They didn't die in vain
Over at the Reality Based Community, Mark Kleiman raises the question of what opponents of the war in Iraq should say when asked if the sacrifices of "our troops" were in vain. His answer is straightforward: of course they didn't die in vain.
My answer is: Are you fucking stupid??? Did you drink paint as a baby? Of course the poor suckers died in vain. They went off to a shitty, illegal, unnecessary war. They accomplished nothing of value, and instead of making their country safer, at best it is in just as much danger as before the war.
Died in vain? Oh, if only they had died for nothing, instead of dying for Halliburton's profit and Bush's election victories. If they had died for nothing, it would have been a tragedy; but they died for less than nothing, they died to make their country a weaker, meaner, more divided, less secure place.
Kleinman starts with a saccharine ode to the fallen:
Dispose Saddam? Sure, they accomplished that. A pissant tin pot dictator with no economy or army to speak of. And for what? For lies and oil and damn little else. There were no nukes. There were no biological or chemical weapons. There was no threat. Did they die so Junior Bush could get one over his Daddy?
They certainly didn't die for Iraq. Iraq is in a worse state than it was under Saddam. Just ask the Iraqi Christians, protected by Saddam but targets in the new Islamic state of Iraq. Just ask the women being kidnapped, not the one or two that the dictator's pervert son Udi used to snatch off the streets, but dozens or hundreds. Or those beaten for not wearing the veil. Saddam killed his enemies and rivals, but in the glorious new Iraq, everyone is at risk.
And the Taliban? They lost control of Kabul. Big fucking deal. Four fifths of Afghanistan hasn't changed a whit since the Russians left a decade ago. The Taliban still controls half the country, where American troops don't even go in force. The other half is under the control of warlords. The supposed national government barely controls the capital.
But at least we have the glory, right?
Bullshit. There's precious little glory in letting Osama bin Laden get away, or in Abu Ghraib, or the rape and murder of 14 year old Iraqi girls.
"They didn't die in vain" is purely wishful thinking, a myth. But it is such a powerful myth, so deep in the bone, that even opponents of that wasteful, wicked war in Iraq keep telling themselves that the troops aren't dying in vain.
It's crazy, really. On the one hand, they'll tell you that the war was unnecessary, a waste of money and lives, counter-productive even -- but then on the other hand, the troops didn't sacrifice their lives and health in vain, oh no.
Like fuck they didn't. Precious little good came out of their deaths, and that little that did almost certainly could have been reached by other means. You wanted Saddam out? The Pentagon is spending about $5.8 billion per month on the war in Iraq. For the money spent in six months of this lousy war, $35 billion dollars, and a promise of immunity from prosecution, the US could have bought Saddam off and retired him to the Caribbean somewhere. Hell, with enough sabre-rattling, he might have taken the money and run, immunity or no immunity.
Like that other pernicious meme, "support the troops", the myth of not dying in vain simply extends the agony. Like an addict who tells himself he can quit any time he likes, and so isn't really an addict, the not dying in vain meme allows people to pretend that they aren't culpable for the deaths of their sons and daughters. From the Charge of the Light Brigade, to the trenches of Flanders and the jungles of New Guinea, from Iraq to Vietnam, and a thousand more wars throughout history, we, the people back home, have sent our sons (and now daughters) to die, and then absolved ourselves of responsibility by saying they didn't die in vain.
My answer is: Are you fucking stupid??? Did you drink paint as a baby? Of course the poor suckers died in vain. They went off to a shitty, illegal, unnecessary war. They accomplished nothing of value, and instead of making their country safer, at best it is in just as much danger as before the war.
Died in vain? Oh, if only they had died for nothing, instead of dying for Halliburton's profit and Bush's election victories. If they had died for nothing, it would have been a tragedy; but they died for less than nothing, they died to make their country a weaker, meaner, more divided, less secure place.
Kleinman starts with a saccharine ode to the fallen:
No one dies in vain who dies for his country, or her country. Our soldiers in Iraq won the war to depose Saddam Hussein, and before that the war to free Afghanistan from the tyranny of the Taliban and to uproot al-Qaeda from its base of operations. Nothing will dim their glory;
Dispose Saddam? Sure, they accomplished that. A pissant tin pot dictator with no economy or army to speak of. And for what? For lies and oil and damn little else. There were no nukes. There were no biological or chemical weapons. There was no threat. Did they die so Junior Bush could get one over his Daddy?
They certainly didn't die for Iraq. Iraq is in a worse state than it was under Saddam. Just ask the Iraqi Christians, protected by Saddam but targets in the new Islamic state of Iraq. Just ask the women being kidnapped, not the one or two that the dictator's pervert son Udi used to snatch off the streets, but dozens or hundreds. Or those beaten for not wearing the veil. Saddam killed his enemies and rivals, but in the glorious new Iraq, everyone is at risk.
And the Taliban? They lost control of Kabul. Big fucking deal. Four fifths of Afghanistan hasn't changed a whit since the Russians left a decade ago. The Taliban still controls half the country, where American troops don't even go in force. The other half is under the control of warlords. The supposed national government barely controls the capital.
But at least we have the glory, right?
Bullshit. There's precious little glory in letting Osama bin Laden get away, or in Abu Ghraib, or the rape and murder of 14 year old Iraqi girls.
"They didn't die in vain" is purely wishful thinking, a myth. But it is such a powerful myth, so deep in the bone, that even opponents of that wasteful, wicked war in Iraq keep telling themselves that the troops aren't dying in vain.
It's crazy, really. On the one hand, they'll tell you that the war was unnecessary, a waste of money and lives, counter-productive even -- but then on the other hand, the troops didn't sacrifice their lives and health in vain, oh no.
Like fuck they didn't. Precious little good came out of their deaths, and that little that did almost certainly could have been reached by other means. You wanted Saddam out? The Pentagon is spending about $5.8 billion per month on the war in Iraq. For the money spent in six months of this lousy war, $35 billion dollars, and a promise of immunity from prosecution, the US could have bought Saddam off and retired him to the Caribbean somewhere. Hell, with enough sabre-rattling, he might have taken the money and run, immunity or no immunity.
Like that other pernicious meme, "support the troops", the myth of not dying in vain simply extends the agony. Like an addict who tells himself he can quit any time he likes, and so isn't really an addict, the not dying in vain meme allows people to pretend that they aren't culpable for the deaths of their sons and daughters. From the Charge of the Light Brigade, to the trenches of Flanders and the jungles of New Guinea, from Iraq to Vietnam, and a thousand more wars throughout history, we, the people back home, have sent our sons (and now daughters) to die, and then absolved ourselves of responsibility by saying they didn't die in vain.
posted by Vlad the Impala @ 12:50 am
0 comments
