Arguing for pacifism begins by confronting the following paraphrase: "We’ve only lost 3000 out of 140,000 soldiers in 4 years. The costs are low. What’s the problem? America has no stomach for war, and we simply need to accept these costs to ensure our freedom and defeat terrorism."
So I won’t address the following:
1) The lies of the Bush Administration
2) The fact that terrorism is the new bogeyman. Like the Cold War, it’s good for certain sectors of the economy.
3) The fact that our freedom is not at threat. Blowing up the the WTC created longer security lines at the airport and gave the right wing the ability to tap my phone lines without a warrant, but my domestic freedom has not faced any threat from abroad.
4) The argument over whether this war is about oil (it probably was, but the neo-cons realize it’s now about keeping what they have rather than taking something they didn’t have)
My issue addresses societal costs, and I would argue that 3000 lives is merely the tip of the Transamerica Building. The number 3000 is only the number of dead. That number doesn’t address the wounded, the amputees, the mental casualties, or battle-scarred. I recently asked the marketing director of the RAND Corporation (http://www.rand.org) if they’d ever done a study on crime following a war-torn generation and crime following a generation that had primarily known peace. Unfortunately, the answer was no.
I hypothesize that following Vietnam, homelessness, mental illness, crime, and drug use all increased in the United States. Paradoxically, I believe that these societal ills decreased during the X and Y generation. X & Y had little war. Reagan dashed away to flex his cowboy muscles in Grenada and Panama, but those weren’t wars. Bush the First went to war in Iraq, but it ended instantaneously (BTW, there were veterans who complained of Post-Traumatic Stress and other unexplainable illnesses). Clinton led a period of peace.
Given the travesty of outpatient care at Walter Reed Medical Center, it’s a great time to explore this hypothesis. Do you think that we’ve only had 3000 casualties? Those following the Walter Reed Scandal have noted the following:
1) The casualty to fatality ratio in Vietnam was 2.4 to 1.
2) The casualty to fatality ratio in WW II was 2.1 to 1.
3) The casualty to fatality ratio in the Iraq War is approximately 15 to 1.
Since Blackhawk Down, we’ve learned how to keep these guys alive for 72 hours. Instead of medics, we have E.M.T.’s treating our on-field casualties. In that time, most soldiers are transported to an army hospital and their lives are saved. It’s an amazing feat, but the fact remains that instead of being left to die on the battlefields of Vietnam or Normandy, these guys are surviving post-Baghdad.
Most would argue that survival is positive, but they are surviving with lost limbs, brain damage, and other enduring ailments. One writer covering Army Reed noted that as a constant reminder of this war, U.S. streets will soon be littered with amputees because while we’ve only lost 3000 people, we’ve had 50,000 wounded (that number doesn’t include non-combat injuries that occur in Iraq).
The data is coming in, which brings me back to my interest. How many of these people will return to the U.S. with Post-Traumatic Stress, another terrible mental illness, or the anger and frustration associated with war, and then go on to commit crimes, become homeless, or drive themselves into a dark hole of government subsistence? We, as US citizens, will support many of these people for the rest of their lives. One way or another, we will pay. Pacifism makes good sociological sense as well as economic sense. We need to recognize this instead of hanging on to the old myth that war is good for the economy.