The Iraq war and the politics of grief [Anti-war writer not buying Left's exploitation of Cindy]

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | August 16, 2005 | Brendan O'Neill

[summer]

LONDON – In America and Britain, the grief of parents who lost sons or daughters in Iraq has become a potent political weapon - much more so than in other recent wars.

In my view, these moms and dads have been badly let down by both sides of the war debate. The war's authors have offered little justification for the sacrifices made by loved sons and daughters in Iraq, which has allowed the families' raw grief to fester into public anger - and the war's opponents have sought cynically to exploit the families' sorrow for political ends.

Currently, Cindy Sheehan is camped outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. And she's determined to stay put until the president tells her exactly what "noble cause" her 24-year-old son Casey died for in Iraq. Before that, Michael Moore devoted the second half of his blockbuster documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to Lila Lipscomb's quest to find out why her son, Michael, died in Iraq.

Here in Britain, Rose Gentle took Tony Blair to task after the death of her son Gordon in Basra last year. She told the newspapers that "my son was just a bit of meat to them." Reg Keys, whose son Tom died in southern Iraq when he was 20 years old, ran against Mr. Blair in his constituency of Sedgefield, northeastern England, in the general election in May. One of the most memorable moments of election night was when Mr. Keys made a passionate speech about Iraq with Tony and Cherie Blair standing just yards behind him. He and others have set up a campaign group called Military Families Against the War.

How has the grief of families become, in the words of a Scottish newspaper columnist, a "significant political force on both sides of the Atlantic"? In wars gone by, the sorrow felt by parents was no less intense than that experienced over Iraq, yet it was rare for personal grief to go so public.

Today, doubt and uncertainty - and even shame - about the Iraq war from the top of society down has turned families' grief into bitterness, and even public rage. In the past, bereaved families took comfort in the belief that their son or daughter died for a greater cause; traditional notions of honor, patriotism, and duty would have given their loved one's death on the battlefield some meaning.

Now, families have few ways to make sense of the deaths in Iraq. The casus belli that their sons and daughters gave their lives for - the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein's deadly WMD - turned out to be false.

And how could such deaths be seen as a source of pride, as they might have been in earlier periods, when even our leaders seem embarrassed by the Iraqi debacle? The Pentagon ban on releasing photographs of returning military coffins suggested it is ashamed of the war dead, seeking to sneak them through the back door and hurry them into the earth without anybody noticing. (That policy was changed last week - more than two years after the war began - in a settlement of a Freedom of Information suit.) President Bush has been criticized for failing to attend the funerals of slain servicemen and women.

Ceremonies that in earlier times might have given meaning to death in a war zone were explicitly avoided this time around. Blair said the coalition's victory in Iraq would not be celebrated "in any spirit of elation, still less of triumphalism." There was no postwar victory parade in Britain, after everyone from the prime minister to the queen to even the chief of defense staff agreed that it might appear "arrogant or patronizing [toward] the Iraqi people."

What are families to make of this? When even our leaders seem uncertain about the war - when they turn shamefaced from the dead and refuse to recognize their sacrifices with any kind of parade - it is not surprising that the families feel bereft, confused, and angry. Without those old crutches of duty, victory, or pride, the death of their loved ones must seem as meaningless as if they'd died in a car accident or in a brawl outside a bar. That is why mothers such as Cindy Sheehan ask Bush a very simple question: "Well, why did my son die?"

There's another reason grief has become a "significant political force" - some in the antiwar movement are exploiting it. As the Los Angeles Times said of Sheehan's camp-out in Crawford, "leading liberal and antiwar activists [are] parachuting in to try to make her their long-sought voice." Michael Moore made Lila Lipscomb's grief into an international issue. Antiwar author Naomi Klein has described the image of a grieving mom or dad as "the mother of all antiwar forces."

There is something deeply cynical and morbid - and I say this as one who was implacably opposed to the war - about these attempts to further publicize and politicize the families' grief. It's almost as if some in the antiwar lobby want the families of the dead to do their dirty work for them, as if it is enough to point to a weeping mom to make the case against war. They are relying on images of hardship and sorrow rather than making the hard political case against Western military intervention abroad.

On one side, warmakers have left military families to work through their grief alone and confused, and on the other, antiwar forces push these families further into the spotlight. This is a sorry substitute for a serious political debate about Iraq - and it is likely only to exacerbate families' grief.

Brendan O'Neill is deputy editor of the online magazine spiked-online.com

[summer]

This UK author -- a self-described anti-war writer - is very sympathetic to the plight of every grieving parent who's lost a child in a war, but it was quite interesting to me how he distinguished between their genuine grief, and those who would exploit such grief for political ends.

[summer]

BTW, I realize most FR people will not agree with his take on the war. Yet, despite these differences - he still finds himself on FR's side in this Cindy-debate.

PS Cindy, I hope you read what he wrote here. Because he is actually on the side of all grieving parents.

[wideawake]

The Left is beginning to divorce itself from this vile tactic now because (1) it hasn't had any appreciable effect in furthering their agenda and (2) Sheehan is rapidly being revealed as an unhinged lunatic.

[mvpel]

he war's authors have offered little justification for the sacrifices made by loved sons and daughters in Iraq, ...

[telebob]

If we don't win this war or allow the left to keep dragging it out, the grief will be magnified a thousand times.

Soldiers die so that civilians may live. Never forget that.

[RobbyS]

The leftwinger's way of saying that British/American lads should not die just for the sake of "wogs."like the woman in the picture.

[Ramius]

He's tapped into something that I tried to say last week, and he's clarified it for me.

The grief from loss in war is a commonality in all wars since the dawn of time. Wars for good reasons and wars for bad reasons *all* have grieving mothers suffering exactly the same grief. He's saying that you cannot determine, based on the grief of a mother, whether the loss was unjust. A mother that lost a son on Omaha beach is never going to be "glad" for the loss, nomatter how critical the loss was to an important mission.

If a war is unjust you must find your arguments against it in the realm of logic and reason, not the emotion of the grieving. That's his point, and he's right.

[Heatseeker]

The other aspect of this, especially here in the US, is you now have a fair number of parents who are aging hippie types, whose kids are either more conservative or not strongly politically motivated one way or the other.

[summer]

I found I was most interested in what he said here:

There is something deeply cynical and morbid - and I say this as one who was implacably opposed to the war - about these attempts to further publicize and politicize the families' grief. It's almost as if some in the antiwar lobby want the families of the dead to do their dirty work for them...

It seems to me to highlight these facts: 1) the Left has very little real leadership right now, and 2) most politicians on the left supported GW every step of the way. And, 3) many in the Left are desperate.

[My2Cents]

Watching the Cindy Circus of Grief this summer, and then reading about the end of World War II 60 years ago, it's pretty apparent that many people today (probably most) will not abide a long-term conflict with a significant number of deaths. During the battle of Okinawa toward the end of WW2, 3,000 American men were killed on Naval vessels alone, due to kamakazi attacks over the three months the battle raged. I wonder whether our people have the stomach for a major war. And I think the reason many people don't is that essentially our culture is infected by leftist nihilism which causes people to doubt that there is anything truly worth dying and sacrificing for.

[summer]

If a war is unjust you must find your arguments against it in the realm of logic and reason, not the emotion of the grieving. That's his point, and he's right.

Yes, you're right. I recall someone else also saying this recently. I can't recall if the person was on the left or right, but it doesn't matter - logic is logic. And that's what the left is missing. They can not make their case without it, no matter how many tv commercials are made by Cindy or any other grieving parent. Thanks for your post.

[summer]

Re your post #8 -True. In addition, the writer's mention of no parades in the UK reminded me of what happened in the US after Vietnam, in that vets were not warmly welcomed home. That hasn't happened in this war, but I think the author is alluding to lack of jubilation as having the same effect now.

[summer]

Good points.

[RobbyS]

The people are the same. Just remember how the elites flocked to communist and fascist groups who were opposed to any opposition to the totalitarianm regimes in Europe. But some of the ungraduatres who voted not to fight for king and country were soon flying Spitfires against the Germans. Class will out!

[Ramius]

One annoyance I have with the antiwar left is that some day, years from now, we will likely be able to look back on these years as being a time of momentous and historic transformation of the middle east. From a region shackled by its own history of hatred and violence to a region emerging as free, prosperous, and at peace with its neighbors.

They, the left, will say that they were for it the whole time.

[summer]

years from now, we will likely be able to look back on these years as being a time of momentous and historic transformation of the middle east. From a region shackled by its own history of hatred and violence to a region emerging as free, prosperous, and at peace with its neighbors.

I agree. That's why I believe GW's resolve - which the media and left often make fun of -- is so important. He really does need to "stay on message" more than ever, because each day, we have to remember, incredible history is being made.