"Dying in Vain" - A Reason to Stay in Iraq?

My father, Gene Marshall, was born in 1932 and is 75 years old.  He lives in a small town in Texas.  He served overseas as a chaplain in the U.S. Army the late 1950s.  This is what he has to say about the Iraq War.  David Marshall

The following is one of the most ridiculous ploys ever uttered in political speech: "Our military personnel who died in Iraq have died in vain if we do not stay and win." If it is true that this war should never have been launched, then indeed, let us face it, these men and women have died in vain. And if this is so, it is not their fault; it is the fault of all those who have promoted this war, whether in or out of military service. If the U.S. presence in Iraq is making matters worse, then those who are now dying and will die because of our continued presence are indeed dying in vain. If this war is a mistake, then the tens of thousands who have been wounded have made these sacrifices in vain. Again, this is not their fault, but the fault of all those who have promoted and permitted this war. These wounded warriors have a right to our respect and gratitude and to our provision for them of the best healthcare services money can buy. Doing this for them is a valid part of our nation's commitment to conduct this war. But it can still be true that all this sacrifice has been in vain. And if so, then each veteran, citizen, and politician needs to face up to this truth, no matter how painful this truth may feel.

Going forward, our policy decisions about this war cannot be made on the basis of protecting someone, anyone, from having some bad feelings. Our issue is a moral one and a practical one about what must now be done. Anyone who claims that this nation should stay in this war longer in order to protect persons from realizing that their sacrifices have been in vain shows their idiocy as a moral thinker. Deeper still, they can be charged with overt wrongdoing for manipulating the pained feelings of U.S. citizens with this ridiculous political speech. If this war has been in vain, then it has been in vain. We can even ask if it has been worse than being in vain. Has it been utterly delusory, incredibly incompetent, and even downright wicked? And if so, then the sooner we confess this and accept our forgiveness for this, the sooner we will have enough moral sanity to make good decisions going forward.

Also ridiculous is the political speech that claims that "supporting our troops" means "staying the course." This is another instance of wrong-headed manipulation and outright disrespect for every veteran and every U.S. citizen.

The use of such political speech for justifying this war is an admission that good reasons for this war are missing, or at least secret. Using the above justifications for this war is clearly a ploy to stir the feelings of U.S. citizens in support of a policy whose true reasons are not being stated. So what are our true reasons for being in Iraq? Here is my carefully considered view. The true reasons for our being in Iraq were designed long before 9/11, long before the first Iraq war. The true reasons have to do with protecting the oil supply of this oil rich sector of the world from falling into "other" hands. It is ironic that some promoters of this war can also say that this nation should wean itself from its oil addiction. That is like an alcoholic saying he should wean himself from his alcohol while making big sacrifices to acquire a whiskey factory. Let us have some straight talk here. Do we want to expend ourselves getting off the oil habit, or do we want to expend ourselves protecting our oil supply? This question at least raises an honest moral issue.

There are other bits of political speech that need debunking. We are told that we are in Iraq to do something for the Iraqi people, "helping to maintain social order long enough for them to stand up so we can stand down." There is a sector of the Iraqi people who want us to stay, namely those who believe that their current political empowerment would be vulnerable without our support. But there is a larger sector of the Iraqi people who suspect that our motives for being in Iraq are entirely in our own self interest and who feel violated that we presume to make for them key decisions about their destiny. If a fair vote could be taken among Iraqi people about our staying or leaving, we would be asked to leave. The same result has taken place and will take place as such votes are taken in the United States. Promoting democracy at home or abroad has never been the goal of our being in Iraq. We are there to control the oil. If we the people, whose government this is supposed to be, admit this basic oil-related purpose, then much clarity emerges.

So let us face this question directly, "Should we control the Iraqi oil?" We don't want the Chinese to control it. We don't want the Europeans to control it. We don't want Iran to control it. But let us face the big picture: none of these nations want us to control that oil. And the Iraqi people, most of them, do not want us to control it. So if we want to make a positive contribution to the dilemmas of this part of the world, the very first thing we should do is renounce our right and our intent to control this oil. This includes tearing down our permanent bases in Iraq or at least turning them over to Iraqis. Then, there might be some chance of reaching some kind of international agreements on how this oil supply and the wealth derived from it might be best used on behalf of all the people of the planet. Our go-it-alone imperial nationalism does not please anyone in the world, including most U.S. citizens. Cutthroat competition with big military back-up is not the way to work these things out.

One last item of bad political speech needs our attention: "losing this war would be a national shame." Losing or winning can have a thousand meanings. This is not a game of football where winning is clearly defined and the home team is loyally rooted for. If winning means controlling the oil, then winning is a tyrannical outcome. If winning means establishing by force a form of government for a people who do not want it, then winning is again both inadvisable as well as impossible. If winning means establishing an international consensus on how to conduct affairs in this West Asian, Middle Eastern part of the world, then winning could include a rather prompt withdrawal of U.S. military forces from that part of the world. When our political discussion focuses on this sort of winning, we might discover something for the U.S. government to do that is not in vain.

Gene Marshall - Bonham, Texas, www.realisticliving.org