The Value of Sacrifice

I have seen several articles of late concerning the attitudes of people toward the Iraq war.

It seems that people support the war, and the presidents actions, if they think that the war is a good idea, or if they think that they should support the president because he's the president, whether or not they support his specific actions. They don't support it if they think it's a bad idea, or if they lost a relative in it -- though not always.

One man, quoted in today's Times, said that he felt no need to burden Bush with his grief, saying that 'The man's got more important things to do than take care of me.' He went on to say that 'You have to accept it and go on with your life, and thats what she's (Cindy Sheehan) failing to realize.... I've accepted that my boy's gone and there's nothing I can do about it. Causing traffic jams in front of the president's ranch is not going to get that young lad back. Heck, if it were going to get him back, I'd be out there with her.' A woman said that she is proud of the war and her son's role in it. "I read that she (Sheehan) questioned whether her son died for a noble cause, and I totally disagree with her on that. ... Her son died for the most noble cause: human rights."

I have to admit, those thoughts gave me pause. It was easy enough for me to say that the man was right about the ineffectiveness of any action now in getting his son back, but wrong in assuming that action was therefore ineffective. But it wasn't so easy to disagree with the woman, because, though I think she's being simplistic, she did have a point. The idea of the war is noble. It's the rationale that's faulty.

It brought me back to a thought I've had more than once, and for which I don't have a simple answer: for what cause would I sacrifice my child's life? What cause could be so compelling, what leader so lucid, that I could contemplate the death of my child and say that it had been worthwhile?

Certainly not this cause. Certainly not this leader.
..