Senator Edwards, The Iraq War and Memorial Day

Either former North Carolina Senator and Democratic Party presidential wannabe is truly desperate, or he is terminally out to lunch. It has been widely reported that he called upon his supporters to use Memorial Day to protest the war in Iraq. The most recent report of his remarks is in the Nashua, NH "Telegraph" . While there are no doubt many who agree with Mr Edwards, there are some who don't, such as the American Legion.

I hate to climb in the same bed as an organization I wouldn't join if you held a gun to my head. But I have no choice.

John Edwards! Get a grip!

You are as wrong as soup sandwich on two counts. First: Memorial Day is more than a three day weekend. It is more than the unofficial start of summer. It should be more than a time to protest a war.

It should be a time to think. To think about those Americans who have been killed in our various wars. Particularly to think about the reasons for which they were killed. To think about what--if anything--the butchers' bill of which each person was a small entry actually bought.

The primary reason a war, any war, is fought is to bring about a better state of peace. For some of our wars, most notably World War II, the outpouring of blood did buy a better state of peace. The Americans who died between the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the final day of the war--VJ Day--did not die without purpose. Other Americans, most recently the over sixty thousand who were killed in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War died for absolutely nothing.

Think about that for a moment. Consider sixty thousand men, young men with hopes, dreams, plans for the future transformed from living, loving, fearing, hoping human beings into mere sanitation problems. Without an outcome which might justify the loss of one's life.

Mr Edwards would have made a far better statement about himself and his country had he called upon his supporters to ask themselves, "What do we want the three and a half thousand Americans who have already been killed in Iraq to have died for?"

He might have reminded his supporters--and all of us--that all people in the military have signed a Covenant With Death whether they realized or not when each raised a right hand and swore an oath of service. Like all covenants this particular one has two parts. Two parts in a statement of reciprocity.

The individual acknowledges that death is a real possibility of service to our nation.

The nation, for its part, promises that death will not be without purpose or meaning.

Meaning and purpose go beyond, far beyond, flag draped coffins, statutes or monuments or well meaning words. Meaning and purpose come from one final reality only. The death, the individual's small entry in the final butcher's bill of history will have accomplished something. The something is simply: A better state of peace.

The Nation did not honor its portion of the Covenant in the Vietnam War. We the People simply got fed up. We the People washed our hands with an indifference that even Pilate did not feel. We the People said, "Screw them! Screw their lives. Screw their deaths."

John Edwards wants us to do the same now.

He needs to get a grip. A grip on several realities.

The first reality is one I agree with completely. Invading Iraq was wrong. Absolutely, unalterably, completely wrong. It was as General Omar Bradley famously said regarding a war with China in 1951, "The wrong war against the wrong enemy at the wrong time."

The second reality, one that apparently eludes Edwards, is that it is far easier to stage an invasion and defeat an inferior conventional force than it is to bring about a better state of peace. The only way open to us now to both redeem the policy from the failure it otherwise so richly deserves is to uphold our Nation's part of the covenant and press on to bring about a better state of peace.

Pressing on will require more Americans to die. A reality remains.

The reality?

An abject withdrawal, no matter how cloaked and covered by Congressional action, or "will of the people" rhetoric means We the People break our covenant with those who have been killed on our service. But, it means more than that.

It means that Iran will expand its sway in the region. Take a firm grip on that. Looking at Iran simply as a nation-state pursuing its own, subjectively defined national interests, leaving Islam out of the equation except as a tool of state, Iran has definite ambitions. Ambitions that run directly against our interests both in the region and the world.

Nothing would suit Iran's desire for regional dominance, and potential Great Power status more than seeing the US quit Iraq, withdraw to its side of the Atlantic and, as we did after the Vietnam cut-and-run, turn timid and introspective. Doubt me?

Check out a recent This is London or the admittedly anti-Mullah Iranian National Resistance Council . Consider Iran's regional aspirations in connection with its nuclear program and ask yourself, "Is it really, really in our best long-term interests to get out of Iraq without leaving behind a reasonably stable, reasonably competent government and a reasonably integrated nation?"

Even without considering how an American withdrawal might encourage Islamist terrorists, is Mr Edwards pursuing the best course of action for our nation over the long haul when he counsels getting out of Iraq?

But, he might protest, as might many other Americans, "If we stay there, how can we be sure that more lives won't be lost without reaching the better state of peace?"

Fair question. I'll take my shot at answering it in my next post.