|
Parents of slain U.S. soldier speak powerful words
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Everyone has their viewpoints on whether or not sending our men and women to fight for what is now a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq. Everyone has their opinions on whether or not this was the right time and place to send their loved ones to remove a hapless dictator (even though we were led to believe his bite was bigger than his bark).
But when parents of a slain soldier speaks out, people listen. It's not just Cindy causing trouble anymore. The words have meaning to those who decide to really listen:
| quote: | 
A Life, Wasted
Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed
By Paul E. Schroeder
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; Page A17
Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."
Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.
At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.
"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."
The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.
This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places such as Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in "the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices."
Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq. The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.
I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.
In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.
At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.
Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?
I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.
Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.
But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.
This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.
The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6010200974.html |
Clearly the parents are still in a great deal of pain, and anyone's hearts should go out to them. They may be writing in anger mode, but his points made are cogent ones, ones that I've advocated from the getgo of this ing fiasco.
This ing Administration had no clear understanding what it would take to secure this country, and entire ing country. Led by Rummy's flat-out idiotic neo-con ideas, we sent in far too few troops to secure the country AFTER the initial invasion. Nevermind how we got there in the first place (which most here know how I feel about that - save it for another thread), it is inexcusable in any ing manner how Rummy conducting this post-war.
And nevermind how any thought of an actual Democracy is now blown out the window and laid to rest at the feet of a Shiite Islamic fundamentalist regime with the wink and nod of Iran (one of our primary Axis of Evils, is it not?), again that could be saved for another thread.
What I want to know from you Bush apologists is how you can excuse the behavior of sending so few troops to the area, REFUSING to send more when they clearly beg for more, sending the troops without proper body and vehicle armour, and going all out on the stop-loss backdoor draft policy, all in utter ignorance of "staying the course" with fewer troops needed to secure the country AND secure the safety of the men and women who bravely fight in this questionable war.
Give me your rationale, because as of yet I have heard no answer to this dilemna so aptly ignored by both this Administration and their followers. |
|
|
| Steven Hays |
| Do people these days join the armed services to go on vacation? There is a clear risk for everyone that signs the papers to go off to boot camp: That is, there is a possibility of war. I feel really bad for the parents, but their child's lives weren't wasted. I guarantee any soldier dying is saving many other lives in this world, whether it be from the US or Iraq. My thoughts go out to all the parents of the fallen, but they need to understand that every soldier knows the risks before they join. |
|
|
| Steven Hays |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
What I want to know from you Bush apologists is how you can excuse the behavior of sending so few troops to the area, REFUSING to send more when they clearly beg for more, sending the troops without proper body and vehicle armour, and going all out on the stop-loss backdoor draft policy, all in utter ignorance of "staying the course" with fewer troops needed to secure the country AND secure the safety of the men and women who bravely fight in this questionable war.
Give me your rationale, because as of yet I have heard no answer to this dilemna so aptly ignored by both this Administration and their followers. |
Ok, I'm confused. You're arguing over there not being enough troops. There was at one point. Then Bush gets slain for having so many troops over there and to bring them home. I'm sick of Bush getting the end of everything. First there were many troops, now they've been released from Iraq and there is more criticism of why there isn't enough? Bush's approval rating is right now and when the administration is sympathizing by bringing home more and more troops, they still get blasted. Give me a break. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steven Hays
Do people these days join the armed services to go on vacation? There is a clear risk for everyone that signs the papers to go off to boot camp: That is, there is a possibility of war. I feel really bad for the parents, but their child's lives weren't wasted. I guarantee any soldier dying is saving many other lives in this world, whether it be from the US or Iraq. My thoughts go out to all the parents of the fallen, but they need to understand that every soldier knows the risks before they join. |
I doubt very many parents don't know and understand the risks involved with their kids in the military, and I'm sure most soldiers know, understand, and even welcome the risks imposed with their jobs.
But that is not the point of the article, Steve, and I think you know that.
The point of the article is NOT to question if the risks are worth being in the military, the point is to question the risks are worth fighting in a misguided and poorly planned war by Admin. and Pentagon officials who blew off and even retired ANYONE who questioned their rationale for so few troops being given to fight and secure post-war Iraq. IOW, they are not questioning the bravery of their son or any son/daughter fighting in the war who take on the risks of their jobs.
Rather, they are questioning the overall policy that put their son there with little support and assistance that SHOULD be there but was ignored by this Administration.
Let me come up with a similar, present-day analogy. If you've been watching the news, all that we've seen is the W. Virginia miners being trapped, right? Now clearly those miners know the risks involved with their work, as do their loved ones no doubt. But does that excuse the coal company who's overlooked some 208 safety violations of that mine, simply because they knew of the risk involved with their work?:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c.../a191816S77.DTL
Or should we actually hold the coal company a tad bit responsible for their lack of oversight?
(side note- this story actually runs deeper than that - since 2004 this company who owns this coal mine has racked up 4 times the safety violations than the year before when they bought the mine out:
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune...l/s_409755.html)
IOW, we can't simply hold the parents and/or their loved ones who are fighting in this war responsible for the tragedies of their loss of life simply because they are aware of the risks involved in their work. Certain risks are inherent with the employment. But we CAN hold individuals and corporations responsible who put a greater risk of danger for those workers who already have a great deal of risk with their line of work.
The same is true with the soldiers in Iraq. They damn well know the risks, as do their loved ones. But they and their loved ones have every ing right to question their bosses (the current Administration) IF their bosses create a much greater risk in their line of work.
And blissfully ignoring the necessity for greater troop involvement no doubt creates a much greater risk on the troops, one that could be avoided with higher numbers. We have every ing right to question why this hasn't been done, just as this parent did.
So I ask again:
| quote: | | how you can excuse the behavior of sending so few troops to the area, REFUSING to send more when they clearly beg for more, sending the troops without proper body and vehicle armour, and going all out on the stop-loss backdoor draft policy, all in utter ignorance of "staying the course" with fewer troops needed to secure the country AND secure the safety of the men and women who bravely fight in this questionable war. |
And one last point. You mentioned:
| quote: | | I guarantee any soldier dying is saving many other lives in this world, whether it be from the US or Iraq. |
How is putting our soldiers' lives at risk in Iraq saving many other lives in this world? You're not going to tell me that Iraq is part of the War on Terror, are you? And considering that over 2,100 American soldiers' lives have been lost, anywhere between 30,00-100,000 Iraqi lives have been lost thus far (depending on who's figures you believe), that's hardly saving lives is it? |
|
|
| Steven Hays |
I understand where you are coming from, but one thing gets to me:
What is right these days?
Many people are wanting troops out of Iraq and when it is done in efforts to make the people of the US happy, they get mad that isn't enough. That is the point I'm trying to make. Damned if you do, damned if you don't theory. So when the government decides to put more troops back in there, there will be yet another uproar of why we need to take more troops out for their safety. Don't blame the administration, blame ignorant civilians who have no right to delegate the processess involved in a war in which they falsely view on television. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steven Hays
Ok, I'm confused. You're arguing over there not being enough troops. There was at one point. |
To invade and overtake Saddam's military, yes.
| quote: | | Then Bush gets slain for having so many troops over there and to bring them home. |
No one on the Left is arguing that there's too many troops fighting in Iraq, and that being the reason we need to send some home.
Where did you get that impression? Do you have any specific citations or quotes for such a silly assertion?
Because what I HAVE advocated from the start is that Bush should have sent MORE troops to Iraq to successfully secure the country, train the Iraqi troops, and keep each soldier more safe with greater numbers IF this was a war worth fighting in the first place (which I've clearly mentioned without the original rationale of WMD proliferation and al Qaeda ties, it clearly is not worth it).
But since we have installed a fundamentalist Shiite Islamic regime that's in bed with it's neighbor and our enemy, Iran, rather than an actual Democracy by any sense of the word that we associate it with, and since our Administration refuses to give the troop numbers needed to successfully secure the country and keep our troops as safe as possible, why be there now? We are stuck in the middle of a civil war fighting for one side that is a fundamentalist Islamic regime - we've got no business there anymore.
Now does that have anything to do with your original false assertion that we advocate there are too many troops fighting there, and that we should reduce them as a consequence?
| quote: | | I'm sick of Bush getting the end of everything. |
That's what happens when an idiot runs a war he has no clue how to fight politically and militarily.
| quote: | | First there were many troops, now they've been released from Iraq and there is more criticism of why there isn't enough? Bush's approval rating is right now and when the administration is sympathizing by bringing home more and more troops, they still get blasted. Give me a break. |
Well when you finally get your facts straight on the matter, then perhaps I'll give you one.
edited for toning it down a bit on my part |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steven Hays
I understand where you are coming from, but one thing gets to me:
What is right these days?
Many people are wanting troops out of Iraq and when it is done in efforts to make the people of the US happy, they get mad that isn't enough. That is the point I'm trying to make. Damned if you do, damned if you don't theory. So when the government decides to put more troops back in there, there will be yet another uproar of why we need to take more troops out for their safety. Don't blame the administration, blame ignorant civilians who have no right to delegate the processess involved in a war in which they falsely view on television. |
Well it's quite clear that this Administration doesn't listen very well to the public, so I don't know where you get the impression that I should be blaming the public on anything. The Administration sets the policies, NOT the public. I am directly criticizing the policies set.
There is no double-edged sword here that you claim. No one I know ever complained that we had too many troops there fighting. I honestly don't know where you come to such a conclusion. There were plenty of troops to fight for initial invasion, but even folks on the Right tend to agree that there were too few troops post-war, and that is where my criticism lays as does the parents of this soldier. I have many other criticisms on this war, to be sure, but strictly sticking to the point of this thread, this Administration did an absolute piss-poor job post-war in securing the country and protecting both our military and Iraqi civilians. |
|
|
| Steven Hays |
Its a tough fight when the opposition fights from families homes, places bombs on road ways and decides to kill themselves in effort to place them in a wealthy afterlife. Yes, it was underestimated, but you can't say they're doing a piss poor job when there is so much to be dealt with. Don't just look at the negative here, there have been so many advances and accomplishments from this war, death is just a harsh by-product of war, it happens.
And there's been so many complaints about bringing troops home. You should know this. From day one familes and citizens wanted the troops out. There's no arguement in that fact.
| quote: | | The Administration sets the policies, not the public |
Democracy is defined as:
de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steven Hays
Its a tough fight when the opposition fights from families homes, places bombs on road ways and decides to kill themselves in effort to place them in a wealthy afterlife. Yes, it was underestimated, but you can't say they're doing a piss poor job when there is so much to be dealt with. |
I can say it simply because it is true. And this is not done with mere hindsight - it was predicted from the getgo how many more troops were needed to do this job successfully.
This has simply been ignored.
| quote: | | Don't just look at the negative here, there have been so many advances and accomplishments from this war, death is just a harsh by-product of war, it happens. |
Ah yes, the " happens" philosophy. So tell me, if I'm being so negative, please share with me the positives. Do not include:
1. Schools have been built.
- overused and no excuse for the lack of oversight on troop numbers, failure to secure places like al Qua qua (sp?) where tons of explosives were stolen, failure to secure hotbed sights over and over, and failure to install a true Democracy and have to deal with an Islamic fundamentalist regime in leagues with Iran instead
2. Democracy installed
- unless you haven't been keeping up with the news, I pretty much outlined the utter bull of this line
3. Saddam is removed
- while it is certainly nice, I say do not include this because it comes at the cost of completely taking the eye off al Qaeda and bin Laden - you know, the guys who actually attacked us on our soil.
- and it also wasn't the original rationale for invasion in accordance to the UN Resolutions. We were to simply disarm Saddam from WMD, not remove him (though no one including me sheds a tear he is gone).
| quote: | | And there's been so many complaints about bringing troops home. You should know this. From day one familes and citizens wanted the troops out. There's no arguement in that fact. |
Irrelevant to my point and the point brought up by the parent above. You have completely sidestepped the question as to why this Administration willfully created a much greater risk than necessary for our troops and the Iraqi citizens, just as the coal company willfully ignored safety regulations and created a much greater risk for the coal miners.
| quote: | Democracy is defined as:
de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. |
Administration is defined as:
ad·min·is·tra·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mn-strshn)
n.
The act or process of administering, especially the management of a government or large institution.
The activity of a government or state in the exercise of its powers and duties.
often Administration
The executive branch of a government.
The group of people who manage or direct an institution, especially a school or college.
The term of office of an executive officer or body.
Law. Management and disposal of a trust or estate.
The dispensing, applying, or tendering of something, such as an oath, a sacrament, or medicine.
dog is defined as:
dog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dōg, dg)
n.
A domesticated carnivorous mammal (Canis familiaris) related to the foxes and wolves and raised in a wide variety of breeds.
Any of various carnivorous mammals of the family Canidae, such as the dingo.
A male animal of the family Canidae, especially of the fox or a domesticated breed.
Any of various other animals, such as the prairie dog.
Informal.
A person: You won, you lucky dog.
A person regarded as contemptible: You stole my watch, you dog.
Slang.
A person regarded as unattractive or uninteresting.
Something of inferior or low quality: “The President had read the speech to some of his friends and they told him it was a dog” (John P. Roche).
An investment that produces a low return or a loss.
dogs Slang. The feet.
See andiron.
Slang. A hot dog; a wiener.
Any of various hooked or U-shaped metallic devices used for gripping or holding heavy objects.
Astronomy. A sun dog.
And poop is defined as:
poop5 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pp) Slang
n.
Excrement.
intr.v. pooped, poop·ing, poops
To defecate.
Your point with the definitions? You need not lecture me on what a democratic republic that defines our government. It is wholly irrelevant my point. You orginally asserted:
| quote: | | . Don't blame the administration, blame ignorant civilians who have no right to delegate the processess involved in a war in which they falsely view on television. |
To which I replied:
| quote: | | The Administration sets the policies, NOT the public. I am directly criticizing the policies set. |
I fail to see why you think the public somehow delegates the processes involved in the war created by this Administration. Are you stating that since we elected Bush in power, the public is somehow responsible for his and Rummy's asinine policies which have clearly created a much greater risk on our troops in Iraq and invading on false pretenses in the first place?
Well you might be right to a small extent - I do blame the ing idiotic 52% for either willfully ignoring this problem or believing incorrectly it was being addressed by this Adminstration. I was not a part of that percentage, however. And that still does not excuse those in charge of mismanaging the post-war plan.
So you've first blamed the parents and loved ones for not accepting the risks involved in war, then you blame the public for this Administration's mismanagement of post-war policies.
Can we finally try to blame the actual people in charge for their bungling and ignorance in this Administration, rather than everyone else? |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| As much as I dislike Bush and his policies, I must say that this article made me a little angry, too. Somehow it's just wrong to expose your personal family stuff in this politicized way. Also, it is a disgrace to say that someone's life was "wasted." Just using this cheap word is awful. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
It's funny how you always read about parents who's child or children have died in a war and all you hear is . Yet, a friend of mine has died in Iraq and his parents couldn't be more proud of him defending and fighting for his country, no matter how "misguided" or "stupid" it is or whatever you want to call it. I've 4 friends in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan and all their parents are proud of them. So to sit there and exploit how someones child's life was "wasted" is dishonorable to the memory of a soldier.
P.S. Remmember Pat Tillman? Well, remmember how the government made him out to be a hero because he left the NFL to serve? And then when it was discovered that he was killed by friendly fire everyone started to grumble on about how the government made him out to be a clown for their own sake? How is that article any different exectly? Furthermore, Patt Tillman was indeed a hero no matter what, giving up what he had to serve? Please, look at that thread about the draft, some BITCHES rather run away to a different country rather than serve. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
It's funny how you always read about parents who's child or children have died in a war and all you hear is . Yet, a friend of mine has died in Iraq and his parents couldn't be more proud of him defending and fighting for his country, no matter how "misguided" or "stupid" it is or whatever you want to call it. I've 4 friends in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan and all their parents are proud of them. So to sit there and exploit how someones child's life was "wasted" is dishonorable to the memory of a soldier. |
Bull, absolute bull. First off, either you are misunderstanding or completely obfuscating what this parent had stated about his son's life. In no way is he saing the son's LIFE is a waste, rather, he's saying what his son had DIED for was a waste:
| quote: | | I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel |
He is saying that his son died when it is very possible that he may not have died had it NOT been for this Administration's idiotic policies of few troops AND installing a fundamentalist Islamic regime while trying to paint it as some kind of Democracy by any sense of how we understand the word.
They are no less proud of their son than your friends fighting there, or my friends fighting there. And yes, I have a friend who's loved one died there, and 2 good friends of mine and my wife who has their husbands there fighting as well. You completely miss the point of this father's sentiments on his son's DEATH and the likely mismanagement and rationale by this Administration in fighting this war, not his life.
| quote: | | P.S. Remmember Pat Tillman? Well, remmember how the government made him out to be a hero because he left the NFL to serve? And then when it was discovered that he was killed by friendly fire everyone started to grumble on about how the government made him out to be a clown for their own sake? How is that article any different exectly? |
How is it the same in any way? I fail to see your point. Tillman did his duty, got shot by friendly fire, the gov't tried to cover it up, and that's that.
This guy got shot for trying to secure a place that can't be secure because there's too few troops to do the job right. The parent of this kid is pissed as a consequence, let alone the reason we are there now is helping install a fundamentalist Islamic regime with one of our arch enemies.
What similarities exactly are you attempting to draw that coincide with that point?
| quote: | | Furthermore, Patt Tillman was indeed a hero no matter what, giving up what he had to serve? Please, look at that thread about the draft, some BITCHES rather run away to a different country rather than serve. |
Oh I see, so create a straw man argument that has nothing to do with my argument and this parent's argument at hand. Well I have to ask, so ing what? I need not look any further than right here to ask you or anyone why this Adminstration failed in their duty to protect our men and women with sufficient numbers as well as fully secure Iraq appropriately. I ask again:
| quote: | | how you can excuse the behavior of sending so few troops to the area, REFUSING to send more when they clearly beg for more, sending the troops without proper body and vehicle armour, and going all out on the stop-loss backdoor draft policy, all in utter ignorance of "staying the course" with fewer troops needed to secure the country AND secure the safety of the men and women who bravely fight in this questionable war. |
To which you have given no answer for as of yet. Please do so. |
|
|
|
|
