To:
Lt. Col. Steve Boylan
Director,
Multinational Force Press Center
Re: 2,000
Dead Soldiers
The media
inform me that you have sent an e-mail to news reporters asking
them not to treat the 2,000th American serviceman killed
in Iraq as “a milestone.” You reportedly asked journalists
“to think about the effects on the families and those serving
in Iraq.” You added that the 2,000 figure was “an artificial
mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas
and ulterior motives.” You then echoed the party line about
these men and women dying “to ensure freedom for a people who
have not known freedom in over two generations.” You concluded
with the plea to “celebrate the daily milestones” of the war and
to “look to the future of a free and democratic Iraq.”
I don’t know
that there is ever an appropriate moment for spokesmen of the
war system to lecture others on ethical matters. Every war
is an abomination to life, and those who choose to participate
in the systematic slaughter of men, women and children in order
to advance the interests of the politically ambitious, have sufficient
cause for soul-searching of their own.
But, to paraphrase
Shakespeare, methinks you doth protest too much when you chastise
the media for choosing to report truthful matters concerning a
war that has been built upon nothing but a pyramid of lies, deceit,
forgeries, and other forms of what the state’s public relations
boosters refer to as “disinformation.” It has long been
said that the first casualty in any war is truth. Your statement
ranks right alongside the government’s current practice of not
allowing the flag-draped coffins of dead soldiers to be seen:
the real casualties must not become known to the public.
I suspect
you are a career military person. As such, your life has
been lived in a socialistic environment in which many of the costs
others of us have to incur in life are borne by the state.
Housing, food, medical and dental care, on-base retailing, schools,
and other services whose costs civilians must incur in the marketplace
are, for the most part, provided you by the state. Perhaps
these experiences have made you less sensitive to the fact that
life is not a cost-free experience.
If one is
to live a responsible life, he or she must be prepared to incur
all of the costs associated with the pursuit of one’s interests,
and not to impose such costs upon others. War is the very
essence of irresponsible behavior, for it is always conducted
against persons who, apart from the fortuities of geography, have
no interest in the contrived disputes by which competing political
systems manipulate and control people. If Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Rice, and the armchair neocon war-whoopers; along with
the top officials of the Halliburton/Bechtel/KBR corporate-state
alliance; had truly believed in the moral necessity for this war,
they would have been in the first planeload of paratroopers to
descend upon Baghdad, rather than ensconced in their plush offices
or underground bunkers. Your bosses don’t even believe
in the nonsense you have had the poor judgment to send to members
of the media. Their unwillingness to personally incur the
costs of this obscene undertaking should be a tip-off to their
irresponsibility.
In the face
of all the politically self-serving, war-profiteering, and other
conspiratorial purposes that have engineered this collective atrocity,
I find it difficult to accept your casual dismissal of its critics
as people “with specific agendas and ulterior motives.” Have
years of working within the state apparatus allowed you to absorb
such Orwellian corruption of language and concepts and to truly
mistake propaganda for reality? Perhaps you
are aware that the milksop character of most journalists will
allow for your expectations to find expression. You will
doubtless not be disappointed with the crowd at Fox News. But
did you truly expect intelligent people to be bamboozled by your
efforts to project the “specific agendas and ulterior motives”
of the political establishment onto the critics of this war?
Do you really believe the administration lies about this war “going
well?”
The 2,000
dead military people are neither a “milestone” nor “an artificial
mark on the wall.” This number represents what collectivists
always want suppressed: knowledge of the personal costs individuals
end up having to pay for political behavior. The 20th
century added some 200,000,000 corpses to the grisly history of
the state. There is a semblance of humanity in your statement
that “the first that died . . . will be just as important as the
last to die in this war.” Please keep that thought in the
forefront of your mind: if it is wrong to kill millions of people,
it is just as wrong to kill one person.
The costs
of war go far beyond the material expenses associated with it.
Of far greater significance are the spiritual and other human
costs that degrade both the souls of individuals as well as the
fragile nature of our social relationships. If we do not pay attention
to its machinations, war can make us ugly and depraved. People
who are psychologically, philosophically, and spiritually centered
may, as Viktor Frankl, Carl Jung, and others have demonstrated,
survive such hideousness. But for mankind generally, wars
help to destroy the civilizations upon which they feed, which
may help to explain why increased militarism has long been seen
as the final stage in the collapse of hitherto great societies.
If you are
not prepared to assess these deeper costs, then at least accept
the recognition of 2,000 dead soldiers as the most basic cost,
in human life, of this war. You might add to that number
figures that the American government refuses to acknowledge, namely,
the number of Iraqi men, women, and children who have thus far
been killed. Some independent sources estimate the Iraqi victims
as being in excess of 100,000. The state wants us to disregard
such numbers. It asks, as do you, that we bask in some pretended
glory that will arise from the butchery and destruction visited
upon innocent people, and to ignore the costs. The state
is never comfortable having us consider the consequences of its
actions.
You offer
the phony argument that journalists ought to “think about the
effects on the families and those serving in Iraq” when reporting
on the number of dead soldiers. My god, don’t you think the soldiers
and their families are already aware of the dangers faced
in Iraq? Do you think there are many parents, grandparents,
or spouses of soldiers who are not terrified when the telephone
rings or there is a knock on the door that might bring them news
they dread each hour of every day?
And do you
think that the people of Iraq are any less concerned about the
lives and well-being of their loved ones; that they worry
any less than do Americans that their children might be blown
to pieces by a bomb or felled by a bullet? As our minds
become infected with the divisive thinking of political systems,
we can become morally lobotomized robots. Thus, was Madeleine
Albright able to find the deaths of 500,000 children an acceptable
price to pay (albeit not by her) for American boycotts of Iraq.
I ask you to extend the thought I raised earlier, namely, that
if it is wrong to kill one American soldier, it is equally wrong
to kill one Iraqi civilian. Until you – and the rest of
us – can regard the systematic killing of any people as an offense
against all of humanity, we shall be fated to the carrying out
of the mutual suicide pacts that governments regard as “honor
and glory.”
But if you
are truly concerned about the effects on soldiers and their families
of reporting these costs of war, you might wish to consider an
alternative course of action. I will admit to having a “specific
agenda and an ulterior motive” in opposing the war system.
My purposes are to help us discover the thinking and the social
systems under which we can live productively, peacefully, and
freely with one another.
If
you share these sentiments, and care to end the death and suffering
now being endured by Iraqis and Americans alike, then come home,
and bring your fellow Americans with you. Put your creative talents
and skills to work in the marketplace, helping to produce the
values that sustain life, rather than continuing in service to
the slaughter and devastation practiced by the state.