Military family watches the death toll rise

[KG]

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/23/Columns/Military_family_watch.shtml

By BILL MAXWELL, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published July 23, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As of this writing, the above figure is the number of U.S. military service personnel killed since May 1, when George W. Bush announced the end of major combat in Iraq.

For me, the Iraq war is personal. I keep track of the numbers and exact names and hometowns of the dead because I have two cousins in Iraq. The 19-year-old is a private first class in the regular army. The 28-year-old is a reservist. We no longer call him a "weekend warrior."

As far as I know, I have relatives in 11 states, including California, Illinois, New York and Texas. We are a scattered lot. We are a military clan, which began in modern times with my uncle Joe Maxwell, who lives in Mascotte. He served during World War II at the Battle of the Bulge and is proud of his combat-wounded license plate. Two of uncle Joe's three sons, B.J. and Wayne, served in Vietnam. Three other relatives, who were reservists, served during the first Gulf War.

Currently, we have five kinfolk in uniform - two reservists and three regulars.

My family, like many other black families, has always seen the military as a potential career or as a means to an education and a respectable career. Many used the G.I. Bill to attend college. I was brought up hearing that "the military will make a man out of you." Few of us ever questioned this bit of down-home wisdom, and photographs of men in uniform in faraway lands can be found in many of my relatives' homes

>>MORE<<

[revcarol]

1. So powerful Gotta read.

Rated at '5'.

[gratuitous]

2. Fine article

One of the things the mindless "support the troops" crowd miss (and they miss a lot, no question) is that the troops are in a uniquely vulnerable position, one that even they don't always appreciate until it's too late.

The troops must have trust in the government that deploys them. The government has an obligation and a responsibility that is too often elided or papered over, and that is to use military force sparingly. In Iraq, as soon as Chimpy had his piece of paper from Congress authorizing the use of military force, all other options quickly faded. It became clear that the only resolution to the trumped-up Iraq "crisis" that the corrupt Bush administration would consider was military.

The troops, many of whom supported Bush, trusted that the information being given out was the truth, and that the administration wouldn't put them in harm's way without a good reason. So a quarter million men and women headed for Iraq, ready to "do the job."

But the administration failed in its primary responsibility: It lied. It lied to the UN. It lied to the public. It lied to its allies. It lied to its enemies. When Bush claimed that he hadn't yet made up his mind whether to use military force against Iraq, he was lying. And the media watchdogs, who knew he was lying, simply reported the lie, without any regard for their responsibility to analyze Bush's lying pronouncement.

Now, the troops are caught in a trap. The country of Iraq has been razed, and we dare not just walk away. So, another soldier here or there is killed in fighting, or dies in an "accident," or gets ambushed, and the families back home keep getting lied to. They're called unpatriotic, and taken to task for not supporting the troops.

But who hold the administration responsible for its failure to discharge its duty?