The Meaning behind 4,000 dead U.S. troops
Lieutenant Sean Walsh reflects on the meaning of 4,000 dead U.S. troops in Iraq and how their tragic loss is more than a statistic:
The passing of the 4,000th service member in Iraq is a tragic milestone and a testament to the cost of this war, but for those of us who live and fight in Iraq, we measure that cost in smaller, but much more personal numbers. For me those numbers are 8, the number of friends and classmates killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 3, the number of soldiers from my unit killed in this deployment. I’m 25, yet I’ve received more notifications for funerals than invitations to weddings.
The number 4,000 is too great to grasp even for us that are here in Iraq. When we soldiers read the newspaper, the latest AP casualty figures are glanced over with the same casual interest as a box score for a sport you don’t follow. I am certain that I am not alone when I open up the Stars and Stripes, the military’s daily paper, and immediately search for the section with the names of the fallen to see if they include anyone I know. While in a combat outpost in southwest Baghdad, it was in that distinctive bold Arial print in a two-week-old copy of the Stars and Stripes that I read that my best friend had been killed in Afghanistan. No phone call from a mutual friend or a visit to his family. All that had come and gone by the time I had learned about his death. I sometimes wonder, if I hadn’t picked up that paper, how much longer I would have gone by without knowing — perhaps another day, perhaps a week or longer until I could find the time and the means to check my e-mail to find my messages unanswered and a death notification from a West Point distro list in my inbox. The dead in Afghanistan don’t seem to inspire the keeping of lists the same way that those in Iraq do, but even if they did it wouldn’t matter; he could only be number 7 to me.
I’m not asking for pity, only understanding for the cost of this war. We did, after all, volunteer for the Army and that is the key distinction between this army and the army of the Vietnam War. But even as I ask for that understanding I’m almost certain that you won’t be able to obtain it. Even Shakespeare, with his now overused notion of soldiers as a “band of brothers,” fails to capture the bonds, the sense of responsibility to each other, among soldiers. In many ways, Iraq has become my home (by the time my deployment ends I will have spent more time here than anywhere else in the army) and the soldiers I share that home with have become my family. Between working, eating and sleeping within a few feet of the same soldiers every single day, I doubt I am away from them for more than two hours a day. I’m engaged to the love of my life, but it will take several years of marriage before I’ve spent as much time with her as I have with the men I serve with today.
For the vast majority of Americans who don’t have a loved one overseas, the only number they have to attempt to grasp the Iraq War is 4,000. I would ask that when you see that number, try to remember that it is made up of over 1 million smaller numbers; that every one of the 1 million service members who have fought in Iraq has his or her own personal numbers. Over 1 million 8′s and 3′s. When you are evaluating the price of the war, weighing potential rewards versus cost in blood and treasure, I would ask you to consider what is worth the lives of three of your loved ones? Or eight? Or more? It would be a tragedy for my 8 and 3 to have died without us being able to complete our mission, but it maybe even more tragic for 8 and 3 to become anything higher.
Comments are closed.
To which the five deferral recipient Mr. Cheney glibly responds, “They volunteered.”
As tragic as it is, it is even more tragic to think that 4000 babies are killed every day.
Every Day. And that is not to preserve freedom from terrorism. It is for personal greed.
And while the AWOL ex-National Guardsman Mr. Bush muses about that the “romanticism” of these young men’s and women’s missions in the history of Freedon on the March
For what? A further destabilized Middle East; a loss of cooperation by our more moderate Arab allies; a debasement of our moral standing in the world; an actual intensification of extremist Islam and its deeper hatred of the West and the U.S, and Israel particularly; over 125,000 civilian fatalities, by the most conservative estimate; and a further assault on human dignity and a drastic increase in the “culture of death”?
“Freedom from terrorism”, Dan?
In case you missed it, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 and no Al Queda in Iraq before we got there…
“no Al Queda in Iraq before we got there…”
Quite untrue.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp
Donald,
The Weekly Standard is about as reliable source in these matters as Cheney’s separate intelligence office in the State Department.
I do not want to argue with you, as you have shown nothing short of an obdurate entrenchment in idelogical blindness and ignorance in this matter. For one, you refuse to give a just war defense of the invasion. Secondly, you incessantly refer to papal actions in the Middle Ages to somehow sidetrack any real discussion of the Church’s present judgment and our illegitimate actions.
Our conversation has been over awhile ago, as you have refused to enter it as a goodwilled interlocutor from the start.
I suppose one can find a source for whatever one wants to believe. But beliefs don’t always correlate with facts.
Trust Steven Hayes, the man who wrote the Cheney hagiography, to keep up the futile pretense after so many lies have been told, and after much much blood has been spilled.
Here’s the real story: “An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida terrorist network….”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html
They’re both tragic, Dan. And they both deserve our attention.
Dying is part of the military. The question is whether the cause is worth it, something only the people involved can answer for themselves.
The question is whether the cause is worth it, something only the people involved can answer for themselves.
The worth of death is subjective and conditional? Only those who are dead can answer for themselves whether dying is worth it? What are you trying to say here?
It would be a tragedy for my 8 and 3 to have died without us being able to complete our mission, but it maybe even more tragic for 8 and 3 to become anything higher.
Lt. Walsh provides a balance and wisdom beyond his years — one sadly lacking in the politicians twice his age who care nothing for what he and his friends have fought and died for and instead propose that we abandon our five years project in Iraq with no thought at all for what that will do to the Iraqis themselves, or how it will reflect on the sacrifices already made.
It also serves to underscore for us that wars are never truly small. Historically, 4000 is a very small number of war dead. We lost more in the first week of the Normandy invasion. Each side lost a similar number in three days at Gettysburg. The British suffered five times an many killed on the first day of the battle of the Somme.
All that makes it easy to think of Iraq as small. Yet Lt. Walsh reminds us what those 4000 mean in human terms: eight of his friends and classmates.
God bless him and the men with him, including my own friends over there, and all in that trouble region.
Existentialist war doctrine, judged by a radical choice of soldier by radical choice of soldier basis? Taking fate and meaning heroically into own’s own hands, with bullet holes and lost limbs to prove it, in the face of an otherwise meaningless abyss…?
“…one sadly lacking in the politicians twice his age who care nothing for what he and his friends have fought and died for and instead propose that we abandon our five years project in Iraq with no thought at all for … how it will reflect on the sacrifices already made.”
What does this even mean? It sounds like sentimentalist gibberish, used to forestall an engagement in reflection beyond “stay the course” cliches…
Do you care the elaborate?
I think what he is trying to convey is the idea that if the Americans give up and go away then it sort of makes the sacrifice of the armed forces seem worthless. In other words, they gave their lives for the noble goal of re-establishing peace, and in doing so they accomplished nothing. Imagine if, for instance, even after the thousands we lost at Normandy we were not able to get a foothold on the beach. The Allied deaths would “seem” rather in vain.
I do not think this is sentimentalist gibberish, but a grim engagement with reality. I understand what you mean, pro-war people have a tendency to reach for the threadbare patriotic, pro-military cliche when defending the stay the course position, but I do not think what DarwinCatholic said could be classified that way. It is something that you see Vietnam veterans sometimes struggle with, that even at the cost of how many lives the ultimate goal was not accomplished, and so what does that mean for the people who died trying to reach it? It is a hard thing.
But at the same time I do not think this way of looking at it is true… Sacrificing for something (or someone) is meaningful for its own sake and not dependent on the success or failure of the person or cause…
The question is whether the cause is worth it, something only the people involved can answer for themselves.
Excuse me, Gerald Augustinus, but we live in a republican democracy: YOU and I have to answer that; the soldiers were sent to Iraq in our names.
I do not think this is sentimentalist gibberish, but a grim engagement with reality.
No, Magdalena, it is NOT a “grim engagement with reality”; it is, instead, a “grim engagement” with only PART of the “reality” (and, therefore, a FALSEHOOD). It refuses to engage with the reality that our nation’s real enemy was not in Iraq, that over 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died who need not have, that our nation’s geo-political advantages in the region have been lost, and that, actually, we CANNOT AFFORD to continue funding this catastrophic military fiasco. Why do you suppose the dollar is going through the floor? Do you honestly believe that a three trillion dollar military fiasco has nothing to do with it? Must we think ONLY of soldiers whose egoes may be damaged if we “cut and run,” and not of our soon-to-be-pauperized children, of our schools and health services–or, indeed, of those among the veterans of this ridiculous military adventure who will need medical services and rehabilitation from the very people who declined to provide them sufficient body armour or send them in sufficient numbers to achieve their misbegotten mission?
Woe to the people whose hubris is so great that they persist in disastrous foreign adventures when it is painfully apparent that it is not in their own or their children’s interests to do so! The Iraq War is lost because its original objectives were unattainable. “Strategic retreat” is what a duly chastened, sensible and “Christian” nation would embark upon now, and, as for the soldiers who’ve been victimized by our politicians’ folly, there’d be no reason for them to be devestated by this course if WE would honour them in defeat.
Unfortunately, Americans–a young and foolish people who have no historical memory of having learned been edified by defeat–seem to wish to honour only “victors.” THAT is the real tragedy that is associated with America’s wars.
Thanks for posting this.
It seems Lt Walsh is disenchanted with his career choice. Did he never (while he was on the Plain) consider the possibilty that he may have to fight a war? At least he didn’t say they were ‘wasted’ as we had to in Vietnam.
He soliloquizes on the 4,000th death for CNN/Time. Sweet! Is the 4,000th more tragic than the 3,698th?
I was in VN. All the WWII men I knew were also draftees. What’s his point?
I have names and numbers. From VN: Billy R., Danny B., Danny N., Mel M., Rob F., Paul P., Jon B., I can’t go on it’d fill the page. VN: the Watergate coup d’etat and in 1975 the vietcongress sold VN down the river. Our blood sacrifice was vain.
And, I was here for the first WTC bombing and the second when close to 3,000 dead (3,000 death notices for civilians who were not trained or armed or able to defend themslves – hey, that’s the Army’s job! right?) most of which were murdered in 2 hours on 9/11. I’m still in the area. I must be an moron.
Lt has it right. We fought for the guys next to us, not for the flag, or socialist justice, or Mom, or universal health care, or apple pie, or affirmative action, or Babe Ruth, or tenure for idiot commies with PhD’s in philosophy.
My son is in the infantry right now. I had hoped (against hope) his leadership was better motivated than it appears Lt. Walsh is. Being a vet, I now know it is not.
At this point, much of what American troops in Iraq are doing consists of backing up the Iraqi police and army, and keeping the sort of folks who like to plant car bombs in crowded marketplaces and cut people’s heads off to make a point from moving back into cities and towns they’ve already been kicked out of.
Those willing to look can see this in the dramatic reduction in US and Iraqi casualties year to date.
Now, given that, and given that things are not yet so stable there that our pulling out rapidly would not result in massive regional chaos and a return of the sort of slaughter of civilians that was going on a year and more ago, it seems to me that it is our duty to stay and keep the relative peace that the sacrifices of Lt. Walsh and his friends have earned thus far. If the situation changed, if we find ourselves once again in an escallating “hot” war over there, then perhaps there would be a need to reconsider that. However right now, sadly, too many in the “peace” side of things simply want to exact political retribution against their enemies and make sure that “Bush’s war” is seen as a failure by history by pulling out precipitiously whether it’s required or not — and whether it’s good for the innocent civilians in Iraq or not.
“Those willing to look can see this in the dramatic reduction in US and Iraqi casualties year to date.”
Perhaps you have not been watching the news in the past three days. The cease-fires, which took place independently of the surge, are not holding up too well. Do a google search for “Basra.”
“too many in the “peace” side of things simply want to exact political retribution against their enemies and make sure that “Bush’s war” is seen as a failure by history by pulling out precipitiously whether it’s required or not — and whether it’s good for the innocent civilians in Iraq or not.”
When you have weak arguments, the ‘best’ resort is to ‘attack the man’ and his intentions, is it not?
And can you place tell me what precisely is the mission and defined victory of “the Bush war”? I have not heard an answer yet. The best I can gather is that is now to save face, as we have staked foolishly our military’s effectiveness on its ability to fulfill an elusive and virtually impossible task.
By the way, no remaining presidential candidate is calling for an immediate pull-out, so I do not know at whom your initial rhetorical salvoe was aimed.
And remember, the fixation on 4000 has the effect (intended or not) of detracting attention from the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in this pointless war.
MM,
You forget the new (actually, painfully old) moral calculus. These “hundreds of thousands” of orientals are potentially ‘Islamo-fascists’, so they are more expendable.
However right now, sadly, too many in the “peace” side of things simply want to exact political retribution against their enemies and make sure that “Bush’s war” is seen as a failure by history…
Ha! Good one!
Mark,
What’s going on is Basra is between the Shiite dominated central government and Shiite militias that refuse to cease working outside the law. It’s not American vs. Iraqi fighting, but the independant government there trying to bring something more like the rule of law to the country — something which (if successful) is a very good sign.
You are right, however, that Obama has signalled (or at least his advisors have) that he isn’t actually serious about his promise to remove all US troops from Iraq on a strict timetable regardless of circumstances. Perhaps he’s more responsible than his rhetoric generally lets on. (Though in that case, it’s hard to understand why we’re being told by some that as Catholics we must support him in order to end the war.)
“the independant government there trying to bring something more like the rule of law to the country — something which (if successful) is a very good sign.”
Violence is a sign of peace;death is a sign of life, and failure is a sign of progress.
Mark
You forgot the last one. GW Bush is a genius.
You mean that sarcastically, as in he’s not a genius? What a Calvinist and anti-Pope thing to say.
The right wing’s whole narrative that “the treasonous liberals want to pull out just when we’re on the verge of victory!!!!11!1 strikes me as just crass, disingenuous posturing: doing pre-spin on the inevitable withdrawal that must, given the math and the deteriorating state of our military, take place.
So, let’s get real. Using the right’s own (in my view, hubris-addled) metrics, let’s define “achieving victory in Iraq” as:
* Violence reduced to, at a minimum, Pre-March-2003 levels;
* A stable, secular, united central government in Baghdad;
* Infrastructure and services (power, water, food distribution, sewage treatment, etc.) exceeding standards that obtained in pre-war Iraq.
…thus providing the example of prosperous freedom that would be (highly debatably…) attractive to Arab populations living under dictatorships in the region.
How could the United States (and, given the level of support the United States could realistically expect from the rest of the world, it would be virtually the United States alone doing this) get there from here? What would it really, actually take to completely pacify Iraq? (Note that I’m just going to discard any considerations of the morality of the enterprise here, and argue from a position of cold, amoral pragmatism.)
Step one is troops. Lots and lots and LOTS of troops. Bush’s “surge” is comically inadequate to the task. You’d have to absolutely flood the non-Kurdish parts of Iraq with American troops, who could clear of insurgents, and then seal off to weapons smuggling, the whole of Iraq, village by village, city by city, region by region. You’d also have to effectively seal off, or at least monitor in fine-grained, very intrusive detail, the borders of the country, especially the ones with Syria and Iran – to the point that a ball-point pen couldn’t enter the country without American say-so.
This means anywhere from tens to hundreds of thousands of combat troops…in each large city in Iraq. Baghdad alone would probably need something in the neighborhood of 200,000 troops, just for the city itself. Plus, every road into Baghdad (and every other city in Iraq) would need to be under 24-hour patrols and surveillance, to prevent insurgents and weapons from moving from place to place. Not to mention saturating every border crossing of any size with American troops, and regular, pervasive patrols of every mile of the border.
The entire population would need to be disarmed: the military would need to just say something like, “you have six weeks to turn in any weaponry. Any Iraqi civilian found to be in possession of a weapon after that time will be presumed to be an insurgent, and will be subject to imprisonment.”
In other words, the American Military would need to effectively run Iraq in the short- to mid-term. The total American forces in the country at any moment would probably total somewhere between one and two million troops.
Step two: Once the violence was quelled (and, with sufficient troops, there is virtually no doubt it would be): “turn the lights back on.”
Prime targets of insurgents are electrical lines, to keep the population uncomfortable and inconvenienced, and thus resentful. So, rebuilding existing generating capacity, building new capacity as needed, and then putting power stations, and every mile of power line, under 24-hour guard, is essential to undermining support for the insurgents.
Next, restore basic services: Water, sewage, garbage collection.
Garbage collection especially would improve quality of life life measurably for the population, in a highly visible way, and would almost certainly be rewarded with lots of goodwill. Garbage collectors are prime targets of insurgents, because garbage piles by the side of the road make good hiding places for IEDs.
Step 3: Send the vast, vast majority of the American contractors in Iraq home, and hire Iraqi companies for all future rebuilding projects, and pay them in dollars. Iraqi unemployment is pervasive, and unemployed men (especially former Iraqi Army soldiers) are ripe for recruiting by insurgents. Employing them would dry up this particular resource for insurgents, and also give Iraqis a sense of ownership of the projects they would be building. Even people not involved directly in building schools, post offices, etc., would see them being built, and have a clear sense that everyday life is getting incrementally better.
All this would, of course, be hideously expensive – hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, every year. There would probably also be another sharp spike in American casualties, but the insurgency would probably hugely diminish in the face of pervasive American troops, so the spike would be significant but temporary.
Of course, some of those casualties would be draftees, because summoning the level of troops required for all this would require a draft (and a big one) without question: a level of mobilization not seen since World War II. I expect the war fetishists at Little Green Footballs would get awfully quiet if they were faced with the prospect of having to actually, you know, risk their own worthless necks fighting in the war they masturbate to.
Once some semblance of stability was achieved, some sort of conference amongst the various factions in Iraq could probably hammer out an agreement that would be acceptable to all parties, or at least one that everyone would be equally dissatisfied with.
This whole project would all take a level of consensus in the United States that clearly does not obtain. A large majority of Americans oppose the occupation as it is currently being conducted. If large numbers of their children were being drafted for, and their taxes raised to pay for, an even bigger occupation, Washington D.C. would undoubtedly be overrun with citizens chasing their congressmen and senators around with torches and pitchforks.
And, it may not even work: what happens if Americans start withdrawing troops, and violence increases?
I detest how the leadership looks at these deaths as a means to their ends, and not as human beings meeting their mortal end. I guess that’s how they have been brought up and how they were educated, that only the bottom line counts. The 4000 are just collateral for peace – duh?!