going forward is dwindling alarmingly. The Bush crowd may be bellicose, but for most Americans the biggest contribution to the war effort is a bumper sticker that says "support our troops," and maybe a belligerent call to a talk radio station.

    The home-front "warriors" who find it so easy to give the thumbs up to war endanger the truly valorous men and women who are actually willing to put on a uniform, pick up a weapon and place their lives on the line.

    The president and these home-front warriors got us into this war and now they don't know how to get us out. Nor do they have a satisfactory answer to the important ethical question: how do you justify sending other people's children off to fight while keeping a cloak of protection around your own kids?

    If the United States had a draft (for which there is no political sentiment), its warriors would be drawn from a much wider swath of the population, and political leaders would think much longer and harder before committing the country to war.

Now, I realize that this is only one example, but I'm more and more inclined to believe that woman isn't alone.

For the record, I don't share Cindy Sheehan's view that America should withdraw from Iraq,  simply based on the principle of "you break it, you bought it". Like it or not, Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists, who are a threat to all of us in the West, not just Americans. To cut and run  now would be to an act of utter cowardice, proof to the world that the US is a paper tiger and a nation of cowards, "security moms" like the woman quoted above, Osama Bin Laden would have defeated BOTH superpowers of the 20th centuy.

There, I now support the war in Iraq, but do the American people?

So, does America and its leader(s) have the intestinal fortitude to stay the course for another 10 years and 10,000 casualties? I hope they do, for the sake of all of us. If America truly is "home of the brave", then they'll see this through.  Being a parent of one of those 10,000 is going to suck, though, and you can be sure they'll remember who got them into this mess.