Memorial Day has passed, but the military service so many have given since the founding of our nation, especially those who fought and/or died in war, transcends a single day.
The fact is, military service stands on its own.
Debates about wars do not change that fact. Nothing anyone says, especially politicians, can ever enhance or diminish the service rendered. Memorial Day reminds us that what we can do is to say thank you.
That military service stands on its own is why among the rambling statements by Republican presidential hopefuls about the efficacy of the Iraq War, the worst has to be the suggestion that questioning that war does a disservice to those who served in it.
I find that statement unconscionable.
The idea that the reason for going to war cannot be questioned because it will dishonor those called to serve in it is political expediency at its worst. Refusing to ask tough questions about past wars is to choose politics over integrity. That really would be a disservice to our troops.
But asking those questions is what we should have done before we ever invaded Iraq. Everything about that war was wrong for the simple reason that it did not and should not have happened.
We invaded Iraq because the Bush administration saw a chance to get rid of Saddam and as a bonus gain access to Iraqi oil. They didn’t do what they thought was right. They did what they thought they could get away with and then it all went south.
Had our soldiers been greeted as liberators as Cheney famously promised, that would not have changed the fact that the reasons given for the war were lies. What would have happened, though, is that the spoils of “victory” would have overshadowed that truth.
More than anything else, though, Iraq is an example of why our nation will never become the country so many Americans already believe we are.
We refuse to learn from history, doomed as philosopher George Santayana suggested, to repeating it, including its mistakes.
Last week PBS ran several specials on the Viet Nam War detailing what a colossal mistake it was from beginning to end. The Iraq War repeated those mistakes, standing as it now does as among the worst foreign policy failures we have had as a country.
We honor soldiers because they do their best whatever war they fight in, and that is the reason they deserve our highest respect.
The least we can do today as a grateful nation this time around is to learn from the horrible mistake the Iraq War represents, and then demand that our political leaders never again repeat it.
It’s a simple thing, really. No American solider should ever again be asked to fight an ill advised war promoted by leaders who are focused more on the politics of their decisions than real life consequences.
Anyone wanting to be president who cannot make this pledge deserves neither our respect nor our vote.
linnposts.com 
“An army in the field is of no use without wise counsels at home”
Cicero (106 – 43BC)
A reminder, Nigel, that the past can also offer wisdom not to be ignored. Thanks.
Jan,
Your recent knee replacement did nothing to change your fine mind and your courage to “tell truth to power.” We are so fortunate to receive your insight and wisdom on a regular basis.
Thank you, my friend!
The day, right at evening news time, that “shock and awe” started, 93 percent of citizens approved of this action, as a response to 9/11 horrors. What oil did USA ever “get” from being there anyway? I see a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking in your statements–both parties in both houses of Congress favored taking action. The “intelligence” prior to that event was singular and absolute. LATER it was determined to be “incorrect”. Learning from history?? Hasn’t ever happened yet! “Democracy in America” by deTouquville says that we are doomed to fall, like Rome, after 200 years of democracy. Just the way civilization runs its course. Could happen any day now!
To Loren E :
The “intelligence” prior to the invasion of Iraq was far from being “singular and absolute.” The WMD claim was a trumped-up lie by the Bush administration, whose neo-con team of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had long hoped to “do Iraq” (as Rumsfeld famously said at the WH on the night of 9/11).
Even more egregious is that there were NO links, before or after, between Iraq and the terrorists who committed the 9/11 atrocities! The notion that there was some degree of revenge or payback in tearing apart a sovereign nation and killing thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens was/is absurd — indeed, sick!
If your gloomy prediction that American democracy may fall “any day now” comes true, it will be the result of 93% once again being duped by some corrupt administration out there waiting to be anointed by an ill-informed electorate.
Whoa, Bill! Sounds like I must have touched a nerve or two of yours. First, “WMD was trumped up lie ” part was not proven that I recall. INCORRECT is the word, but the intelligence brought up beforehand (air photos) seemed to indicate that there was buildup of facilities, materials in locales being watched. You used the word “payback”; I used the word “response” which can mean a means of self-defense against aggression that definitely did happen to 3,000 at the Twin Towers, Pentagon, etc. No denying aggression. And your “assumption” that 93 percent may be “duped by some corrupt administration ” (only as long as it is Republican corruption, not Democrat corruption, right?) is just blowing in the wind. Read “Democracy in America” for yourself. It’s kinda long, written a long time ago, check the parallels; it is still being quoted as a reliable source.
Loren: I recommend a more recent book. In his 2008 book, “What Happened – Inside the Bush White House,” Bush’s former Press Secretary Scott McClellan provides firsthand accounts of the manipulative words and actions of the president and his neo-con team of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
It is a factual and fascinating look at the extent to which they turned a long held desire to remove Saddam into an obsession over doing something to satisfy the American people post-9/11. The notion that it was a justifiable “response” to tear apart a sovereign nation and kill thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens was/is absurd — yet it was “sold” to an ill-informed American public as the appropriate response to 9/11.
What makes that rationale contrived and egregious is that there were NO links, before or after, between Iraq and the terrorists who committed the 9/11 atrocities! NONE! But as Rumsfeld famously stated at the White House on the night of 9/11, we need to “do Iraq.” He and others in the room knew there was no link, but it was a perfect opportunity to go after Saddam.
For Bush it was more than that. McClellan quotes the president from a conversation the two of them had in the Oval Office saying that “The war on terror will determine my legacy and how Iraq fits into that will determine my legacy.” At least, according to McClellan, Bush had a positive vision about “hope and opportunity” for people in the Middle East.
Cheney and Rumsfeld (war criminals in my opinion) cared little about that, and they persuaded the president (a fundamentally good person who was just dumb) to downplay any such vision and instead emphasize the threat of WMD and Iraq’s link to terrorism – neither of which was ever substantiated.
I also recommend Ron Suskind’s 2006 book “The One Percent Doctrine,” the title of which refers to Cheney’s approach that if there is a 1% chance that something bad will happen, we must act to prevent it. If a president followed that approach, we might be at war with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, even Mexico (all those damn illegal aliens) all at once. Rummy would be delighted.
Well, Bill, glad to see that you’ve “lightened up” a bit. You go first–Read “Democracy in America”. I’d have to look up Scott McClellan and check his credentials first anyway. It sounds like his book, according to your report (above) is about particulars, that sometimes may be open to questions by another person. No judgments here, just being cautious. In the meantime, know that “Democracy in America” is a classic work about social conditions like equality vs. nobility and serfdom, about the parallel and different role of men and women in American society, and why our USA form of government has succeeded here and not in, say, France, deTouquville’s home nation. His book is a classic used for college Freshmen in social science curriculum, written in 1835. (gee, that’s almost biblical!!)
I will not turn Jan’s wise and wonderful blog into a debate site. I have read innumerable “classic” books, and your reliance on this ONE French treatise seems to be a fetish that reflects limited reading and education. Peace.
” … limited reading and education” ??? Not at all. (it’s not nice to pass judgement without supporting facts.) “Democracy” reflects the BIG PICTURE, an overview of what makes USA the place everyone wants to come to instead of run away from. It’s not minutia. Have a nice day. :o)