Email this page to friends RSS feed About the Author Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, distinguished combat veteran, and retired Navy Captain, Wade Sanders is much published on matters of national security in major newspapers and the Naval Institute Proceedings. He is also a news commentator for NBC News. His imaginative and innovative initiatives were key elements in the transformation of the Reserve Components of the Armed Services from Cold War mobilization assets to relevant providers of contemporary support. He presently is senior partner of a law firm dedicated to matters of corporate governance, ethics, and specializing in employee owned companies, as well as providing government relations assistance to major corporations. He is also much sought after as a motivational speaker on topics related to leadership, management, and team building. Inquiries and/or booking requests should be directed to wade2000@cox.net. Sound Off! - Have an opinion about this article? Visit the discussion forum. View the Sanders Archives Military Opinions Index Related Links Get Breaking Military News Alerts Global War on Terror

Why is it when a political leader's plans go terribly awry, they often call upon the lives of the fallen to justify those plans? When public opinion turned decisively against the Vietnam War (a war, like the Iraq War, that was justified by a series of questionable facts and decisions), President Lyndon Johnson told the American people that withdrawing from Vietnam without victory would dishonor and render meaningless the sacrifice of those who had died in its pursuit. Speaking as one who served in combat in Vietnam, I can attest that I knew few who understood why we were there in the first place, or who saw any greater purpose to the death of our friends and comrades in arms. We were doing our duty and our attention was riveted on the prospect of getting us all home alive.

Yet, with his approval ratings in a death spiral, that is exactly what George Bush has done. I n a recent spate of remarks, he has used the deaths of men and women in Iraq to justify the continued support of his lack of vision and an incoherent strategy that, like Vietnam, is based on a series of questionable facts and decisions. As he stated before the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention, and in other contemporary speeches, “We will finish the task that they gave their lives for. We will honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive against the terrorists…” A healthy injection of honesty and competence in our national leadership would go a lot farther in honoring their sacrifice.

If Bush had served in a war zone, he would understand the death of those who fight and die has nothing to do with presidents, flags, or country: that is the stuff of adolescent fantasies and pulp novels. Marine General and former Commandant of the Marine Corps, David Shoup, recipient of the Medal of Honor, had it right when he observed that soldiers in battle are motivated by duty. They give their lives out of love for, and to protect, those w ho serve with them. Those are noble reasons. Further, since I suspect that several of those whose lives he is quick to exploit did not support him or his policies, for him to invoke their sacrifice as justification for those policies is a craven and desperate act. George Bush has neither earned, nor deserves, the right to exploit or sully the sanctity of their ultimate sacrifice.

The present situation is so troubling, that during those dark hours of the early morning, I find myself wondering if the present chaotic situation in Iraq is exactly what Bush and his administration planned and intended: to either create the stage for the final rapture and, in so doing, as the president has stated, “to hijack a great religion to justify a dark vision that rejects freedom and tolerance and dissent” (Bush was referring to Islamic extremists, but I find it fits nicely with the neo-con vision); or, to deliberately trap our nation in a situation where we must remain to save face: sort of an ultimate showdown with the terrorists and insurgents -- a “High Noon” scenario, with the Crawford Kid, a cowboy who is afraid of horses -- standing tall in the blazing sunlight ready to slap leather with other people's lives.

Although I certainly don't discount the former, his recent neo-Domino Theory remarks where he suggested that if Iraq falls to the insurgency, the insurgency will spread throughout the Middle East, seem to smack of the latter. With all other rationale for the war having been discredited, this neo-Dulles approach is the latest in a long litany of failed reasons. The Southwest Asian Domino Theory was discredited by historical precedent and subsequent events, and the president's resurrection is discredited by the geopolitical reality of the region. Perhaps he has a new Domino Theory in mind; one where the United States sweeps through the Middle East, one country at a time, establishing Walmarts at the business end of an automatic weapon.

Bush would better serve those who have paid the ultimate price by being honest with the American people, and the international community, by realistically accepting the situation on the ground in Iraq and formulating a thoughtful and effective strategy. To date, our presence has failed to provide security for either our troops or the Iraqi people and has enabled the replacement of a secular dictatorship with an Islamic state. The president needs to fashion an “intelligent design” to ensure that we have not created a worse monster than the one we destroyed. He would better serve those who have paid the ultimate price by properly supporting and equipping those who are doing their duty, regardless of the quality of their leadership. The Generals would better serve those who have died, by standing up for their troops and telling the truth. If neither the president nor their military leaders are capable or willing to honor the dead by doing so, then the American people are justified in honoring our dead by calling for our immediate withdrawal.

Email this page to friendsRSS feed