Bush and funerals and hugs--Defense 5

Defense 5: Going to funerals would help the terrorists

The Republicans' favorite game is "blame it on Clinton," but now a close second is "________ will help the terrorists" (followed by "Why do you hate freedom?"). This spectacularly dazzling piece of bullshit was championed by conservative writer Andrew Sullivan in a December 2, 2003, column for The New Republic. His opening paragraph says

There's a growing anti-Bush meme...that holds that president Bush is a heartless chicken-hawk who wages war recklessly and cares not a whit for the welfare of the soldiers under his command. The evidence? That he hasn't attended any military funerals related to the Iraq war. This particular indictment works rhetorically because it manages to sum up a criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy while adding the extra ingredient of damning Bush personally. (Indeed, one blogger has documented the meme's increased popularity on antiwar websites.) But it also happens to defy logic, not to mention a basic understanding of history.

First of all, Sullivan makes it sound like the only evidence that Bush wages war recklessly and does not care for the welfare of soldiers is his failure to attend any funerals. I have news for Andrew and everybody else: there is a shitload of such evidence (actually, Sullivan has started to recognize this fact). However, that is not the subject of this post. Second, “this particular indictment” of Bush is based on basic human nature AND the words of George his ownself, as we shall soon see. Back to Sullivan’s column...He addressed the rule on not photographing coffins as they arrived at Dover Air Force Base (which will be discussed in the post on Defense 7). While that rule is related to the funeral issue, it does not explain why Bush has not attended any funerals or memorial services. However, for Sullivan, it does provide a justification for Bush’s absence:

And there's a particularly good reason for this ruling at this moment in time. When you're at war with a guerrilla enemy that has no ability to defeat the U.S. militarily, the war takes on a different form. The goal of the Baathists in Iraq is not to remove the coalition forces by military means, but to so weaken Western morale that the American and British publics decide to throw in the towel. A critical part of the enemy's calculation is the lesson it took from Beirut and Somalia: that the American public cannot tolerate any casualties. So broadcasting every funeral plays directly into the hands of the Baathists. It's what they want. Why does it honor soldiers killed by these thugs to give the enemy an easy propaganda victory?

But when the government has control over a particular event, such as the return of military coffins, it has no obligation to offer up coverage that will only serve to buttress the enemy, and potentially weaken U.S. morale. This is a war. Morale matters. No government intent on winning would seek to make the enormously difficult task in Iraq even harder.

Let me get this straight...we must not see the coffins and Bush cannot go to any funerals because otherwise we would weaken ourselves, make the task even harder, and give our enemies a victory. This is a big steaming pile of crap. Sullivan apparently decided that Americans are not tough enough to handle hardship. What he fails to understand is that Americans are willing to suffer, willing to pay a steep price, IF THE CAUSE IS JUST. As explained by Dr. Joseph Dawson, a military historian at Texas A&M University (home of the George H.W. Bush Library, by the way),

the American public's response to casualties is qualified by what they believe the soldiers are fighting for. "If the cause seems significant enough then Americans will bear the loss," he says, pointing to the huge death tolls in the second world war and the civil war. "But if the cause no longer appears to be significant they will not.

Sullivan next quoted a column from conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer:

That is the enemy's entire war objective: to inflict pain. And that is why it would be a strategic error to amplify and broadcast that pain by making great public shows of sorrow presided over by the President himself. In the midst of an ongoing war, a guerrilla war, a war that will be won and lost as a contest of wills, the Commander in Chief--despite what he feels in his heart--must not permit himself to show that he bleeds. He is required to show, yes, a certain callousness. He must appear that way to the insurgents, who will otherwise be encouraged to think their strategy is succeeding and therefore have yet more incentive to keep killing Americans until it does. And he must appear that way to ordinary Iraqis, who will not help us in this fight unless they are sure that the pain of our losses will not drive us out and leave them to the tender mercies of the Saddamites.

Sullivan then wrote "That is the war of will that we are currently waging. It is a war in which the president cannot afford to blink." This is an even bigger steaming pile of crap. Before explaining why, I first point out that by the time of Sullivan’s and Krauthammer’s articles (early December 2003), Iraq was being referred to as a “guerrilla war.” Back on June 30, 2003, when asked if there was a guerrilla war in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld said, “I guess the reason I don't use the phrase "guerrilla war" is because there isn't one, and it would be a misunderstanding and a miscommunication to you and to the people of the country and the world.” Two weeks later he was already backpedaling. In an interview on ABC, after describing the situation in Iraq, he was asked, “[I]sn’t that guerrilla war?” to which Rummy replied, “I don't know. Call it what you want, what we've got, really, on the ground in Iraq is a mixture of things.” Rummy’s confusion went away two days later when Gen. John Abizaid (the commander in Iraq) said that the various insurgents were “conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us,” and “And I think describing it as guerrilla tactics being employed against us is, you know, a proper thing to describe in strictly military terms.” So from April to July, the Bush administration insisted there was not a guerrilla war going on because that would make Iraq seem like Vietnam, but once there was no way to deny the existence of a guerrilla war, that became a reason why we, the American people, could not get news about those who died in Iraq and why Bush could not attend any funerals or memorial services. What a bunch of duplicitous bastards.

Now, back to Sullivan and Krauthammer. From their analytical tour de farce three arguments emerge.

1. By not going to even one funeral or memorial, Bush is winning the "war of will" crucial to winning this guerrilla war.

First of all, although both Krauthammer and Sullivan are highly educated, distinguished writers and commentators, neither of them have served in the military, they do not have any apparent expertise in guerrilla warfare, and they cite no authorities on guerrilla warfare, meaning that their proclamations on what is needed to win this guerrilla war do not exactly reek of credibility. I suggest checking out "Why We Can't Win," an article by Al Lorentz, a 20-year Army Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in Iraq. See what he says about fighting a guerrilla war and see if you then think this guerrilla war depends on a "war of will." (Lorentz's views are discussed in A true patriot that needs support.)

Second, their reasoning defies historical reality. Keep in mind that 1) Bush and his supporters keep talking about how Iraq is a crucial part of the war on terror, and 2) our enemies in Iraq are largely Arab. Let's see...where else are there Arab terrorists? Well, one answer is Israel. There is no country on earth that has done more to show and maintain its will in opposition to Arab terrorists. And last time I checked, that war has been raging for year after year after year. The Arab groups fighting against Israel have not gone away. They face a country with vastly superior resources and one of the best militaries in the world, and yet they still keep fighting. If Israel's history and present is any indication (and how can Bush supporters argue otherwise given the Bush administration's position that a democratic Iraq will eventually bring peace to Israel?), a mere exertion of will--or more to the point, refusing "to show that [Bush] bleeds" by not attending a funeral--is not going to end the war in Iraq.

Krauthammer and Sullivan also ignore centuries of Iraqi and Arab history. I am not going to get into that here, but suffice it to say that from what I know of history (going all the way back to the Crusades), our enemies in Iraq are not going to back down because we show and exert our will. Their culture is different. The way they see the world is different--they don't necessarily adhere to the rigid Western linear way of analysis and action. Winning a war under these circumstances is going to take much more than mere will and "staying the course." Failure to recognize this is naive, arrogant, and stupid all at the same time.

2. Bush cannot publicly show sorrow because that would encourage our enemies and weaken the morale of Americans.

I'm confused. According to Krauthammer and Sullivan, Americans' morale depends on how our enemies in Iraq interpret Bush's actions. Doesn't it make more sense that our morale depends on how we interpret Bush's actions? Let me put this in a way that Republicans can understand: if we let our morale be weakened by what the terrorists think about us, then the terrorists have won! Why, oh why do Krauthammer and Sullivan hate freedom? WHY?

Seriously, their argument defies logic. According to these genuises, in order to keep our morale high, Bush has to focus on what people in Iraq think about him and disregard what "We, the People of the United States" think about him.

And another thing...whose morale is the most important? Is the morale of the American public the most important? Or maybe--just maybe--the morale of the people whose lives are on the line in Iraq every day is most important. And yet the focus of Krauthammer and Sullivan is on the American public--you know, the voters. Looks like Bush and GOP officials are not the only ones who concentrate on voters' perceptions rather than taking care of the troops.

3. Bush should not attend even one funeral or memorial service because that would weaken our morale.

My response to this argument really gets to the core of why Bush's failure--and refusal--to attend even one funeral or memorial service is appalling.

Rituals have meaning, and some rituals are particularly significant. Funerals are in that category. A funeral is an extremely powerful and meaningful event. It has an impact on both the family of the deceased and those attending the funeral. Here are some examples from my experiences. In my teens one of my best friends was a girl I went to junior high and high school with. Our families also attended the same church. Although we went to different colleges, we remained close. After college, we got wrapped up in our separate lives. We remained on good terms and in touch, but the contact lessened. Before June of this year, the last time I had seen or spoken with her was just before Christmas 2000. In June, her mother passed away after a long struggle. I went to the funeral. As the family walked in, she saw me and mouthed "Thanks for being here." We talked after the graveside ceremony, and she let me know how much it meant to her that I was there. I felt the same way about friends who attended my mother's funeral on September 15, 2001 (she died on 9-11). Just knowing that they were physically present at that time and place provided me a sense of comfort. By attending a funeral service--by making the effort to actually be present at the service--people provide comfort in way that is qualitatively different from other expressions of support. To put this in the context of Krauthammer and Sullivan's argument, by attending a funeral, a person can improve, not weaken, the morale of a person who directly suffered the loss of a loved one.

Moreover, the people attending the funeral also receive a benefit. A funeral is not just an exercise in grief. For me, it is a time and a place to experience the deceased's life and realize the gifts that that life bestowed on me and others. It is a time and place to realize the precious and fleeting nature of this life and therefore resolve to truly live. It is a time and a place to experience the grace of comfort, the easing of the pain of a loss. As a Christian, I feel it is a time and a place to experience the knowledge that the end of existence in this world is in fact not death. So, a person can improve his or her own morale by attending a funeral.

I have also experienced these things as part of a group, meaning that everyone who attends a funeral can have their morale strengthened as a group. Indeed, there is evidence of this:

Something profound often happens when a community loses someone to war, said Daniel Monti, a professor of sociology at Boston University who has studied the experiences of South Boston, which he said lost an unusually large number of men in the Vietnam War.

They don't just memorialize the dead, he said. They also take that time to think about themselves and their home and what is most important. "It reinforces the best qualities they see in themselves and their neighborhoods," Monti said. After all the anger, tears and questions, the memorials can pull people together, elevate, strengthen.

Thus, the funeral of a person killed in war can have a very positive effect on a community. In other words, all the effects described by Monti sure seem to build morale.

But what do I know? I am not an elected official or a public leader. Still, there are some leaders who have spoken about the need to attend funerals. Wesley Clark was a four-star general who led and ordered troops into battle. Regarding military funerals, Clark said, "I've been to those funerals. I've comforted families. ... I don't think you can make good policy at the top if you don't understand the impact at the bottom of your organization." Clark also said, "Part of being a leader is facing the consequences of your actions, no matter how hard or painful that is. President Bush owes more to the families of our soldiers. They should not be mourning alone." Now I know you Republicans will disregard Clark's views--even though he is a decorated combat veteran who was also NATO Supreme Allied Commander--because, after all, he was a Democratic candidate for President. Well, you might be more inclined to give credence to a prominent Republican who is one of Bush's biggest supporters.

After 9-11, the then mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, made the decision to attend as many funerals of fallen police and firemen as possible. In fact, he made it a priority. On October 6, 2001, CNN published this report about Giuliani:

After attending another round of funerals and memorial services Saturday, Mayor Rudy Giuliani apologized to the families of those uniformed service workers who died in the line of duty whose services he has missed.

"I think every one of these men should have the mayor, the fire commissioner, the police commissioner present for their burial service," he said.

*******

The mayor, who has attended dozens of services since the September 11 attacks that toppled the World Trade Center's twin towers, said he leaves them with more energy than he had when he showed up.

"Particularly in a small village setting, when you see thousands and thousands of people turn out, it's very inspiring ... and gives you strength."

Gee, in addition to Giuliani saying in effect that a fallen soldier deserves a top leader at his funeral, it appears that Giuliani's morale was strengthened by attending funerals.

And, clearly, Giuliani felt attending these funerals was very important. He has since explained why he felt--and still feels--that way. On July 19, 2003, Giuliani spoke to the American Veterinary Medical Association about his personal principles of leadership.

As a final bit of advice, Giuliani said leaders have to love people. A rule of thumb is, "Weddings are discretionary, funerals necessary," meaning leaders must help people when they're hurting.

By saying this, Giuliani acknowledges that a funeral is a uniquely significant and meaningful ceremony. He reiterated his views in early October 2003 before the 2003 Global Leadership Conference, where he said

My philosophy: Weddings discretionary; funerals mandatory. It's more important to go to funerals than to weddings. You need to be there for people when things go wrong.

And on January 29, 2004, he was the keynote speaker at the annual dinner of the Greater Des Moines Partnership:

Giuliani's closing advice was from his father: "My father always said weddings are discretionary, funerals are necessary." As a leader, he said, "you must go to people's funerals. You have to be there when they need you."

Guiliani considers it the duty of a leader to attend the funerals of people under his command--people who, at the leader's behest, risk their lives for the greater good.

It seems that George W. Bush--in spite of what he has said--does not feel the same way. Well, at least he is not letting the terrorists win.