Views > August 21, 2005

End it Already

By Joel Bleifuss

Here is the question to the parents of American service men and women that the Bush administration never thought to pose, much less answer: Is the war in Iraq worth the life of your son or daughter?

“No,” was the answer Cindy Sheehan gave on August 6 as she walked down the road in Crawford, Texas, to Bush’s country estate. Her son Casey, 24, was killed in April 2004, within days of his arrival in Iraq.

By taking a public stand, Sheehan is playing the historic role of women in time of war. She has become an emblem of the sacrifice made by the mothers, wives and daughters who lose family members in battle. But unlike the Spartan mother, she did not tell her son: “Return from Iraq victorious or dead.” Instead, she used her loss to make Americans pause to consider whether the deaths of Casey and his fellow soldiers—as In These Times went to press, 1,852 and counting—has been worth it. In essence, she broke through the media’s monotonous recitation of daily deaths to put a human face on the tragedy.

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman writes in his book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society:

It is so much easier to kill someone if they look distinctly different than you. If your propaganda machine can convince your soldiers that their opponents are not really human but are ‘inferior forms of life,’ then their natural resistance to killing their own species will be reduced.

While his statement relates in obvious ways to the demon “terrorists” with whom we are at war, it applies more subtly to all victims of the war in Iraq—a war for which the administration’s propaganda machine has established numerous rules on what can and cannot be shown. For example, photographing wounded soldiers has been effectively prohibited.Standing between the American public and the war’s grim reality are the news organizations that, in exchange for embedded status, have accepted White House rules for journalistic engagement. In effect the major media organizations are telling soldiers: Showing your blood and toil is less important than securing our front-row seats on the battlefield.

The administration realizes the threat Sheehan poses. In the ’60s, public sentiment against the Vietnam war began to turn when millions of Americans began to question whether the war’s human costs, of which they had an unimpeded—rather than embedded—view, were worth it.

Consequently, it’s no surprise that Sheehan has been has been roundly attacked by Bush administration proxies. Ann Coulter accused Sheehan of “engaging in Stalinist agitprop.” Rush Limbaugh described Sheehan and her supporters as “a bunch of miserable, angry people exploiting death.” Falsehood and distortion are their stock and trade.

Before he was promoted to the job of New York Times executive editor, Bill Keller had this to say about the so-called “intelligence failures” on Iraq: “The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted. To my mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won [sic]. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face.”

Not quite. What weakens us is a media that aids and abets such corruption by failing to hold leaders responsible for their lies, a media that is unwilling to provide an honest portrayal of all that the war has cost us.

At the recent National Conference for Media Reform, Bill Moyers said, “A free press is one where it’s OK to state the conclusion you’re led to by the evidence.”

And at the moment, all evidence points to the fact that the war in Iraq, with its horrendous cost of human life, has been a tragic mistake.

It’s time to end the war.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  We should listen to Cindy. But not just her. We should also listen to the rest of her family.  Both have important - but diametrically opposite - stories to tell.

  Posted by wolf on Aug 22, 2005 at 8:29 AM

  I can remember he prelude and opening act of this war.The right shouted down anyone who said"Let’s be certain before we invade and wind up with a war of insurgency we may never win"with cries of “TRAITOR!"and “WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING THE TERRORISTS?"with that form of reasoning,we dove into this war.

  Now here we are,two years later,with a conflict that will go on as long as we let it and the contempt of the the rest of the world.The only people who support this war are those in the oil business and the right-wing morons who can’t come to terms with the fact that they were tricked by their own party.

  Isn’t it funny though that the people who say the most vicious things about Cindy Sheehan are those who never served(I’ll be mean,like them, and suppose it was from a lack of patriotism)or don’t have anyone in their family serving in Iraq or even Afghanistan.

  Even more funny is the fact that the baby boomers,who protested to avoid Vietnam,got us into another pointless war.Boy,people sure can run up huge costs when they don’t have to pay for it.

  Posted by wwoods on Aug 22, 2005 at 10:45 AM

  “We” did not invade Iraq.  The U.S invaded Iraq.  Why is the U.S.A “we”?  Why identify with state power?  Why can’t “we” be the workers of the world, who happen to have the same core interests, which don’t include invading anyone? 

  When leftists use the terms “we”, “us”, “our” etc, they often mean some country, race, or tribe.  “We” are the producers of the world’s wealth, not the different ruling cliques and wannabe rulers be they Bushes, Blairs, Husseins, Castros, Putins, al-Sadrs, Bin Ladens (you get my drift, and whatever entity they represent.

  Anyone who falls into the ideological trap of “we” as the U.S or Germany, or the Shiites, or the Tutsi, or the Basques has already lost. 

  Workers in Iraq and the United States have the SAME interests, they are both bieng exploited in an ever worsening way.  If they unite, the war will end. 

  If WE (workers in both countries) stopped the oil production in Iraq, and shut down the ports in the U.S.A.  If WE shut down the trains, trucks, weapons factories, airports, mines, refineries, banks, etc, (in both countries, as well as in Germany, Kuwait, Qatar etc.) the war couldn’t be waged.

  Without the workers not a single bulb can light up, not a single phone can ring, not a single letter can be sent, not a single working class kid can be recruited into the the army, not a single war can be fought.  WE, not the U.S.A can end it already.

  Posted by al-Dakari on Aug 22, 2005 at 1:42 PM

  “Here is the question to the parents of American service men and women that the Bush administration never thought to pose, much less answer: Is the war in Iraq worth the life of your son or daughter?”

  And did they ask, “ Is the war on Tarawa worth the life of your son or daughter?” How about North Africa?  Berlin? Gettesburg?  Bunker Hill?

  What is freedom worth? Is nothing worth risking one’s life?

  Cindy Sheehan’s son answered, “Yes.” so we can continue to freely debate it.

  Posted by whattheheck on Aug 22, 2005 at 2:36 PM

  Dude,

  hate to point this out, but the only people fighting for freedom in Iraq are the Iraqis. Sorry WTH…

  al-Dakari:

  Spoken like a true Marxist :) In his own words “The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got”

  and

  “[We] have nothing to lose but [our] chains. [We] have a world to win!”

  Posted by the great went on Aug 22, 2005 at 4:34 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 37 posts.

Member Login

Also by Joel Bleifuss

• Keep the Heat on Obama
  
• EPA on Trial
  
• Bush’s Selective Mourning
  
• Piling it High
  The sewage sludge industry meets the light of day
• Political Vice Squad
  
• Red-Boating Obama