Thoughts on Casualties in Iraq & Afghanistan

Note: I did not personally know LCpl. Anderson or his family. This was an assignment for a class. I chose to write about LCpl. Anderson because of his age and because he was killed in action in Iraq.

Lance Corporal Norman W. Anderson III was killed in Iraq on October 19, 2005 by a suicide car bomber in Karabilah, a town on the Syrian border. His mission was to prevent insurgents from crossing between Iraq and Syria. LCpl. Anderson’s gravesite was one of the markers at Arlington that I was attracted to because he was 21 years old when he was killed in Iraq, making him a little more than three years my senior. This is someone I could have gone to high school with and the fact that LCpl. Anderson and I both come from very small communities is a fact that resonated with me.

Parkton, MD is a town of 6,600 located near the Pennsylvania border. My own hometown, Lancaster, MA, is a small town in central Massachusetts with a population of 7,380. LCpl. Anderson attended Hereford High School, a school I imagine to be very similar to Nashoba Regional, the high school I attended. After LCpl. Anderson was killed in Karabilah, his high school held a memorial for him before a home football game.

The visual I have of this memorial service is one I have formed from reading about LCpl. Anderson and his hometown. However, I feel like I have constructed a fairly accurate picture nonetheless. I picture the lights illuminating a football field, with both teams on bended knees as his former football coach addresses the crowd. The sense of belonging to a community was strong in Lancaster and I imagine the same to be true of Parkton. I don’t mean any romanticized or trite sense of superiority that often comes when people speak of the small towns they come from. Just that in a town of a few thousand, you are aware of the fact that your town is small and that in one way or another you are familiar with everyone on a very basic level.

Thus, in my memorial service, the people of Parkton would stand silently and watch as family members and former teammates recounted the life of LCpl. Norman W. Anderson III. Many people would cry, some would be overcome by an awkward sense of cowardice that, in light of LCpl. Anderson’s unimaginable sacrifice, makes them feel as though they are unworthy of even partaking in a moment of remembrance on his behalf. At least, that’s the feeling I kept coming back to as I passed the graves of World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War veterans until I finally arrived at the edge of section 60 where soldiers from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom are buried. This feeling amplifies itself considerably when I realize that many of these soldiers are only slightly older than I am. Some of them are even younger. While I lived my life these past 8 years free from the thought of ever having to serve in the military, these people signed up to serve and ended up dying for it.

I don’t think I harbor any foolish notions about the glory of war. I am not even particularly patriotic. However, men and women like LCpl. Anderson will always overwhelm me with the epic tragedy of their sacrifices. I even feel guilty for wondering to myself as I look at the headstones of these soldiers if they actually believed in what they were doing. As it turns out, that isn’t always easy to discern. LCpl. Anderson’s godmother reported that before his death he had told his mother to “please remember I’m doing what I wanted to do.” However, one of his friends from home said that at LCpl. Anderson “didn’t seem too happy; he didn’t know why he was there.” This observation came at LCpl. Anderson’s wedding. He had returned from a tour in Afghanistan to marry his high school sweetheart. They spent their honeymoon at a Baltimore Inner Harbor hotel because he had to ship out to Iraq soon after the wedding day.

            The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shaped my generation’s perception of conflict in a way that the historical memory of World War II or Vietnam, accuracy of these memories aside, could not. It is interesting that even in the middle of these two wars, the historical memories of these conflicts are being written with two conflicting narratives, epitomized by Parkton, MD’s own reaction to the death of one of its citizens in Iraq. The WBAL news report emphasized LCpl. Anderson’s commitment to Country, God, and the Corps. It contained the quote from his godmother. It was adding to the narrative of noble sacrifice that people, and this is not exclusive to small towns, want to believe in. As Americans, we want to know our fighting men and women died courageously and committed to the mission and ideals we hold dear. In this story, there is no room for doubt about a soldier’s commitment to the mission. There is no place to question why a boy joined the Marines while still in high school or why a on his tombstone it does not list, as with Korea and Vietnam, the conflict he died in but rather the mission he died for: Operation Iraqi Freedom. Perhaps in fifty or one hundred years people won’t remember so well the ambiguity of the Iraq War. They might even confuse it with the Persian Gulf War. However, if any of these people visit section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery and take the time to look at the grave of LCpl. Norman W. Anderson III, they’ll see that he died for the freedom of a downtrodden people and think, “Well at least he died for a good cause.”

            This is not to suggest that that isn’t the case. However, it seems that it isn’t honest to the memory of LCpl. Anderson, a man who himself may have harbored misgivings about an ambiguous fight in distant country. This is the other narrative of the war. One where we decry the leaders who lead us down the path to war. Where phased withdrawals and Vietnam comparisons shout down those who think we need to stay the course. In this narrative, the picture of LCpl. Anderson that his former coach keeps in his office and the memorial service in Parkton, MD are not seen as fitting tributes to a soldier. Instead they only serve as tragic reminders of the futility of the Iraq War and the countless Parktons who have had to memorialize their fallen soldiers. This also is a dishonest way to view the death of LCpl. Anderson. The two mutually exclusive narratives of these wars are fighting the battle over our national memory.

            While at Arlington, I saw a family mourning a soldier at a grave near to where LCpl. Anderson is buried. Seeing them there, more than anything, drove home what I have always felt to be the real problem with casualties and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops are supported and people call for troops to be brought home. Soldiers serve honorably and soldiers’ deaths are reported in newspapers. However, troops and soldiers have families. In the case of LCpl. Norman W. Anderson III he had a mother and a father, a best friend and a godmother, and a wife of a few months. He was a person who played football at Hereford High School. He grew up in Parkton, MD. In the memorial service I constructed in my head, I hope that the people looking out onto the field, in addition to the feelings of inadequacy and patriotism and pride they might be feeling in the wake of LCpl. Anderson’s sacrifice, would take the time to remember that he was a unique individual before he was a symbol of a noble cause or a failed war. 

Iraq! (with an unsarcastic exclamation point, seriously)

Iraq beat Saudi Arabia to win the Asia Cup.

Think about what that phrase could mean. Again, "Iraq beat Saudi Arabia." Sports have that ability to take actions and phrases so far out of context it creates totally new meaning. So the Miracle on Ice was far more than a hockey game. So quarterbacks throw "bombs" and pitchers throw "bullets" from their "guns."

But now, a day or so removed from an announcement stating the US will sell Saudi Arabia a massive shipment of arms, the exact "arms" we're talking about, in a soccer game, can't be used!

And the winning goal was scored by the head of the Iraqi captain, Younis Mahmoud, off a corner kick. Isn't that perfect? The leader of the team uses his head to win. Where's that in the real war?

In the end sports are games. They are entertainment. But just like many comedians manage to pack their jokes with profound observations, sports are often able to present our own lives to us in a fresh perspective, helping us to see the world in a new way. How ridiculous do the bombings after Iraq's victory over South Korea look considering they targeted something so pleasing as sports? How unnecessary and straight up brutal? And it works the other way as well: how much did America rethink its leisure and safety when sporting events were cancelled after September 11?

There is a reason why Plato and the Greeks considered the gymnasium (wrestling) to be as fundamental a part of a youth's education as any of his other lessons. (And the obese societies of today spend their time fighting over whether dodgeball should be forbidden in elementary schools because some teams lose).

I sit here, in Jerusalem, straining and squinting to watch an Arsenal game streamed live over the internet. It's being broadcasted in Chinese. One of the announcers sneezed, or so I thought, because the other kept talking normally, as if the sneeze was a word in Chinese...

And did I mention it was a preseason game with no real influence on the season?

The point is that sports hold a power as deep and forceful as the inspiration, passion, and love that each athlete implements and relies on in every game, match, or race. Iraq's coach, Jorvan Vieira, said "This has brought great happiness to a whole country. This is not about a team, this is about human beings." And it makes me think about home field advantage, that curious phenomenon in sports. How can the fervid motivation from a group of people not actually playing transfer into one of the participants and affect the outcome? Did the Iraqi players really feel their country's energy today? Isn't that amazing?

I wonder if we could use that same idea in the world at large--if we could transfer our fervid wishes for peace or compassion or whatever onto the politicians and the people on the ground.

I know it's not that simple. It would be more than idealistic to assume a group of people could sit to together, meditating, and (like The Force in Star Wars or something) change events across the globe. But I saw how the World Cup revitalized Germany. And the number of wars that have stopped because of a soccer game are too many to count (the most recent, maybe, being when the chaos in Haiti settled down because the Brazilian national team came to play). I guess we should keep our feet solidly on the ground here and just say that there's a lot to learn from the peculiar realm of sportsdom.

So while Iraq remains in war their athletes “felt the burn” and “fought the pain” and survived an "onslaught" in the last minutes to protect their goal. They were "bombarded" but "dug in deep" and now go home as "victors," as "champions." Who knows, maybe there will even be a parade...

If only sports were a little more real.

Iraq has a soccer team--it and its people are all survivors

I hope everyone saw the clips of Iraqi citizens celebrating their soccer team's victory over South Korea in the Asia Cup semifinal.

I hope everyone also heard about the two bombings that were purposefully aimed at the celebrations.

I hope everyone heard the chants of the fans which went something like, "Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians--damn the terrorists!"

I hope everyone at least knows that David Beckham is a British soccer player, now a part of the LA Galaxy.

I hope every sportswriter who blasted soccer the past few weeks in coverage of Becks' arrival also saw the news about the Iraqi soccer team.

I hope everyone realizes that, as an ambassador of the sport that can create true smiles on the faces of a million perpetual survivors, David Beckham deserves his $250 million.

This sport is worth it in every way imaginable.

An Article, A Reaction

Here is an article sent to me by a friend who goes to Stanford. It discusses our generation's supposed malaise towards the War.

I blame today's politicians largely for our malaise. They have failed time and again to provide sufficient motivation for our generation to be involved with or care about politics and world issues. They squabble big game only to pussyfoot their way around the capitol making deals to get their bills through (just look at how the dems have crumbled in the Iraq funding--the entire reason they got elected was to fix the war and they have completely lied down). Why should we get involved in that traffic jam of ethics, personal aspirations/agendas, and barb-wired international policy?

The days of Kennedy’s challenge to the people--"ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country"--have been replaced by our representatives whose forms of political ground-scraping rely on blame ("you don't love the country enough") and manipulation ("aren't you scared of the alternatives?"). The fact that the war in Iraq has been compartmentalized, hijacked, and clichéd by so many different politicians--be they hardcore patriots, raging liberals, budget designers, environmental activists, whatever--has meant that any reason to be excited or optimistic about our presence in Iraq is immediately squashed by a million more reasons to be cynical. Worse, it has become so tiresome that it has led to an isolationist mindset in our generation and others.

Lincoln rallied public support for the civil war by placing it under the banner of liberty! FDR overturned post-depression isolationism into the provision of arms and assistance to the allies that eventually saved this country from depression! Even Reagan should be acknowledged for the way he at least tried--via (maybe bogus) economic reform and optimistic rhetoric--to fix the terrible malaise in the 1970s brought about by oil prices and stagflation!

You show me a politician who can galvanize and crystallize the energy of a generation and I’ll show you a conscientious country concerned with the world, ever eager to contribute to its improvement.

Troop Surge Comment

"Honestly though, [Iraq War veterans I've met] all complained of the reactive nature of patrols. If they're just supposed to walk and drive around as targets, the mentality is grinding and there is no hope of smoking anything out without going on the complete offensive. It's time to re-clear the country, and go place US troops all over every border crossing in the entire country."

This is a comment in response to my post (below) arguing in favor of the troop surge. I think it is in line with what I was arguing, but takes it to a level I was at first unwilling to approach.

I agree that we need to be proactive, but I'm not sure we have the political capital to initialize such an approach. Sadly, it may well be the best approach at this point, considering we've blown every chance at diplomacy, to lock down the entire country. Obviously, it wouldn't be pretty--we're talking about more deaths, more ugly press, and more time--but it might be the only way out.

Now I hate to get into political philosophy, but this puts us firmly in a Machiavellian camp and points us towards the idea that no government can be run effectively without instilling respect through fear. Is this really the only way? Can’t the citizens buy into their government without the draconian motivation?

I, for one, don’t know—especially with deadly extremists messing with the whole process every day—but I certainly would like to believe that government can be run without blood; that what was great about the American Revolution as opposed to, say, the French Revolution, was its lack of internal deaths and that a majority of any country can buy into their system and make it work.

However, since Iraq has devolved past such a compassionate threshold, I believe that a Machiavellian solution is the only viable one as things stand today. It is a sad truth, one that reflects the horrid management of the War these three years. But we have to be honest with ourselves and stand courageously in favor of what is the poltically and socially unpopular opinion but most certainly the correct one.

War, Bad. Troop Increase, Good.

Here’s the quickest argument I can muster as for why Bush’s move to increase the current troop levels is the right thing to do. I am not talking about the original reasons for the War, but the Iraq War of today, February 8, 2007. Therefore, it takes as assumed the mistakes and general ineptitude of the War thus far. I invite comments from any reader, as no doubt many will disagree.

1) The goal in Iraq is twofold: A. To have a country ruled by its own people via a government that respects the natural and civil rights of its people while maintaining an internationally recognized state (with stable boundaries, population, and interaction with other states). In order for this to occur, the citizens must acknowledge, respect, and participate in their government. B. To achieve A with the least amount of harm to everyone. This includes removing US troops—if there are troops there, someone’s in danger, be they American, Iraqi, or otherwise.

2) As of today, Iraq is further from the goals stated in 1 than when US invaded in March 2003. There is one central reason: lack of security. In order for a state to become stable, it must be safe. Here safe refers to two things. A. Secure in one’s everyday outside-the-home affairs such as going to work, shopping, etc. B. Secure in one’s personal liberties, including freedom to worship any god in anyway one pleases.

Iraq, then, has thus far failed to reach 1 because of 2.

3) The main reason why Iraq is not secure is due to a relatively small number of extremist militants, Shiite and Sunni, who are fighting each other as well as foreign troops via methods that implicate civilians’ well-being. This violates 2. Quite simply, then, the increase of troops—so long as its goal is to eliminate these extremist factions and so long as the troops leave once this is accomplished—will provide the security (at least in Baghdad) that is a necessity for the country to be successful.

One way to see the current situation in Iraq is that there are three possible courses of action to take. One is to keep everything as is, which is obviously unacceptable; two is to increase the troop level; and three is to begin removing troops from Iraq. The following are reasons why a pullout is less likely to succeed than a troop increase.

4) The congress people who have passed resolutions against the troop increase and are advocating a pullout have failed to fully map out their idea. Even in the State of the Union rebuttal, Jim Webb of Virginia focused on the failure of the War but could not muster an explanation as to how exactly the troop pullout would work.

5) If we take both possibilities to extremes, we see yet another reason why the increase is more sensible. If the troop increase fails, the worst case scenario is that Iraq will continue to look as it does today—which is not good, but better than the alternative, described in 6—and we can always revert to the pullout plan.

6) Following the rationale behind the proposal for a troop pullout: the US and other foreign officials would train Iraqi officers and proceed with non-military assistance (meaning money and political advice). However, without a US troop presence enforcing at least some semblance of order, and considering the general ineptitude of the Iraqi forces, the extremist factions that are currently terrorizing civilians every day will gain more ground—which is hard to imagine, considering there’s already a full-scale Civil War as we speak—and remove any possibility of achieving security. Also, because of the unpopularity of the War, it would be politically impossible to return troops to the area; therefore it would be nearly impossible even to attempt the fix the situation, except perhaps through international means (which would be a good thing and a fair critique to my argument, as in: taking out troops would be better because as everything devolves into chaos the international community would have to step in; but the amount of deaths before international intervention makes this idea a grisly prospect).

The main problem with the argument is this: why should we trust the administration and its decision-makers when everything they’ve done thus far has failed time and again? Well, for one, we don’t have much of a choice. After all, we as a nation voted them (either directly or indirectly) into the positions they currently hold. Secondly, there has been a change in leadership from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Gen. David H. Petraeus. Thirdly, the War’s unpopularity has reached a level so high that all the decision-makers simply have to succeed in this endeavor—their political careers rely on it.

The major goal is to end the Iraq War as quickly as possible. There are too many tragic, avoidable deaths occurring every day. Unfortunately, the most effective way to end the War is counter-intuitive. It require more soldiers, with more guns, and therefore more death. But this is a bridge we must cross in order to reach an independent, safe, fully functioning Iraqi state.