Suitably Flip

A Legacy, Defied

Paul Schroeder, father of Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II (pictured), who tragically was killed in Iraq last summer, finds his son's death (and life) to have been a "waste".

Further, according to his opinion piece in Tuesday's Washington Post (entitled "A Life, Wasted"), he decries well-wishers that presume to label his son a "hero".

At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.
...
The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war.

Schroeder makes clear his political opposition not only to U.S. military involvement in Iraq (based on what he calls "twisted logic"), but to a handful of strategic and tactical decisions which he claims led to increased casualties.  The only way to prevent wasting the lives of additional U.S. soldiers, Schroder explains, is for what he sees as a thus-far hushed, widespread war opposition to make their protests heard.

[The deaths of Americans who died in Iraq] will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

It's not clear to me whether Schroeder's point is that a) "hero" rhetoric is empty and of little comfort, since death in war is always tragic, no matter what the cause for the war, b) American deaths in Iraq are wasteful and tragic because the silent majority of Americans politically oppose this particular war, or c) American deaths in Iraq are wasteful and tragic, not because of the justification for this war, but because the Bush administration made critical strategic and tactical errors in waging the war.

The piece certainly grasps alternatingly at each of the three conflicting propositions, but never converges on a cohesive argument for any.  In lieu of deciding who or what (U.S. policy, George Bush, Condi Rice, gaffes by field commanders, silence among war opponents, the semantics of heroism) are to blame for "wasting" these American lives, Schroeder reaches for that wobbliest logical crutch - the "you can't understand because you're not in the same situation" argument.  Schroeder wields this poor proxy for actual persuasion as follows:

The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.

With sympathy for Mr. Schroeder's unimaginable grief, and with greatest respect for the sacrifice of his son and his family, it's easy, but inaccurate, to dismiss contrary opinion as being necessarily flawed simply because it's held by someone with a less viscerally connected perspective.

Abortion law isn't decided solely by pregnant women.  Child labor laws aren't set strictly by parents of minor children.  We accept that voters and legislators on the whole are able to form rational opinions about these matters, even when they may not be as directly affected by them as particular population subsets.

Accordingly, while I don't have any family members in Iraq, I support this war and judge such support to be as valid and informed as Schroder's lack of support.  I support the liberation of the Iraqi people, the ouster of Saddam Hussein, and the seeding of Arab democracy.  I support an overarching doctrine of preempting genocidal madmen who defy unanimous international demands for accountability.  Moreover, I support our troops, whom I unwhisperingly count both as "heroes" and "partiots" for their brave and selfless work.

Schroeder's closing point is that the lives of additional American "sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted" if we don't start opposing the war more loudly.  I'm not sure how that escapes the label of "twisted logic", but I strongly suspect the quiet majority more likely to be riled is among military families that would resent not only the supposition that their loved ones' lives had been wasted, but also Schroder's peculiar disdain for their well-earned distinctions as heroes.

Comments

A Legacy, Defied

Paul Schroeder, father of Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II (pictured), who tragically was killed in Iraq last summer, finds his son's death (and life) to have been a "waste".

Further, according to his opinion piece in Tuesday's Washington Post (entitled "A Life, Wasted"), he decries well-wishers that presume to label his son a "hero".

At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.
...
The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war.

Schroeder makes clear his political opposition not only to U.S. military involvement in Iraq (based on what he calls "twisted logic"), but to a handful of strategic and tactical decisions which he claims led to increased casualties.  The only way to prevent wasting the lives of additional U.S. soldiers, Schroder explains, is for what he sees as a thus-far hushed, widespread war opposition to make their protests heard.

[The deaths of Americans who died in Iraq] will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

It's not clear to me whether Schroeder's point is that a) "hero" rhetoric is empty and of little comfort, since death in war is always tragic, no matter what the cause for the war, b) American deaths in Iraq are wasteful and tragic because the silent majority of Americans politically oppose this particular war, or c) American deaths in Iraq are wasteful and tragic, not because of the justification for this war, but because the Bush administration made critical strategic and tactical errors in waging the war.

The piece certainly grasps alternatingly at each of the three conflicting propositions, but never converges on a cohesive argument for any.  In lieu of deciding who or what (U.S. policy, George Bush, Condi Rice, gaffes by field commanders, silence among war opponents, the semantics of heroism) are to blame for "wasting" these American lives, Schroeder reaches for that wobbliest logical crutch - the "you can't understand because you're not in the same situation" argument.  Schroeder wields this poor proxy for actual persuasion as follows:

The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.

With sympathy for Mr. Schroeder's unimaginable grief, and with greatest respect for the sacrifice of his son and his family, it's easy, but inaccurate, to dismiss contrary opinion as being necessarily flawed simply because it's held by someone with a less viscerally connected perspective.

Abortion law isn't decided solely by pregnant women.  Child labor laws aren't set strictly by parents of minor children.  We accept that voters and legislators on the whole are able to form rational opinions about these matters, even when they may not be as directly affected by them as particular population subsets.

Accordingly, while I don't have any family members in Iraq, I support this war and judge such support to be as valid and informed as Schroder's lack of support.  I support the liberation of the Iraqi people, the ouster of Saddam Hussein, and the seeding of Arab democracy.  I support an overarching doctrine of preempting genocidal madmen who defy unanimous international demands for accountability.  Moreover, I support our troops, whom I unwhisperingly count both as "heroes" and "partiots" for their brave and selfless work.

Schroeder's closing point is that the lives of additional American "sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted" if we don't start opposing the war more loudly.  I'm not sure how that escapes the label of "twisted logic", but I strongly suspect the quiet majority more likely to be riled is among military families that would resent not only the supposition that their loved ones' lives had been wasted, but also Schroder's peculiar disdain for their well-earned distinctions as heroes.