A couple embedded reporters were killed by a road side bomb today, one more in serious condition. The U.S. military has not reported any military deaths. This conflict has been unique in the lethal nature to the members of the press. Over the years, war reporting has been so essential because it allows the rest of us to understand what is going on, including getting a flavor of the veterans honored today. In that respect, the slain should be honored today as well. It is proper, I think, to honor all those who died in the service of our country during military conflict. These two reporters ... adding to the over sixty others ... gave their lives so our nation can truly live.
[Update: The NYT now adds: "Two others, an American soldier and an Iraqi interpreter, also died in the attack, the American military command said, adding that six other soldiers were wounded." Meanwhile, "At least 15 other people were killed in attacks elsewhere in the country, including 10 Iraqis who died when a roadside bomb hit their minivan near Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad." Well, underlines my overall point -- diverse groups hang their heads in memory today.]
Philip Carter blended roles of late ... he was a commentator on military justice matters and so forth, including over at Slate and his own blog. Likewise, Carter recently has been in active duty over in Iraq. Thus, it is notable that when he asked for remembrance today, Carter decided to focus on the values the military is ultimately supposed to be fighting for. From Semper Fi (always faithful) down, the military clearly has a values laden side. The bottom line clearly is to fight for our country ... the individual soldier is not there to make geopolitical decisions or anything. But, honor is at the core of the service, and that is partly why we honor those who died in service today. Thus, if it fitting and proper that today we also ensure that their losses were worth it. Shame is an ultimate injustice for our troops.
Carter has a special concern given his expertise and role in military justice, but his sentiments are in no way unique. I listened to a part of Jack Murtha's comments on the floor in respect to his resolution to re-employ (not "cut and run" ... ah, the bastards) yesterday. This is someone clearly passionate about the troops, especially the misuse of their resources.
This is not just defense policy here ... this is life and death for those men and women. Note also his public acknowledgment, the sneers of those pretend patriots, that a war crime was likely committed ... perhaps because he feared (like in the past) it would be covered up at least in part. Covered up by those who brought us in a corrupt war that should never have been started. But, I put that aside ... there were more tragic deaths in Afghanistan today. The war crime could have been committed there in an area where the conflict is much more legitimate.
We dishonor the troops by putting them in situations where such horrors become more possible, especially without the proper resources and competent/sound leadership. I look at this from a civilian point of view, though surely it seems this does not mean veterans necessarily have a different one in various respects. Luckily, I do not personally know any who were killed in military service. I know in various ways those who served in the military, including one who is due to go over to the war zone in due time. Millions do personally know people have died. Among the sales, ball games, and the rest, today will thus be particularly personal for them. Many will agree with me, I dare say, that the best way to remember them is to try to stop war in all its forms ... a good way to start is not to start optional ones.
I referenced public morality last time. This was also noted by some letters to The Nation,* which discussed what might be called secular morality -- things like honoring the equality and dignity of each individual without necessarily basing it in a belief of God. Or, rather, doing so by public policy without the state honoring a particular deity in the process.
Private morality is ideally left to the individual, even if sometimes we need to cabin it a bit given its effects on the public, but this still leaves public morals.** And, to circle back, we do that today as well. Honoring those who died in the service of this country is surely an essential matter of public morality. So is making that fight worth it. The foxhole allegedly has no atheists, but it also does not have too many who are overly naive, surely not for that long.
So, they know they are risking their lives not for perfection, but only for the nation who they quite often think is the closest to it that is possible. In their memory, let us try our best to do the job.
---
* The Nation has a promotion that supplies four introductory issues for free. I took them up on it, and after getting one (if that), receive the invoice. As instructed, I write "cancel" on it, and do not receive any more issues. Ok. I repeated the affair with a slightly different name (my initials), and will not send that darn invoice in until I receive two more issues! This also happened with the NY Review of Books. This time, the deal was two free -- received but one.
** Some suggest private morals simply are not something legitimately targeted by state police power. This is a sound approach up to a point, but few acts are totally private. Thus, you have to usually answer arguments that public policy (even for thngs like homosexual relationships) legitimately leads to restraint.