Sunday, November 11, 2007
On Veterans Day, think about the thousands of US dead and wounded in Iraq (for what purpose, exactly?), and think about
Iraqi Veterans against the War as Star Tribune columnist
Nick Coleman suggests.
Typically this group and others like it are being denied a voice in public commemorations of the veterans (who apparently should be honored but should not actually be allowed to speak for themselves.)
It is worth reprinting today
Michael Munk's recent email:
' US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 178 combat casulties in the six days ending Nov. 6, as total casualties reached at least 61,596. The total includes 31,596 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 30,294 (as of Oct. 1) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.
US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,855 as of Nov. 6) and rarely mentioning the 28,451 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 30,294 (as of Oct. 1) military victims of accidents and illness serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,855 reported deaths include 710 (up one since Oct. 31) who died from those same causes, including 130 suicides. '
2007 is the deadliest year yet for US troops in Iraq.
Some
48,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and have difficult coping with life back in the US.
It is no surprise, then, that 200,000 veterans have been homeless at some point in the past year, and that veterans make up 26% of the homeless, even though
they are only 11% of the population. Experts fear that many Iraq and Afghanistan vets will also end up homeless. The homelessness seems to me obviously an outgrowth of PTSD (which can lead to alcoholism and to the break-up of families, and generally to a reduction in emotional and kin support for an individual who seems habitually angry, distant, and acting a bit oddly). The article says,
moreSaturday, November 10, 2007
Sandy Levinson
A
story in today's Times about George W. Bush's encounters with relatives of slain soldiers includes the following description of those meetings: "God is a frequent topic. Robert Lehmiller, also of Salt Lake City, says the president brought religion into the conversation, telling him, “If you truly believe the Scriptures, you will see your son again.” Although I probably should, I can't refrain from placing this comment in the context of the alleged belief of Islamicist suicide bombers that they will reach paradise quickly (and be greeted by 72 virgins). That is, I presume that for most of us that belief is just one more sign of irrational fanaticism. But what should we think of what presumably is the far more common belief in the US that there is indeed an afterlife in which one will be reunited with those one loved? And, more to the point, is it easier for a Commander-in-Chief in effect to send those loved ones to their deaths if he believes in this optimistic Christian message that, taken to one extreme, treats one's time in this particular world, this "vale of tears," as of limited importance as against the blessings of eternity that come through acceptance of Jesus as one's Savior (see John 3:16, which I memorized many years ago as a third-grader in my North Carolina school in order to win a Bible certificate)? One does not know if Bush believes that Jews (or any other non-Christians) will see their loved ones again. I.e., is the assumption underlying the statement attributed to Bush that if you don't "believe in the Scriptures," then you will be deprived of the boon that believers get? There was an article in the Sunday NY Times Magazine sometime around 1999 that indicated that he adhered to an exclusivist view that being Christian was a necessary, and not only a sufficient, condition for salvation. The article reported that Barbara Bush disagreed, but there is no indication that Bush has ever renounced this widely held view among many contemporary Evangelical Christians and pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics.
So the possibilities are these: 1) What political leaders believe (or profess to believe) about religion is of no importance whatsoever in explaining what they actually do. Either they are completely cynical or, even if not cynical, they can sufficiently "compartmentalize" so that their ostensibly deepest theological views are irrelevant when it comes to the task of governing. This view presumably is held by those who believe that it is illegitimate (and probably unconstitutional to boot) to ask self-professed committed religionists nominated to the federal bench (such as William Pryor) if their views might indeed affect the way they would interpret the law with regard to, say, the death penalty, abortion, social justice, family law, etc., etc. So if George Bush believes in a joyful afterlife that, in a profound sense, negates the circumstances of one's death here "below," that may be an interesting factoid, but of no political relevance (even if it is thought to be relevant that Islamic youths may believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their acts as "martyrs").
2) There are indeed connections, at least for some people, between what they believe about theological matters, whether it is what God is deemed to require of us or whether there is an afterlife, and that decisions in the world may be affected by these beliefs. If this is the case, then, of course, we should be very interested in whether these connections are present with regard to those who lead (or would wish to) lead us.
Mr. Bush should be commended for trying to give comfort to the families who have paid the highest costs, at least among Americans, for our invasion of Iraq, though one might still wish that he had found time to attend at least one funeral for someone killed in Iraq. (The article does suggest, incidentally, that there is a certain amount of vetting that keeps away those who might wish to pour out their wrath on the President for sending their loved ones into harms way for no very good reason.) As suggested in my first paragraph, perhaps this posting is just one more example of my over-the-top suspicion of George W. Bush. Still, we know that he believes it relevant to inject religion into these moments of encounter as a means of consolation, and I cannot help wondering how his belief in an afterlife might structure the way he behaves in other contexts within the world, including his role as our Commander-in-Chief. Is he consoled by the same confidence that death's sting is not in fact permanent (at least for believers)?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
