Imagine, if the job fell to you, what you would tell the family of a young soldier who has been killed in Iraq? You would say, of course, that he was a fine soldier and that he was very brave, and you would leave out the part about ghastly wounds, suffering, and fear. But what would you tell them he died for? That is the real question, and it is as hard to answer now as it was during Vietnam. I clearly remember the first time I pondered it. It was in 1967. I was an honor guard looking into the coffin of a fellow soldier and watching his mother retch with grief.
What did he die for? Even though you would like to, you cannot honestly tell the soldier's family that he died serving his country, that is, defending America's freedom and keeping us safe. This would be the proper answer according to our constitutional purpose for having a military. However, neither Saddam Hussein nor Ho Chi Minh ever threatened America or was capable of attacking our country in force. Even Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, such as they may be, would require the aid of terrorist groups to be loosed upon us; but our own CIA has not found any good evidence that such terrorist connections exist. Furthermore, 9/11 proved that religious fanatics are emboldened, not cowered, by armies of infidels tromping through their lands. So then, did this soldier's death make us safer from terrorism? You had better not suggest this to his family because things may get a lot worse.
You may also be tempted to consider that Saddam was a beast to his own people and a threat to his neighbours. He had to go. But there are other beasts in the world. Is it our responsibility to remove them, too, or is that the business of the oppressed and their neighbours? As gratifying as it is to see the regime of Hussein toppled, our constitution does not obligate us to rid the world of beasts. The public treasury and the lives of our children who would fight these battles are too limited to be used for reasons other than protecting America's liberty. Compassionate and able-bodied men may choose to fight as mercenaries in various causes around the world, and individual Americans may choose to finance them and cheer them, but our government should not be permitted to engage in such crusades. There is no end to noble causes, but there is an end to our priceless children and hard-earned money.
One big difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that soldiers in Iraq volunteered for the military whereas most were conscripted during Vietnam. This only changes their motives, however, not their employer. The government sent our young man to Iraq for whatever reasons, and he did his duty. Therefore, we can finally answer the question of what to tell his family: "Your son (or husband) died serving his government while bravely liberating the people of a distant land and protecting them from harm. Please accept this flag as a symbol of a grateful government." Well, it is not very comforting, but it is honest. This is why it will not be told his family. They will be lied to, just like the weeping mother of that dead soldier in 1967.
April 14, 2003
