I’m not even a Bush supporter anymore, but, mismanagement aside, I’m taking the long view on the war. Regardless, we need some freakin’ perspective. What do you think about the tens of thousands of dead in Korea and Vietnam, sacrificed for freedom of others? Yes, it sucked, but did any good come of it? If you’ve ever talked with non-Communist Koreans or Vietnamese now living here, as I have, you’d know the answer to that.

(And that’s assuming Iraq would be the first real Arab democracy, but I don’t know my history well enough to comment on that.)

However I will respest Jill’s sentiment and take a moment to lament the deaths of both American service men and the innocent (and even not completely innocent) Iraqis who have died in the struggle. I’m a guy who hasn’t cried since childhood but it does make me very sad for every life lost in the struggle.

Ahem, alright…

Bill from INDC is right, Rob. :P

I could point out that it doesn’t matter one iota to President Bush and many other war supporters out there that many of our own troops don’t support the war, and many of their families don’t either.

Well, given his abysmal PR selling of the war, I’d not dispute that claim, barring an “EEEEVIL MEDIA” reason or something like that.

Still, that aside, very nice post, Jill. Rob, hold thy venom. :P

As it seems that a portion of our society has decided that the loss of 2000 of our servicemen and women represents a milestone, I am loathe to let the observance of it slide. Not only would that appear, to them, to be unfeeling and crass, it also wou…

Does not matter one iota to the f’in media or Mother Sheehan. The extent of the coverage shows that you are not representative of your side on this one.

First, as others have pointed out, I’m not trying to be representative of any “side” here. I’m speaking for myself and myself only. I don’t represent the anti-war movement, or the feminist anti-war movement, or the American left. I’m definitely not claiming that, although I identify as a part of all of those movements.That said, I would guess that many on the anti-war left would agree with at least some, if not most, of what I said here.

Secondly, if I was looking to argue with you, I could point out that it doesn’t matter one iota to President Bush and many other war supporters out there that many of our own troops don’t support the war, and many of their families don’t either. As I said in the post, both sides have a political agenda (and I don’t mean the word “agenda” in necessarily negative sense). Both have their beliefs. The opinions of the troops and their families are as varied as those in the country in general.

So a liberal pops up once in a while and says “OK, truce” while the rest of your posse runs around all apeshit over this number? That should be well received. I for one am not moved by arbitrary memorials from liberals who continue to spit on the military via political proxy (Durbin, Kennedy, et al)

You know, I can see why people go “apeshit” over this number. 2,000 is a lot of dead troops. It’s a lot of dead Americans, a lot of sons and daughters and husbands and wives and mothers and fathers. To not be upset by it — whether you support the war or not — is simply cold-hearted. One can support the war and understand that war necessarily entails death and sacrifice while simultaneously recognizing that those who have died can (and should) be grieved for. Part of supporting the troops is recognizing when they make the ultimate sacrifice.

Finally, opposing the war isn’t “spitting on the military.” It isn’t unpatriotic. Good-intentioned people can disagree, and we can support the military and support soldiers by not wanting to put them in harm’s way unnecessarily.

Rob – shaddup. This is not how you encourage the reasonableness that you ostensibly mourn, silly man.

And, frankly, I don’t think whether Jill is representative of her “side” is all that relevant.

Well, I’d like to claim her. :)

Ask any Vietnam vet how well our government takes care of our troops. When it comes to cut the budget–which we’ll have to do eventually–those soldiers are going to pay. As if they haven’t given enough already. After all, it’s only a leg and a set of eyes.

That’s why I say the dead are better off than the “casualties” of war. That word, casualties, is misleading. It makes it sound like a bullet grazed someone’s ass or they fell off a building and broke their foot. No, uh-uh. Those guys are getting blown to bits, losing their limbs and hearing and eyesight. To me, the real numbers that make me cringe are these “casualties.” How many of us have that number committed to memory? How many even pay attention? How many of those milestones have we passed without regard?