This entry was posted by my co-blogger Dick, a writer and former squadron mate:
Cindy Sheehan is breaking my heart.
In a prior life, when I was a first lieutenant on my first operational assignment, an aircraft from my wing crashed and made the evening news. Unfortunately, it was over eighteen hours before I could get through to my folks and tell them I was okay. Did I hear from my mom about that one! When I went home on leave, there were some tears shed as my mom lectured me on what sons are supposed to do. High on that list of responsibilities was the duty to outlive her and dad.
I listened as good sons are supposed to do. But I had chosen to be a professional warrior and accepted the risks that went with the job. Later on, I was to spend thirty months of my life in Southeast Asia during the unpleasantness there.
A few months ago, I was asked how I would feel if my son or grandson joined the military. My answer was, “It’s not my decision.” When asked how I would feel if they were killed in Iraq, I replied “I would grieve for them.”
Cindy Sheehan’s son made the decision to join the Army and fly helicopters. And he died doing that in Iraq. And if we fail in Iraq, did he, and all the others die in vain? For the professional military it is a question of having the guts to try. By that measure, Cindy Sheehan’s son met the standard, and for that I honor him.
Because Cindy Sheehan raised her son right, he lived, made his own decisions, and died accordingly. In her anguish and anger, Cindy Sheehan does not know who and what her son was. Worse yet, she may never know.
Cindy Sheehan is breaking my heart.
Paul Woodford 08/14/05 1:11 AM
Dick, I agree with everything you say about the decisions made by Cindy Sheehan’s son. All mothers grieve, and Cindy is grieving spectacularly. But she’s asking the question more of us should be asking (and which our opposition politicians and leaders are pointedly not asking): “[George W. Bush] said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is.”
It ain’t the defeat of terrorism. There was no terrorism in Iraq prior to our invasion. Now there’s terrorism aplenty, expanding daily. Meanwhile, the mastermind behind 9/11 remains at large, planning new attacks.
It ain’t the destruction of WMD stockpiles meant to be used against the USA.
It ain’t the creation of a democratic state in the heart of the Middle East – that vision is crumbling before our eyes.
What’s left? Oil? Permanent land and naval bases? The enrichment of Halliburton and the defense industry?
Those are the only remaining reasons that make any sense. Noble? Maybe in GWB’s book, but not mine.
Paul Woodford 08/14/05 2:04 AM
Supplemental comment: Yes, I know Saddam was an evil dictator who terrorized his own people, so yes, there was terrorism in Iraq. But Iraq was not an exporter of terrorism in the sense that Afghanistan was. That’s what I meant.
North Korea, on the other hand, not only has an evil dictator who terrorizes his own people, but has been an active exporter of terrorism. Just mentioning, is all.
Dick 08/15/05 1:59 AM
Our politicians are relearning a basic fact: democracies cannot fight long wars.
Cindy Sheehan has made herself part of that process, and, as you said, spectaculary so. But I think it’s sad that she has turned her grief into a political shroud of mourning. Once in the political arena, a different set of rules apply. I hope she has good handlers.