I have had with editorial writers who use some heart string ploy when making their point, exploiting the death of a fallen soldier (without the families permission I am sure) to make a political critique. The latest is NY Times' Bob Herbert, who in today's Op-Ed, writes:
More than 1,730 American troops have already died in Iraq. Some were little more than children when they signed up for the armed forces, like Ramona Valdez, who grew up in the Bronx and was just 17 when she joined the Marines. She was one of six service members, including four women, who were killed when a suicide bomber struck their convoy in Falluja last week.
First, every casualty is a tragedy for someone--including the President. But it is easy for a writer to criticize, he doesn't have to make the agonizing decision to send troops into harms way.
But this particular exploitation galls me. In one paragraph Herbert seems to insinuate that President Bush has personally killed or sent to their death young people and women in greater numbers than any President. Such an argument is wrong on many levels.
First, most combat troops are young. Combat is a young person's profession due to the physical demands. While lives are cut short in combat on a regular basis, the fact that young people die in combat is not unique to the war in Iraq. In World War II, although I have no hard data, I would guess that the average age of a combat casualty was probably younger than Corporal Valdez. I would also wager that if one were to average the age of those who have died in Iraq, you would get an age closer to 20 or 21 or even higher than the 19 or so that was probably common in World War II.
Second, I will grant that more women may have died in "combat" operations in Iraq than in previous wars. But keep in mind, this war is one of the first to have such casualties as a significant . This is a function of two things--the opening of more jobs in teh army to women. 9Which I am sure that Mr. Herbert supported with full volume) Second, more and more "combat" is occuring away from the major combat areas--the convoys and logistical support efforts than had been the case in the past. As a result these logistics units are taking more casualties, and more female casualties, than in the past.
Noting that two years ago, President Bush did not have an "exit" strategy or a plan for defeating the blossoming insurgency, Herbert writes:
Mr. Bush had no coherent strategy for defeating the insurgency then, and now - more than 1,500 additional deaths later - he still doesn't.
The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals.
First, I don't know if the President has a plan for winning in Iraq--and I am pretty certain that Mr. Herbert doesn't know either. Just because we haven't been told doesn't mean there isn't a strategy. Assuming there is (and I believe there is), I, and I am absolutely certain, Mr. Herbert would not be on the plan's distribution list.
Next, the Republicans running Congress in 1994-1995 didn't impeach President Clinton when we got entangled in Kosovo and Bosnia. They respected the fact that the President had more information than they did about the situation. Now, Mr. Herbert would probably respond--"we were involved in a United Nations mission there." So, American troops died there. Albeit not in numbers like in Iraq, but nonetheless people died--young people.
Herbert closes with this little dig:
Whether one agreed with the launch of this war or not - and I did not - the troops doing the fighting deserve to be guided by leaders in Washington who are at least minimally competent at waging war. That has not been the case, which is why we can expect to remain stuck in this tragic quagmire for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Herbert fails to distinguish between minimal military competence and political competence. Here is how it works in the real military world. The civilian leadership determines the political goals of a war. Then the military takes over and carries out the missions. The troops on the ground understand their role in the world, more so than any other army in history. They rely on their training and their leaders to protect them. This war has been admirably led. There is a political goal, a free and secure Iraq. The mission is being accomplished and if the NY Times would get its head out of the liberal sand and take a look around in Iraq--they would see it.
Finally, the next time Mr. Herbert feels he needs to make a political poing by using a fallen soldier or Marine, I would like to see a disclaimer--"I have used a dead soldier's name without the permission of their family in order to score my rhetorical points." At least then his readers would know where he is coming from.
Sitting in the Beltway Traffic Jam
Dangerous Incompetence - New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment