For those of us in the U.S., today is Memorial Day. America has a fine tradition of military service and sacrifice. The best way to respect and honor it is to reflect on what it means to serve and perhaps die for your country, and to think about the value of the cause, the power of the reasons, and the strength of the evidence you would need before asking someone—someone like your brother, or friend, or neighbor—to take on that burden. That so many are willing to serve is a testament to the character of ordinary people in the United States. That these people have, in recent years, shouldered the burden of service for the sake of a badly planned war begun in the name of an ill-defined cause, on the thinnest of pretexts, and with the most flimsy sort of evidence, is an indictment of the country’s political class.
Update: I’ve added a little more below the fold. Update 2: And a little more.
Orin Kerr thinks I “don’t get it,” believes this post “seems designed to get lots of people hopping mad,” and several commenters voice similar opinions below. I disagree. I grew up in a country steeped in false piety and soaked in the language of blood sacrifice. I have no tolerance for either. Contrary to what Orin claims, there is no better time than public holidays of remembrance for people to seriously consider whether we should be adding still more young men and women to the roll of dead whom we will remember in coming years. I am not the one who is “test[ing] my ability to invent a populist voice” as Orin claims. For an example of that, you could have gone to Arlington Cemetery today and heard someone claim that ‘we must honor [the war dead] by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, by defeating the terrorists, advancing the cause of liberty, and building a safer world.’ In both Orin’s post and some of the comments below the assumption seems to be that any effort to counterbalance that sort of talk is always just designed to get people mad; that questioning policy always just means taking partisan cheap shots; and that taking leaders at their word and asking whether they live up to their promises is simply an effort to grab the spotlight or spit out some personal bile. That’s a purely cynical view of political life and public debate. And yet I’m supposed to be the one who is not taking things seriously.
Update 2: The bitterness and sanctimony of many of the comments below continues to depress. Also the huge interpretive effort to make the original post as insulting as possible: only in the hands of a certain kind of person could the phrase “a tribute to the character of ordinary Americans” be construed as an insult. “Ordinary” is not a term of abuse in my language. Orin Kerr has updated his post upon reading President Bush’s remarks at Arlington, which sought in part to convert the deaths of soldiers into a reason to continue Bush’s policies. Orin says
In my view, Memorial Day is about honoring sacrifice, not about trying to suggest that the war in Iraq was a good idea (Bush) or a bad idea (Healy).
This is even-handed, but of course the difference between me and Bush isn’t just in our stance on the war. He’s the President!
In fairness to Orin, if I were writing this post again I’d have been happier to choose language like Jim Henley’s, if only to avoid all the crap that’s now flying in the comments. Like me, Jim says that we “should be mindful that every one of those deaths betokened an awesome act of trust – trust that, when they made themselves into weapons, they would be wielded wisely; trust that, when they lay down their lives, we would use that coin for worthy purchase.” He goes on to say, “As a nation we have only ever fitfully met the standards implicit in those deaths. Let us be humble, and let us try harder.” If you wanted to be maximally uncharitable, you could read this as saying something even more insulting than me: “Only fitfully met?” Whereas I only criticized one, Jim’s saying that most of the wars the U.S. has engaged in have not lived up to the trust of the soldiers! If some of those who have shown up below want to head over to Jim’s site and drop some abuse on him on those grounds, go ahead.
I cannot accept the view that the reasons for the deaths we commemorate aren’t up for discussion on Memorial Day. Just go to Gallipoli any ANZAC day to see that there’s no contradiction between solemn commemoration and the reflection that it was all a huge waste. The best analogy I’ve seen comes from war-supporter Trent McBride. Imagine I had posted on May Day saying something like “This is not the day to point out that all those ordinary people who died at the hands of Stalin and Mao did so for nothing: instead we should simply remember and honor their deaths, not condemn the pointless social experiments that caused them.” What then? Would the same people who attack me in the comments below defend me then? I doubt it.
{ 162 comments }
And oddly enough, that’s the aspect of the hegemony of the educated elite over the working class that David Brooks doesn’t seem interested in writing about…
Nice to see you so carefully avoid using Memorial Day for a cheap political point.
(For some reason Eric believes that Memorial Day = No One Is Allowed To Criticize Our Great Leader.)
(But why talk about US troops? Look, bad things are going on at Saudi Arabia! Uzbekistan! Israel!)
The really cheap political points would be the ones made by a President who on Memorial Day sheds crocodile tears over the sacrifies imposed by his avoidable, discretionary war.
I’m generally inclined to agree with eric’s opposition to using Memorial Day to score political points (something that is, however, so common as to be almost intrinsic to the event). But I think that Kieran’s point isn’t cheap, but on the contrary important and valid, and put extremely well, to boot.
If it’s cheap point-scoring you’re after on Memorial Day, I suggest you try here.
I put it to you Josh, that is because you agree with him.
Keiran’s posting is riddled with contentious points, and that is why it is cheap. Save it for later.
I’m sure someone who believes their son died for a noble cause (even if Kieran thinks he died for Dick Cheney’s business plans or Donald Rumsfeld’s cock-ups), will be glad to note that you are using his death for your own purposes.
Of course, you could argue that Bush is using Memorial Day, so let’s cut Kieran some slack.
But let’s just imagine the outrage here if Bush decided not to attend Memorial Day events to avoid cheap political points being made and criticism. Guess what? Cheap political points would be made about it.
As for crocodile tears, since we are continually told Bush is dumb schmuck, who has limited communication skills, I’m less than convinced he can turn on the tears for effect. Let’s just imagine for a moment that Bush is a human being (you can insert your fashionable snigger at Bush as an ape or monkey here if you wish) and actually feels something for the men his decisions have put in the line of fire. Perhaps he has visited the wounded, perhaps he has visited the families of the dead. What right or evidence do you have to dehumanise Bush in this way?
Isn’t Memorial Day the one day you might actually give your partisanship a break?
Kieran,
That link made me look at Kos. Well done! You outperformed him in the cheap points stake, they had a far more dignified post.
War with dignity and peace with honor.
That so many of the ordinary people of the United States were willing to be led is an indictment of something more than the political class.
Is the op ed in today’s times by the ex marine noble, stupid, or both?
I see no reason to suspend your moral duty to oppose injustice—in the form of the killing and wounding of American soldiers for miserably bad reasons—because of Memorial day. I didn’t know holidays had that structure. So on Christmas, is it all right to steal from the poor?
Today, of all days, is a good day to make cheap political points—for the obvious reason that it is the day, of all days, when the nation turns its eyes to the military. So it is, indeed, cheaper today to get that publicity. Do it. A good start might be to write your congressman to support H.R. 1815 SEC. 1223. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM IRAQ. which reads: “It is the sense of Congress that the President should—(1) develop a plan as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act to provide for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq; and (2) transmit to the congressional defense committees a report that contains the plan described in paragraph.” Another thing you can do is sign John Conyer’s petition: http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/
index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={0F1B03E0-080B-4100-B143-
36A5985EF1E3}. And finally, of course, remember that the argument about Iraq has now turned into an argument about Suttee—since we have sacrificed 1700 soldiers and 13 thou wounded, we need to honor them by sacrificing another 1700, and another. This is a very good sign—when proponents of a war make this argument, they are often out of all arguments. And, given the recruitment collapse in this country, they will soon be out of soldiers as well.
eric,
Well, I’m not sure that I agree with Kieran—I was rather ambivalent about the war in Iraq to begin with, but did support it for a time; and while I’m now rather critical of the Bush administration’s conduct (both in how they initiated the war, and how they’ve handled the occupation) I’m still not entirely sure that going to war to unseat Saddam was an intrinsically bad thing. Also, while I remain somewhat pessimistic about the occupation, I’m not sure that simply withdrawing is the best thing to do.
Also, I’m not sure that contentious and cheap are synonymous, as you seem to suggest. That would make most commentary devoted to a strong thesis—your own included—cheap. As it is, not all of Kieran’s points are contentious, though his way of stating them perhaps is. For instance, one’s hackles might rise at the term ‘flimsy evidence’; but the evidence cited to prove that Saddam had WMD did turn out to be, so far as we can now tell, misleading.
I do think that it’s cheap to say things that don’t constitute arguments, but are merely intended to shut one’s opponent up.
It’s also somewhat cheap to impute arguments to one’s opponents that they haven’t made. I certainly haven’t, and so far as I can tell Kieran hasn’t, accused Bush of being inhuman. I’ve no idea whether Bush feels remorse or not. Certainly, he projects an impression of glibness, and seems to me to have demonstrated an inability to admit to having made mistakes, or indeed possibly been mistaken. Perhaps this is unfair, but it’s the impression I’ve formed. This is certainly not inhuman, but all too human; it reflects a weakness of character, though not necessarily a lack of feeling. I also recall some complaints that Bush wasn’t attending soldiers’ funerals during the campaign to avoid the bad PR, but am not sure how much truth there is to this. Anyway, do you actually know whether Bush has visited the wounded and bereaved? I don’t, and I haven’t suggested that he doesn’t. Nor have I said anything about Bush being a monkey. Nor has Kieran.
Imputing arguments to opponents that they’ve never made also seems a cheap shot.
But I’ve gone on far too long about a statement that probably doesn’t call for such a lengthy rejoinder. Sorry to be a bore, all.
Well, that’s one way to boost your number of comments.
This method must be found in the Jerry Springer manual for generating blog traffic.
Post something puerlie and outrageous, get it linked on a blog that people actually read (Volokh) sit back and read the comments.
America has a fine tradition of military service and sacrifice.
Really? Which were your favorite wars, and why? I’m not sure any of Gulf II’s predecessors were more obviously moral, when one considers the casualties we’ve sustained and inflicted vs. the historical throughput of Saddam’s wood chippers. Please walk us through your math.
Or are you separating the act of service itself from the causes? If so, you could make a case that the SS served courageously.
The best way to respect and honor it is to reflect on what it means to serve and perhaps die for your country, and to think about the value of the cause, the power of the reasons, and the strength of the evidence you would need before asking somone—someone like your brother, or friend, or neighbor—to take on that burden.
It’s hard to put any faith at all in a CIA which, operationally castrated by Democratic squeamishness, failed to forecast the end of the Cold War. But the unanimous agreement of all Western World’s intelligence services, coupled with Hussein’s history of having used chemical weapons against his own people, documented declarations of chemical weapons stores, and refusal to certify destruction of said weapons, would clear my threshold.
That so many are willing to serve is a testament to the character of ordinary people in the United States.
Please convey our thanks to yourself and your extraordinary friends.
That these people have, in recent years, shouldered the burden of service for the sake of a badly planned war…
Badly-planned by what historical standard? What specific battle or war can you cite which has offers the chance to achieve so much for the sacrifice of so relatively few?
I can’t tell which are the bigger hypocrites: the Republicans who now support democracy vs. Realpolitik, or the Democrats who used to.
…begun in the name of an ill-defined cause,…
GWB laid out quite a number of justifications, repeatedly, before the first shot was fired. That you could not be bothered to pay attention is not his fault. That he chose to couch any of the justification in terms of WMDs in order to secure the support of the breathtakingly corrupt and ineffectual United Nations was probably a miscalculation. But neither could he have expected you and your ilk to follow his advisors’ chessboard strategy for peeling Middle Eastern dictatorships off of their long-suffering people to remediate the “root causes” upon which, ironically, the Left so closely focused immediately following 9/11.
… on the thinnest of pretexts, and with the most flimsy sort of evidence, is an indictment of the country’s political class.
I think your unsupported sound bite, so inappropriate on this particular day, is a much bigger indictment of your ability to draw meaningful lessons from history. How many people, having seen the damage wrought by Hitler in WWII, wouldn’t use a time machine to stop him at geometrically smaller cost in Spain?
One, at least.
Eric translated: Don’t use Memorial Day to make me think about the war going on right now.
Just wanted to note that Orin Jumped in:
Memorial Day is not a time to separate out which of the dead served and died for good reasons or bad; to second-guess which decisions to declare war, launch a campaign or charge a hill were justified or not; or to test your ability to invent a populist voice to make cheap shots against an Administration you despise. I’m sure there are good times for that, but Memorial Day isn’t one of them.
Presumably, Orin also would feel the same way on the Memorial Day after the US helps China take Taiwan, in the name of continuity and stability. Of course he would! It is about the soldiers, see, not the value of the cause on which our country spends citizens. That’s never been part of the dialogue.
364/365 = 99.726%.
You chose to dishonor the intent of Memorial Day, the 0.274% of the year reserved to honor American war dead, to make your political points. Good for you.
Kieran,
I fully support and affirm what you did with this post. In fact, I wrote something along these lines this morning. The false piety of “military sacrifice” is always-already going to be deployed in favor of whatever administration happens to be in power and, almost inevitably, sending troops off somewhere or other. It’s sad that people are outraged that a powerless blogger would use this day to oppose the policies of a detestable administration—but apparently not as outraged that the same detestable administration is using this day as a way of continuing to justify its destructive and immoral policies. You want cheap? The rhetoric of the powerful son of a former president, now elected president himself and sending the poor and working class to die for his bad decisions—that’s pretty cheap. That costs him nothing at all.
Kieran, your response to Professor Kerr is very strong and right on the mark. Kudos to you for this sensible post on a day that brings out (as the comments already attest) false piety in spades.
It’s not those who call attention to sacrifices of questionable necessity who are dishonoring Memorial Day. Those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country are indeed noble, and all of us honor them. The politicians who mandate those sacrifices when they are avoidable, and the pundits (and commenters here) who want to declare Memorial Day a criticism-free zone for those politicians, are anything but noble. They are the ones who are dishonoring the intent of this day. And the pundits are also the ones who don’t seem to understand what it is about the US that makes it worth fighting for.
Au contraire. What better day than Memorial Day to consider the sacrifice of those who gave the last full measure of devotion? Do we really want to spend that on wars of choice?
Some of us think of the war dead more than once a year: don’t assume otherwise.
If what Kieran wrote bothers you, maybe you should examine why, rather than just reacting. Patriotism isn’t blind obedience.
Jesus. All this objection to Kieran’s humane, sensible, compassionate post. They protest for nothing. No true honor could be sullied so easily.
Poor little sensitive Bush cheerleaders. I can only imagine the cerebral explosions they might suffer should they look at my Memorial Day post.
In the update, Kieran writes:
“In both Orin’s post and some of the comments below the assumption seems to be that any effort to counterbalance that sort of talk is always just designed to get people mad; that questioning policy always just means taking partisan cheap shots; and that taking leaders at their word and asking whether they live up to their promises is simply an effort to grab the spotlight or spit out some personal bile.”
No, not always. Just in the exceedingly rare case when someone tries to take a holiday focused on remembering the sacrifice of the dead and use that to try to score points on a foreign policy debate.
Also, Kieran, I don’t think it’s an effective response to your critics to try to find examples of conservatives doing what you are accused of doing, which you do both in comment #6 and in your update. If anything, it seems to bolster the case that you’re viewing this as some kind of game. At least, that’s how it seems to me.
No, not always. Just in the exceedingly rare case when someone tries to take a holiday focused on remembering the sacrifice of the dead and use that to try to score points on a foreign policy debate.
Well, Orin, since you realize that’s wrong, I can only suggest that you stop doing it (and perhaps apologize to Kieran for this clasic piece of projection). Expecting you also to criticze George W. Bush for doing it would be unrealistic, I suppose.
No, this is indeed not a game. It’s about people whose lives were sacrificed for the games of politicians. And about people who claim to think that exempting those politicians from criticism somehow honors those dead. Shame on you.
It’s funny that so many of you who support the original post want to talk about ‘false piety.’ Can you read the minds of the administration and the people who think you are idiots for using Memorial Day to score political points?
If I claimed to know your motivations were different from what you say they are, you’d say I had no business saying such a thing and proof of my assertions.
I call the same on you. If you use a term such as ‘false piety’, please let us know what is false about it. Why do you think those who want to simply honor all of our country’s war dead have some other agenda than simply honoring vets.
I think I smell a bit of projection. You have false motives for honoring our war dead, wanting to score cheap political points, so you assume everyone who disagrees with you is just and crass and dishonest as you are. (You may not like this line of thinking, but it carries just as much weight as your accusations of false piety. More because your cheap political points are displayed right next your praise of the ‘ordinary people.’
Steve,
What points am I trying to make in a foreign policy debate? I am confused.
Orin
Kieran, it’s certainly possible for even a mindless war supporter such as myself to make the point Orin suggests – without turning it into a “support the war” trope. I did it in my post:
Today, we are asking people to sacrifice themselves so that our children and the children of others can have those things, and it’s important that we not ignore the harsh reality of that sacrifice and make sure to always ask ourselves whether the things we will gain are worth the cost.
This isn’t the place – the post – for that debate. But it is the place to take a moment and remember what the debate is really about, outside our egos and our politics and words.
It’s about the men and women who gave everything – and those who risked giving everything – for us and ask more than anything that we remember them.”It didn’t seem that hard to me.
A.L.
Orin – if you want to make this criticism stick at all, I think you need to make the basis for your claims a lot clearer. Some more-or-less-connected questions:
(1) Are you saying that it’s necessarily wrong to reflect on the connection between the meaning of Memorial day and topical questions of foreign policy? Is so, why?
(2)Or alternatively, are you claiming that the only appropriate reflections on Memorial Day are those that bring the US together, rather than those that people disagree on? Again, why?
(3) Or that divisive reflection is OK, but that Kieran is in some way being disingenuous or politically manipulative by framing the issues in the way that he does? Again, why and how?
(4) Or is there some other possiblejustification of your criticism that I’m not thinking of?
(5) Why is it “point scoring” to connect otherwise entirely legitimate observations on the war in Iraq to a set of patriotic values?
(6) What makes this more or less inappropriate “point scoring” than, say, connecting your criticism of the way that the American political class has behaved on Iraq to any other set of commonly held values (say on human rights, just war etc)?
(7)Do you view Kieran’s argument as being less appropriate (I suspect, perhaps incorrectly, that you do) than Bush’s speech today? If so, why?
In (6) above, substitute “one’s” for “your” in “your criticism.”
Kieran, I don’t think it’s an effective response to your critics to try to find examples of conservatives doing what you are accused of doing, which you do both in comment #6 and in your update.
The example in my update wasn’t some random blogger like me, Orin, it was the President of the United States wringing the letters of dead soldiers for political capital. If that sort of thing is above criticism on Memorial Day, wheras my post it not, I guess we’ll continue to disagree. I thought my original post made a reasonable point in a direct but calm and respectful way.
As for comment #6, yes, I think that was just a cheap bit of point-scoring: the guy was trawling left-leaning blogs and excitedly writing down any that hadn’t mentioned Memorial Day in order to indict them for Hating America. That’s pathetic. I thought my post was a cut above that.
While, on balance, I disagree with Orin Kerr (while it would be possible to write a protest of the current war that would be inappropriate for Memorial Day, I don’t think Kieran Healy has), he is not, pace steve labonne, committing of which he accuses Healy. Kerr has made no mention of his own position on the war (indeed, I don’t know what it is). His position, to which he has conformed, is that a day for honoring the war dead should not be used for the purposes of political commentary on the purpose for which these blameless men and women died. I don’t agree with him (and Healy’s example of the [I assume] Irish tradition is an excellent example), but it’s certainly a respectable position he’s taken in good faith.
Here’s the crux of the matter; Memorial Day is supposed to be about honoring America’s veterans. Period.
To use it as a spring board to critique the present administration is just bad etiquette.
Had the post started out as saying “I think M’ Day is a great time to discuss this administration and what they’re costing our young Americans” or some such method, that would be a different story.
But the post took a purposefully solemn tone at the start only to segue into some political wrangling.
It’s a cheap stunt. The intent was obviously more about stirring things up than an actual discussion of the present administration.
Orin, here is a quote from your blog post: “Memorial Day is not a time to separate out which of the dead served and died for good reasons or bad…”
Now that is a political point. And in my opinion, it is a morally idiotic political point. Nothing could do more honor to the war dead than a constant resolve to make sure that sacrifices such as theirs are never called for save in cases where it is truly unavoidable. And nothing can do them less honor than an attempt to use false piety to prevent that question from being asked. Armed Liberal, to his great credit, appears to understand that. But to you, again I say, for shame.
To use it as a spring board to critique the present administration is just bad etiquette. But for the present administration to use it as a springboard to bolster support for its policies is good etiquette? That’s just laughable.
Keiran,
I agree with your characterization of the war in Iraq and of the leaders that brought us to it.
It is a tragic consequence of war that the cost in lives lost and lives forever changed becomes in many minds the greatest justification for continuing to increase the cost, that those who’ve paid have not done so in vain.
Memorial Day is supposed to be about honoring America’s veterans.
Wrong.
Memorial Day is about honoring war dead. One cannot honor the dead by glossing over that which they died for. And if they gave their lives in good faith as a result of lies on the part of their leaders, it detracts not one iota from their sacrifice and their honor to say so.
“America has a fine tradition of military service and sacrifice.
Really? Which were your favorite wars, and why? I’m not sure any of Gulf II’s predecessors were more obviously moral, when one considers the casualties we’ve sustained and inflicted vs. the historical throughput of Saddam’s wood chippers. Please walk us through your math.
(snipped rest)”
Hmmm, I noticed no reponse to this excellent post from a fellow called John.
Could that be because he completely obliterated your silly argument point by point and no responses could be found? (At least not any that made actual sense).
Nah…
First, in response to Henry:
Re (1)-(6), maybe my view is idiosyncratic, but I have generally understood Memorial Day as a day to honor the dead. It’s not about politics, or whether any particular Presidential or military decisions were right or wrong. As you know, I struggled then and still struggle with the decision to go to war; it’s not a decision with which I have ever been comfortable. Still, I see the holiday as a time to put those questions aside for a bit. I don’t think it means that we should condemn all talk of politics on Memorial Day, but I think it imposes a duty to address politics in a particularly sensitive way. Standards for sensitivity can vary, I suppose, but I don’t think Kieran’s post satisfies that standard.
Re (7), I tried to find a copy of the full text of Bush’s speech, but couldn’t, and it’s a bit hard to know from the press report alone if or to what extent the same criticism should apply to Bush. If Bush used his speech as an opportunity to argue in favor of his decisions to go to war, however, (or, for that matter, to push social security reform or advance any other cause) instead of honoring the sacifice of our troops, then yes, I think he should be criticized for that.
In response to Steve:
I am trying to make exactly the same point as Armed Liberal in comment #25. I don’t know why Armed Liberal deserves “great credit” for making the point while I deserve “shame.” Perhaps I am missing some meaning you are drawing from my post that I didn’t intend? In any event, I’m with AL on this one.
So, since you obviously really want to talk about the big bad Bushitler administration raher than the war dead, why don’t you?
Why don’t you just put up a post, giving it your best shot, attempting to indict Bush for a “badly planned war”, or for going to war on “the thinnest of pretexts” or on the “flimsiest of evidence”?
Why don’t you just have that debate, and leave Memorial Day out of it?
Could it be because you have had that debate, and you keep losing it? And that you hope by wrapping yourself in the mantle of those who died in combat you may give yourself some edge which the facts have not provided you?
Eric translated: Don’t use Memorial Day to make me think about the war going on right now.
In a sense, yes. Memorial Day is about the soldiers, not the war.
And about people who claim to think that exempting those politicians from criticism somehow honors those dead.
Gosh, Steve, you’re right. Telling families of the dead at the time set aside for a memorial that all the people being memorialized died for nothing (or “the games of politicians”) is a great way to honor them. Why don’t you go hang out at a funeral home and try that? See whether people agree.
Perhaps you could start by finding a funeral of a police officer killed in a drug raid and tell his family that the War on Drugs is a waste.
Quick correction—in reading over my comment above (#36), I realize that I mistakenly used the word “politics” when I should have said something more like “current events” or “modern public policy debates.”
Gosh, David, you’re right. Obviously the way to honor them is to get more soldiers killed so that we can try to argue that those who died previously didn’t die in vain. Which, as Bob Duckles has already pointed out, has always been the deeply sick dynamic at work in prolonging wars. But let’s not talk about that lest we upset the prowar folks. That would be far worse than sending future soldiers to unnecessary deaths, wouldn’t it.
Oh, by the way, do try your little spiel on one of the many families who have lost loved ones in this war and who want to end it, and to work against the starting of future wars of discretion, so that other families won’t have to face a similar avoidable loss. They’ll be a lot less polite than I was, I’m afraid.
Orin, the first place to find the text of presidential speeches is at the White House’s website. In this case:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050530.html
Steve/Chris: Bush also quoted from the letters of a few war dead:
he war. He wrote his mom and dad a letter that was to be opened only in the event he didn’t come home. He wrote: “Realize that I died doing something that I truly love, and for a purpose greater than myself.”
Army Sergeant Michael Evans of Marrero, Louisiana, felt the same way. He was killed on January 28th while on patrol in Western Baghdad. In his own farewell letter to his family, the 22-year-old reminded those he left behind to stay strong. He said: “My death will mean nothing if you stop now. I know it will be hard, but I gave my life so you could live. Not just live, but live free.”
You think it “honors” them to say, “Ha, ha, you fools. Tricked you. This was all just a political game by Bush. You died for nothing.”?
Memorial Day has its roots in Decoration Day, inaugurated to commemorate Civil War dead. I had hoped to find some basic generosity of spirit toward the vanquished in the original declaration,
http://www.usmemorialday.org/order11.html
but the wording is pretty clear: if you were a Confederate soldier, you didn’t count. The South had its own observance days (starting from even before the end of that conflict), and still does in some Southern states.
Call it a cheap shot if you like, or an overextrapolation from Order 11, but I think this whole Memorial Day idea seems to have gotten off on the wrong foot, and has mostly hobbled along on that foot ever since. Isn’t it time to cast aside the moral crutches of nationalism (successful or failed) and put some weight on the untried foot? A more honest way to look at the problem of how to honor war dead would take into account that wars are caused by human stupidity. If someone fights valiantly to the death for what he believes in, and what he believes in happens to be wrong, is that any cause for dishonor? Has any rank-and-file soldier ever flung himself with a full-throated roar into a lethal fray thinking, “I must do this so that my people can win and thus go back to being cynical, self-serving and evil full-time, relieved of the wearying obstacles and distractions this enemy now presents to those all-important goals”? Somehow, I don’t think so.
I think any true Memorial Day, any honest accounting, would not be so much about honor, much less glory, but about reflection. Memorial Day parades would include the Confederate flag—not as a way to honor the Confederacy, only to acknowledge those who also lost their lives. We would invite the relatives and surviving co-combatants (or their descendents) of war dead from all foreign wars as well, to march under the same flags the fallen soldiers served under, whether erstwhile friend or erstwhile foe. Would this mean some Germans carrying a Nazi flag? Yes. That might make most people’s skin crawl, but it would be very much to the point: that soldiers fight and die for nations, both right AND wrong, and if we don’t think about root causes, we may never see an end to it.
So here’s the exact quote from Bush: “And we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, by defeating the terrorists, advancing the cause of liberty, and building a safer world.”
Given Prof. Kerr’s position here (n.b. comment 37), I’m pretty sure that moral and intellectual honesty demand no less that some words of condemnation for President Bush—somewhere prominent, such as an update to his original post on volokh.com.
Steve, what you don’t get is that Memorial Day isn’t (supposed to be) about you trying to make yourself feel morally superior to the president. It’s about the soldiers who have died.
Nobody is trying to silence the debate. (Nobody could, even if he wanted to; it’s been going on ad nauseam for three and a half years now.) The issue here is called “manners”. There’s a time for a debate, and there’s a time not to have a debate. At the memorial for the dead person is not the time to debate the morality of the situation that led to his death.
JW,
I think that’s fair. I’ll write something up.
Thanks, David, for the link.
I’m always amazed at how utterly humorless and pedantic the so-called “reasonable” rightwing blog followers are. It’s painful to read their self-righteous posturing. Jesus, they take themselves seriously.
Nothing brings them flying in like the chance to act morally superior.
This thread makes me feel thankful that my country commemorates those who gave their life in battle on an appropriately dreary November day, rather than one now more generally devoted to grilling steaks or visiting car showrooms, especially in those parts of the US where the Civil War is still being fought.
Perhaps you could start by finding a funeral of a police officer killed in a drug raid and tell his family that the War on Drugs is a waste.
If you want to troll, find one that is at least moderately on topic. Please, the poor quality kills me – I expect better from Memorial Day CT flamewars.
Orin – there’s a complete transcript of Bush’s remarks available at http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=48133 . And it reads quite unambiguously as an effort to justify the Iraq war by linking it to the memory of America’s war-dead. I think it’s worth quoting from in extenso.
There isn’t any ambiguity that I can see. Bush isn’t simply saying here that they died bravely, that they were good soldiers. He’s saying that they died for a cause (and in so doing, he’s providing a quite different set of justifications for the war than those he provided at the time when he proposed it). More than that – he is saying that because they died, we must continue to support the “mission.” It’s a baldly political statement – and a rather cynical one too. Kieran didn’t pick and choose among soldiers’ letters and family histories to find those that would support his political objectives. Bush did.
There’s a real problem with this kind of debate – what I think Johnson was talking about when he described patriotism as “the last refugee of a scoundrel.” One of the reasons that patriotic imagery is extraordinarily valuable to politicians on both the left and the right of the spectrum is that blunders (and sometimes atrocities) can be hidden from public inspection if the flag is wrapped around them. In particular, it can be used to make it more difficult to question the rationale and conduct of highly questionable wars. There was a lot of that going on during last year’s Presidential debate, where the question of whether soldiers had indeed died for a blunder was treated as being politically out of bounds. Nor, I suspect, if you go back through history, are you going to find that Memorial Day has in any real sense been held sacrosanct from politics. I strongly suspect that what you will find is that it has been used (either explicitly or implicitly) to support wars rather than to criticize them. But precisely because of this, it’s politicized – and it’s entirely fair as Kieran has done, to calmly set out an alternative understanding of the day, and to challenge a set of not-very-well-articulated norms that are wide open to political abuse, and indeed that have been directly abused today.
I think I agree more with Healy than with Kerr, but I can’t help wishing to see Memorial Day as a solemn reflection on the contemporary form of human sacrifice called “war,” one that we (as a species) continue to practice, perhaps because we see no better alternative, perhaps because we haven’t tried.
In that sense, however horrible & misdirected this particular war was, it shares those qualities with all wars. To that extent, arguing over whether the sacrificed lives in this particular war were sacrificed in a good cause or not … for the right reasons or not … does seem to miss the point.
(Please don’t mistake this sentiment for naive pacifism. But except for sociopaths who delight in war, surely we all must regret that wars occur, and that young people go off to fight them and die in the process.)
On memorial day I honor the other side’s dead.
The purpose of Memorial Day is to honor those who’ve given there lives in our country’s wars. And so, on Memorial Day, President Bush said something along these lines: The best way to honor the troops who’ve died in Iraq is to complete the mission.
That’s not an exact quote, but I think it accurately expresses his statement. And it seems at first to be obviously true. We’re in the war; brave men and women have given their lives for our goals there; we must finish the job.
But it is, without question, a political statement. The implicit logic is that any war started must be continued until victory is secured. Otherwise, each life lost is lost in vain.
That clearly rejects the view of many commenters above that the political goal of war is immaterial to the sacrifice given by our war dead—President Bush has, today, linked them irrevocably.
And what is “victory” in a war? Well—just to offer a hypothetical—it might constitute the destruction of weapons-of-mass-destruction possessed by a tyrant.
Oh—wait—the tyrant-in-question might not have weapons of mass destruction.
Okay, yes, but that wasn’t the reason for the war—the REAL reason was democratization of the Arab world. (That’s a do-able project, right?)
But whatever. Really, who cares about all that stuff? The point is, the war’s underway, soldiers have died. There’s no going back.
The Iraq war must be continued, at whatever cost, however long it takes. Why?
Because it was started.
That, according to our president, is the lesson of Memorial Day.
I have posted an update. The VC appears to be down right now, but you should be able to see it here:
http://volokh.powerblogs.com/archives/archive_2005_05_29-2005_06_04.shtml#1117494596
The setting of this discussion and much of the dialogue betrays a sharp insincerity concerning the actual war dead and those now in harm’s way.
Argue your points for or against the war, but don’t hide behind some flimsy facade of concern for those who have died and who are in the war now. You’ve got an axe to grind, grind it.
But this whole spiel about M’Day and being upset that we’re fighting an unjust war is empty rhetoric.
labone, healy et al, you are an inch deep and a mile wide. If you’re case against the war had any credibility left, you wouldn’t need to resort to such hyperbole to keep the discussion going.
And yes, Bush is using the day for his advantage but he is not framing it in such a manner to question the purpose or service of those who have already died.
You think it “honors” them to say, “Ha, ha, you fools. Tricked you. This was all just a political game by Bush. You died for nothing.”?
That would indeed be a horrible thing to say. It’s a good thing that no one in this thread has said anything remotely like that, except in the fevered imaginations of those who use the lives soldiers freely gave for what they considered a just cause as an excuse to tell people to shut up.
Henry: Kieran didn’t pick and choose among soldiers’ letters and family histories to find those that would support his political objectives. Bush did.
And had Bush done so during a debate about whether we should keep fighting—or whether we should re-elect Bush to go on fighting, or the like, he would have been validly accused of politicizing their deaths, and he would have merited condemnation.
The issue is, I think, that you view it as unfair that one side of the debate gets to say X, while the other side isn’t allowed to say Not X. But the problem is that you’re viewing it as a debate. But Memorial Day isn’t the time for that debate. it’s simply a time for remembering and honoring those who have died. Yesterday, and tomorrow, and all the rest of the time, that debate has gone on and will continue to go on. And that’s appropriate. Just not during the memorials.
By the way, Joe, it’s called an analogy. Unfortunately, they don’t have them on the SATs anymore, so a lot of people don’t understand the concept.
Chris,
“That would indeed be a horrible thing to say. It’s a good thing that no one in this thread has said anything remotely like that, except in the fevered imaginations of those who use the lives soldiers freely gave for what they considered a just cause as an excuse to tell people to shut up.”
No, that is the gist of it. I think most have already acknowledged that the subject is fair game any day of the year, but Healy framed the post in such a manner that was distasteful and disrespectful.
I’ll give a person room to fault President Bush’s use of M’Day (see Orin’s update) but I still don’t agree.
Those that have died in Iraq are part of the Memorial Day observance. Bush is extolling the virtue of their service and reminding us that they didn’t die in vain.
Now, argue that point in context to the debate of the war. But to argue that point using the very day meant to honor the dead, regardless of the war, is crass and vulgar.
So Memorial Day is a time to contemplate Just War Theory. Perhaps Prof. Healy can lead us all in a national seminar. Any suggested readings for the Memorial program?
The self-absorption of academicians is truly amazing.
In a democracy, soldiers fight for Kieran’s and Orin’s freedom to speak out. It is our duty to honor their sacrifice and the enormous suffering of their parents and kids and demand that such a sacrifice be a last resort and not a toy for mad dogs that start a war for selfish political reasons.
And yes, Bush is using the day for his advantage but he is not framing it in such a manner to question the purpose or service of those who have already died.
No, he’s just attaching their service and sacrifice to the back of his own political bandwagon as if they were magnetic yellow ribbons.
I don’t understand the point that Orin Kerr and those who agree with him are trying to make. Why is it OK to say, on Memorial Day, “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,” but not to point out that in many cases, this is simply not true? Doesn’t it honor those who have died needlessly best to point this out, so that their sacrafices may serve to prevent the further unnecessary violence and loss of life? If you genuinely believe, as I assume Kieran does, that the war in Iraq is causing many unnecessary American deaths, isn’t the day when you honor those who’ve died then the best day to point this out?
Why do we need to honor war to honor those who’ve fought in it? Why is it a cheap political ploy to say that war, especially wars of choice, are terrible things and should be avoided whenever possible, so that the number of men and women we are honoring on this day does not grow needlessly?
Ray, how can you think it’s ok to accuse another person whom you only know via blog posts of “a flimsy facade of concern for those who have died”? Even if Orin is right about everything he’s argued, how can you say that? You think everyone who oppossed this war did it just as a pose, and not because they cared at all about the people who were going to die in it? That’s a pretty stupid thing to think.
Memorial Day was observed on May 30 until 1971, when Congress changed it to the last Monday in May in order to give us all a 3-day beach weekend. That staunch patriot Richard Nixon signed the law. By 1971, over 45,000 Americans had died in Vietnam, when Congress told us all that Memorial Day was a good time to soak up some rays.
So please, people, a bit less sanctimony about the inviolable solemnity of Memorial Day.
All the talk about “let’s leave the debate to some other” over the Iraq war assumes there’s a real debate going on in the first place. But now what I’m hearing from the pro-war folks is just “Argh! Saddam had WMD! Everyone knows it!” “Criticizing Bush = criticizing all US citizens!” “Hey look! Darfur!”
It’s pretty obvious who’s truly showing respect to the war dead, and who’s just using Memorial Day as an excuse to silence critics.
“Why is it OK to say, on Memorial Day, “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,” but not to point out that in many cases, this is simply not true?”
Well, Santa Claus doesn’t really exist, but it’s not OK to tell kids that on Christmas Day.
This was the first analogy that leaped to mind, and I mean no disrespect to soldiers/veterans by it. There are myths (neither true nor false, but necessary) and there are days on which we venerate these myths, and on which we should be able to stop sniping at each other for 24 hours. This goes for sniping in both directions, of which there’s far too much on the net today.
Obviously, sacrifice for one’s country is a much more important myth than Santa Claus – all the more reason to take a day off to respect it.
Or not. It’s a free blogosphere.
This exchange though painful is old. It takes place in many societies and quite often – US, France, Israel, etc. It’s the infamous patriotic Kabuki dance of Right against Left, it’s the 2004 Presidential campaign all over again, it’s Reagan and Bush (pretended to serve) against Carter and Kerry (served).
Ah, yes… of course, the annual Memorial Day pissing contest over the sanctity of war dead. As sad as it is to say, I think it’s true that those who sacrificed their lives in Iraq did so for a stupid cause. I takes nothing away from their sacrifice, since they gave to their country and their service, but it sure as hell takes a lot away from Bush, et. al.
Still… it does seem a bit much to say so on Memorial Day. Even above and beyond the vast darkness that enveloped me (the oil fires did their part) as I handled the Iraqi POWs, was the one that clouded around as I stood at attention listening to a scratchy tape recording of the Marine Corps Hymn and Eternal Father at a rather perfunctory and pointless funeral during the Persian Gulf War. A death that occured several weeks after the war was over, a senseless accident in the haste to bring war’s momentum to a stop. I wondered what the letter said to that guy’s family? Bullshit, no doubt. He had gotten his head lopped off by the ramp of a tank trailer swinging down while he stood unaware. But… I stood attention at the funeral, because I had missed the two previous funerals in our unit and another absence was too much to bear. So we all stood in silence… wondering.
It’s astonishing to me (well, an affront, really—not really a suprise) that sixty-odd years of post-WWII propagandizing have so muddled the minds of Americans about just what war entails. Kicking Nazi ass (as well as saving the Union and gaining our independence) is about all we’ve ever done as a country for military honor—and even that honor was well-acquainted with its accompanying horrors. All the rest: the Mexican Wars, Spanish-American War (especially the following Philippine Insurrection—they had liberated themselves from Spain on the ground, after all), the fighting in the Banana Republics, World War One, Korea, Vietnam, the 60s-80s Banana Republic Redux… just pure unadulterated bullshit. You’d think we’d have a fucking clue… but we don’t, evidently.
So… we desperately need to get one. I’m just not sure that Memorial Day is the appropriate day of reminder.
Oh, man. Who knew that a bunch of (mostly) intelligent people would take the official ‘memorial day’ holiday so seriously?
A little bit of healthy cynicism wouldn’t hurt you, people. It’s just a day-off for you, fellas, and occasion for photo-ops and grandstanding for the politicians. Don’t confuse yourselves with politicians, please…
Here’s an analogy that might help clarify Orin’s argument:
“This January, in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we remember the victims of ‘affirmative action’, ‘reverse discrimination’, ‘racial preferences’, ‘quotas’—call them what you will. Under these programs, many have suffered the kind of unconscionable discrimination that the Rev. King himself would never have condoned—indeed, that he spent his whole life fighting, and that is now outrageously being imposed in his name by a corrupt, demagogic civil rights movement and its race-hustling political allies.”
Now, I’m as big an opponent of affirmative action as you’ll find, but I still find something quite unseemly about the above hypothetical rhetoric. I think the problem with it is that Martin Luther King Jr., as a holiday-inspiring symbol, represents something more than a purely neutral universal sentiment (“the brotherhood of man”), and less than a specific political message (“we must all support the current-day civil rights movement’s policy platform”). Rather, he and his holiday stand for a substantial point of national consensus: the ideal of racial equality. Hence, exploiting the symbol of that point of consensus to promote a particular highly controversial interpretation of it seems, as Orin put it, “designed to get lots of people hopping mad”.
Likewise, Memorial Day isn’t simply about honoring Americans who happened to have died during a war; nor is it (pace the president) about supporting the current administration’s foreign policy—or (pace Kieran) about opposing it. Rather, it’s about the American consensus that it is generally a noble thing when America calls her sons (and now daughters) to war on her behalf, and when they answer. If you disagree with that sentiment—and there are those who do, just as there are those who reject the ideal of racial equality—then the thing to do is to argue against Memorial Day itself, not to attempt to co-opt its message by reinterpreting it in an unusual, highly controversial light.
Every single supporter of the Bush administration: you killed those troops in Iraq as surely as if you pointed the gun and fired it yourself. Their blood is on your hands, and when you cling to the flag you smear it with their blood. You have dishonored your country, and your children will curse you for it.
If what Kieran wrote bothers you, maybe you should examine why, rather than just reacting. Patriotism isn’t blind obedience.
It’s worth noting that I am not an American, yet still think this is a poor post.
It is even a poor post, in terms of utility, to those opposed to the Iraq war.
It will not change any hearts and minds over Iraq, because of its exploitation of war dead. It’s a tactically short-term action that makes Kieran feel all nice and pious.
“Hey look at me I’m grown up enough to ruin a day to remember the fallen soldiers, by making it all about Bush!”
Here’s an analogy that might help clarify Orin’s argument:
No, that was an orange.
Here’s the thing: one cannot extrapolate the nobility or otherwise of a particular military campaign from the individual service and sacrifice of those who do the fighting and dying. What can be said is that there’s an ambivalence to commemorating the war dead when you have a role in adding to the list.
Perhaps this is a cultural thing. Perhaps Americans really do like having fresh war graves to play the pipes over. In which case, there’s nothing more to say.
My father, who fought in WWII, was present at D-
day, was highly decorated, and served in the military all his life, always took the occasion of Memorial Day to talk to us children about the evils of war and the futility and waste of the deaths it caused. Why do some commenters here regard those sentiments as inappropriate for this day? War should not be glorified.
Remembering War is remembering inhumanity. Mantioning respect for the fighting soldiers and their campaign on a memorial day is inhuman.
“Those that have died in Iraq are part of the Memorial Day observance. Bush is extolling the virtue of their service and reminding us that they didn’t die in vain.”
If they did they in vain, would they not be remembered on Memorial Day? If in 20 years, or in 50 years, or in 200 years, the general feeling was that Iraq was a mistake, would that make a difference to the fact that the soldiers died in their country’s service?
I don’t think it would. I don’t think its denigrating the dead to say that they were “lions led by donkeys”, for example. Its possible to praise the spirit that leads someone to risk, and lose, their life for their country while saying that they shouldn’t have had to take that risk, or pay that price.
Anyone who bothered to read the history of Memorial Day would know that the first official celebration of that day included the decoration of both Confederate and Union graves.
It was intended to be a non-political remembrance of those who gave their lives in this nation’s service: a healing day. A day of conciliation, not division or recrimination. About them, not you, or your opinions.
You have 364 other days to climb up on your soapbox, Mr. Healy. Your right to free speech was bought and paid for by over 200 years of blood shed by other men. Could you not, for one second, have stopped to consider the pain your words might cause those who mourn their dead on this day? Who honored and believed in the cause they fought – and died – for?
Your words were not so much unpatriotic as simply inconsiderate and unfeeling. Memorial Day does not glorify war – few military persons think war is glorious. We live with the reminders of the cost of war each day.
It remembers service, sacrifice, and the loss of those we love. Your words told them that sacrifice was wasted.
I cannot imagine the cruelty it takes to say that to a grieving person on a day devoted to the memory of their loved one.
Cassandra,
You’re right that Memorial Day got its start as a day of reconciliation between North and South after the Civil War. But as it turns out, that wasn’t all good. By obscuring the reasons why the War was fought, the rituals of the day went hand in hand politically with a retreat from the future to which the War had pointed. Refusing to look at the real causes and reasons for the Civil War meant looking the other way as former Confederates donned white robes and terrorized African Americans in the South.
That’s why on a Memorial Day in 1878, Frederick Douglass gave a speech arguing that “there was a right side” in the recent war. Are you willing to say Douglass was just scoring a cheap political point too? I think, rather, that he was being an exemplary patriot.
P.S. I also agree with your point that it is difficult to tell a grieving family that their suffering could or should have been prevented. But I don’t see why it’s especially cruel or difficult to say that on one particular day. To hear that a war was fought for the wrong reasons or should not have been fought at all would be just as difficult today as it was yesterday.
That’s why, although I agree completely with the need for compassion and respect for our fellow citizens who have lost loved ones, I worry that this logic, if pressed too far, suggests that we should never say a war should not have been fought, not that we should never say it on Memorial Day.
Right cassandra. Memorial is personal and emotional, that’s why it should be de-politicised and NOT used for political ends. It should be simple and about the dead. Grievance is eternal and should be respected. Something that organisations like the United States and Al Quaida apparently don’t get
“Right cassandra. Memorial is personal and emotional, that’s why it should be de-politicised and NOT used for political ends. It should be simple and about the dead. Grievance is eternal and should be respected. Something that organisations like the United States and Al Quaida apparently don’t get”
Heres what I don’t get. Events which are onstensibly about memorializing the war dead have been used for political ends for, well, all of human history. This mock outrage at Keiran and the president is inane, because they aren’t doing anything that hasn’t been done a thousand times before.
The dead are gone.
They are beyond our power to hurt or heal. It is the families of the dead who concern me now. And Kieran’s words cannot have been anything but unutterably painful to them, Glenn.
For one day out of 365, can’t we just let it go? Or if we cannot even spare a thought for the feelings of those who mourn, does it not occur to anyone that perhaps it might be a tad disrespectful to say, in essence, “they died for nothing” on the Memorial of their death?
For God’s sake, let the animus go just for one stinking day and let them rest in peace. I am so frigging tired of this. You cannot imagine how tired, or how it seems to us.
I don’t quibble with Kieran’s right to say what he said. I just question the need to say it on this particular day. I would not, for all the world, have caused such pain to another. I wonder that anyone would do so, and honestly trust that it was not intentional.
Joel Turnipseed:
“Kicking Nazi ass (as well as saving the Union and gaining our independence) is about all we’ve ever done as a country for military honor—and even that honor was well-acquainted with its accompanying horrors. All the rest…[were]…just pure unadulterated bullshit. You’d think we’d have a fucking clue, but we don’t, evidently.”
This is a historical point rather marginal to the actual argument taking place in this thread, but I’m rather tired of people commonly placing WWII (specifically the war in Europe; somehow Japan doesn’t make the cut) in some sort of special category, along with the Revolution and the Civil War, and then describing every single other conflict as unwarranted, rank imperialism. Sorry, but the world is more complicated than that. By no means do I deny that elites in the U.S. have regularly used war (and a lot of conescending “patriotic” rhetoric as well) to expand American hegemony. But the whole reason it has never sufficed as an anti-war argument to cry “No blood for oil!” is because there has been, from the start, slightly more than just blood and oil at stake in Iraq.
I’ll leave it to people more knowledgable than I to judge whether the ratio of blood-and-oil to other (worthier?) causes can make for a sufficient defense of the sacrifices called for in any given war U.S. soldiers have fought in (heaven knows my original judgment of the ratio in regards to Iraq was wrong). But blanket judgments from the anti-war left are no more appropriate to Kieran’s (very balanced, I thought) suggestion than blanket condemnations of such thinking from the pro-war right.
One small example, about which I can speak with a little authority: Korea. Yes, I’ve read Bruce Cumings, I’ve read the revisionist literature, I’m familiar with how the U.S. and the Soviet Union manipulated (only partly intentionally) an emergent civil war in the Korean peninsula into a Cold War confrontation. There was a great deal of needless, terrible death in that conflict, and the aftermath of the war can and should be criticized in dozens of ways. But I can tell you with some confidence that, as screwed up and as unpopular with the locals as U.S. policy towards North Korea may long have been and currently may be, no serious person in South Korea actually wishes the U.S. hadn’t intervened. While not a “good war” in any absolute sense, it was also a war that prevented a far worse end for millions of South Koreans, both then-living and not-yet-born, a couple of dozen of whom I’m proud to call friends. This was a war, with all of its evil, through which American soldiers did some important good, and for which proud and supportive recollections on Memorial Day are appropriate and deserved.
I’m sorry, but that statement strikes me as quite extraordinarily naive. Memorialization is precisely a political act, and has always been subject to the kind of political debates that are going on in this thread. Different people have different histories, different notions of the dead that they want to honour, and different political aims associated with those notions. On this, read James E. Young, passim. If you don’t believe me (or Young), you really should look at the extraordinarily bitter political debates surrounding memorialization of the Holocaust (bitter among Jews, as well as in the national debates in Poland, Germany etc).
Cassandra, there are plenty of families of the dead who would very much agree with Kieran. Try telling them they should shut up on Memorial Day.
It’s your self-righteousness, so politically useful to those who sent those kids to their deaths, that really needs to be questioned.
I am incredulous at the self-righteous humbug of people who invoke free speech – and the sacrifice of those who died to create it – by telling people like Kieran to shut up.
As a non-American, I can’t reconcile the free speech rhetoric I’m always hearing (and profoundly respect) with the reality of US life that anyone who questions national sacred cows is spewed with vitriolic indignation aimed to silence them and nothing less.
This is just the kind of thread that stops me from blogging on US politics or foreign policy. (So I suppose the intended chilling effect works.)
I applaud Kieran and the other bloggers on CT who continue to stick their necks out to comment on US politics, knowing the opprobrium they attract for statements that are mainstream everywhere else.
The thing with free speech is that it keeps the government out of it. You are free to speak. I am free to speek. Neihter one of us is obligated to listen.
This thread is a perfect example of that concept. No one’s free speech is being abridged by acts of disagreement. This thread is EXACTLY what free speech looks like. There is only a chilling effect to the extent that you do not wish to defend your words in the marketplace of ideas. No one is denying you the freedom to do it. In fact, you can setup your own blog free of charge if you’d like. Who’s to stop you?
Oh yeah. If you haven’t noticed there’s plenty of vitriol going both ways. So to point you fingure at one said as guilty is just a bit precious.
“Every single supporter of the Bush administration: you killed those troops in Iraq as surely as if you pointed the gun and fired it yourself. Their blood is on your hands, and when you cling to the flag you smear it with their blood. You have dishonored your country, and your children will curse you for it.”
“Right cassandra. Memorial is personal and emotional, that’s why it should be de-politicised and NOT used for political ends. It should be simple and about the dead. Grievance is eternal and should be respected. Something that organisations like the United States and Al Quaida apparently don’t get”
Unfortunately once again this discussion has brought it home to me that we live in different countries, and those countries pretty much hate each other. We share the same borders, the same language (mostly), the same currency. But we live on different planets. My “Red-State of Being” is far different from many here’s “Blue-State of Being” and I see no end to it. Some may say: “Well when Bush is gone it’ll be all better”. Poppycock. Does anyone think things will change with a President Clinton or a President Guiliani? Not likely. Sometimes I think it would have been far better if the South had chosen to end slavery on its own with the agreement that President Lincoln would have let us go. I know I for one wouldn’t miss the Blue-States much, and I’m sure many here would say the same of the Red States. Is this off-topic for this dicusssion? Maybe. But Jesus, we can’t even agree on a National Holiday anymore in this frickin country! That’s pathetic and sad. There’s no way this debate will ever end positively or well, nothing will get solved or resolved, it’ll just peter out to be replaced by a new round of vitriol on some other subject.
“Perhaps Americans really do like having fresh war graves to play the pipes over.”
Yes. America, to its credit, does not conform to the classic imperialist/militaristic formula. Even so, it manages to be both extremely imperialistic and militaristic. Especially the latter. We don’t have big parades with ICBMs prominantly featured, but we’re heading that direction.
I’m not exactly sure why America is so militaristic, but I suspect it’s because we’ve become very ambivalent about the liberal values that we still give lip service. Patriotism latches onto the morbid sentimentality of militarism for its rationalization.
I hadn’t heard or read any of Bush’s words yesterday. I’m a little surprised (but, alas, not hugely surprised) that Bush would so blatantly justify his war on the backs of dead soldiers. Had I been aware of this yesterday, I would have applauded Kieran’s post and said my own piece in the most vitriolic terms.
Fuck Bush. Remember that he’s the man that said “bring it on!” to the insurgents who have killed the 2,000 American soldiers that have died since the war was officially declared “won”. He has no moral standing with which to shed tears over their deaths, unless it is from guilt.
Free speech is a technical, legal concept. Having government representatives shut down a press, forcibly control content, or pasing laws that allow such are contrary to the US Const. 1st amendment. Shouting someone down, telling them to shut up, parental advisory warnings, political correctness, self-censorship are just personal, psychological manifestations. The latter might be rude or inappropriate or not fair or despicable, but it’s not illegal or unconstitutional.
You have the freedom to tell the meet the “shut-uppers” with a few “go-to-hells”.
lurker: I for one would question the whole idea of free speech in the first place. What’s the whole point of everyone having the right to speak, if it doesn’t result in increased understanding or better government, but just a shouting match?
Oh yes, and I don’t see how it’s disrespectful to say that the soldiers who died in the Iraq war died in vain. It’s disrespectful only to warniks who want to insist that every silly war started by every selfish politician is somehow for the Greater Good™, and then turn around and lambast the general sentiment of “the greater good” as being a Stalinist notion.
It seems rather naive to assume the only threats to free speech are from governments. There are well established bodies of work (e.g. feminist theory, the work of chillingeffects.org) that show quite clearly that the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is heavily circumscribed by private actors.
The point isn’t the vitriol per se, it’s the idea that Kieran should just shut up. Do you understand the difference? This isn’t disagreeing with an idea, it’s trying to drown it at birth.
60 comments on Memorial day about whether Memorial Day should be a time to comment on politics! I’m surprised that people were able to take that much time off from their 24 hour fasting and meditation on the nature of military sacrifice.
“Obviously the way to honor them is to get more soldiers killed so that we can try to argue that those who died previously didn’t die in vain.”
The problem with this sarcastic comment is that you don’t understand why anyone would think the Iraq war was a good idea so you can’t understand why anyone would think continuing to work on it is a good idea. A similar problem infects Kieran’s whole post. He believes that the American deaths were in fact a waste, so he cannot understand how other people do not agree with him. Approaching it from that direction leads into the host of insults that he suggests he does not intend. He cannot see the insults because he does not bother to understand the people he is insulting—both in and out of the military.
Its not insulting to say that an honourable willingness to die for one’s country ended up being wasted by people who valued it too little, anymore than the old phrase about ‘lions led by donkeys’ is insulting (to the lions).
He believes that the American deaths were in fact a waste, so he cannot understand how other people do not agree with him.
That’s a common diagnosis in cases like this, but it doesn’t follow at all. It’s just another kind of ad hominem, locating the source of the problem in a personal failing of mine. I cite and agree with a pro-war blogger in the update to the post. It’s perfectly possible to debate with supporters of the war, as long as they don’t see their goal as proving that their opponents hate America, or freedom, or soldiers, or what have you. Looking through the archives of this and my own blog will turn up plenty of civil argument with pro-war types.
I wonder how many of the people who feel as some here do have written to the Tillman family to complain about their using Memorial Day to push a political agenda.
I went through a spurt of traveling a few weeks ago and i feel like i hot every major airport between the American mid-west and east coast. In each airport there were soldiers, mostly army guys, returning to Iraq or Afghanistan for second or third tours. Each one looked younger than my own 26 years.
Anti-war and Pro-soldier are entirely congruous positions. It might be the only coherent position. To suggest that honoring our dead can not include mourning the misjudgements that caused their deaths is patently absurd.
Congratulations! You seem to be the only English speaking blog that hasn’t condemned the French for voting no in the referendum, but instead tried to understand their feelings behind that vote.
This requires both a lot of intellect and empathy. It is unfortunate that your American compatriots, although claiming to be “progressive” could not make the same adjustment and were quick to jump on the European conservatives’ bandwagon.
In dear old Blighty we still have a (non-holiday) Remembrance Day on the 11th of November, when it is by no means heretical to observe of WWI that its carnage, while certainly nobly endured, was by no means especially proportionate to the long-term geopolitical success of said war.
The idea that memorials aren’t political is a novel one, though—is there no black that is still not white in the crazy world of The Administration’s remaining apologistes?
Kieran,
I have to thank you for a well thought-out post. I’ve thought a lot about this holiday this year, and I can’t help shake the tragic feeling that most of these men’s sacrifice was an utter waste.
I guess I have a hard time revering the deaths for instance of soliders who died brutally subjugating the Philippines to American rule in 1898. I have a particularly hard time wanting to revere what they did with the same reverence and respect I have for those who gave their lives in the War of Independence. I feel sorry for their loss, but can’t sanction the cause. I have a hard time thinking about those who died in WWI without thinking how tragically wasteful every last one of their deaths were.
Most of those who died in our countries various wars were at least individually fighting for what they felt was a good and noble cause, and I can respect them for that. But I think that telling people to not think about the legitimacy of the wars these men died in is a sorry attempt at trying to use their deaths to sanctify the unsanctifiable. Pro-war people criticizing you for trying to score cheap political points over someone else’s tragedy are mostly just engaging in pot-kettle comparative chromatography.
If Bush is to be condemned for addresing the Nation and the families of our war dead in the context of a service specifically for honoring the war dead, and promising that we shall not let them have died in vain in the context of the current war, then he stands in the same “odious” tradition of another:
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, test