Upstairs I hear several teenagers staging a Warhammer match. "You can't do that!"one shouts "A plasma pistol can pierce through terminator armor" another insists. "Wait, I'll check the book." I walk by and ask about civilian casualties. They look at me strangely but begin to talk. Apparently there's not much attention to civilian casualties in Warhammer. Although, I was assured that sometimes the planetary defense force evacuates civilians before setting up defensive positions. I descend the steps wondering how often that happens.
Downstairs at my computer I read or hear the same kind of military jargon from men, not boys, telling us about winning and what's going on "on the ground." We're regaled with pro-post surge rhetoric and the strategic benefits of "staying the course," or "moving forward."
But wait. What about "on the ground" suffering in Iraq? Is it unpatriotic to want to know what's happening to vulnerable people who have nothing against the U.S.? You know, the ones who can't find water, or worse, are little children roaming the streets in desperate fear?
What if we take a small part of media attention and focus on the children Bob Herbert wrote about in his recent NYT op-ed? Before the Iraq war, he explained, one in eight children died before the age of five due often to unsanitary conditions. Now children roam the streets vulnerable to worse and the worst types of human beings. Yet in our fancy suits back in Washington the talk is nearly exclusively about who is winning, when we'll win, and splitting hairs between the concepts of "success" and "victory".
Have we lost our minds or just our souls? War is hell. Indeed it is. But it is ever more so when those forging it think only of their strategic goals and vested interests and not of the carnage they leave in the wake of such "achievements." Carnage we're not allowed to see.
Herbert wrote:
Now, more than four years after the invasion, huge numbers of Iraqi children are finding themselves orphaned, homeless, malnourished, and worse.
He added:
"Just considering the number of the dead and the number of displaced, this is probably the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world," said James Paul, the executive director of Global Policy Forum, which recently compiled an extensive report on the war and occupation. "This is the biggest displacement of people in the Middle East in a very long time."
The effect on children of the carnage, the dislocations and the deteriorating quality of daily life has been profound.
Bill O'Reilly attacked Huffington Post yesterday and I wondered where he is on this. O'Reilly's positive contribution has been caring about abused and neglected children. Is this a far left fiction that I'm writing about here? Or is this right up his right alley -- something he should be up in arms about? And if not, why not? Are only American children of interest to us? On this issue do we not have a common bond?
Is it sterilized warfare we're in - removed from any sense beyond numbers of tragedies and casualties among innocents? Are such discussions inconvenient? And where are the presidential candidates on this? What are your thoughts Senators Obama, Clinton and Dodd? And what of you John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Governor Richardson and the whole lot of you?
Where is Congress on this? Did anyone ask the other day, holding feet to the fire, "General, can we talk for a while about Iraqi children and casualties?" If the Democrats want to make a difference, shouldn't this be a significant line of questioning? Can't they bring this war home to us the way the story of missing Madeline has entered so many minds and hearts? Pie and line charts tell us nothing of what's really "on the ground." Surely there are children in Iraq missing and maimed about whom we would care too if we saw them and learned about their lives.
To their individual and team credit, soldiers have helped many Iraqi children. But what is the U.S. strategy regarding the safety of so many others? "What are your thoughts on this Mr. President?"
If General Patraeus and George W. Bush were upstairs in your kitchen having a Warhammer match would they hold off the plasma pistols and resist the Terminator Army, comb the streets for homeless, terrified children and remove them from harm's way? Would they facilitate the entrance of UNICEF or the U.N. to help innocent people? Would they give diplomacy a real chance or is that just a catchword for them - something they don't do well so won't bother with at all?
Would the civilian "nightmare "Bob Herbert describes happening "on-the-ground" interest them? Or is all of that mere distraction from some softy or supposed left leaning spoiler like me who just doesn't get the big picture? Is there even a page in their rulebook about civilians? If so, could we go there, please?
"Yes, excuse me General. With all due respect. We missed a question. Do you ever wonder who and what we've become?"
Dr. Reardon is a professor of negotiation and the author of The Secret Handshake and It's All Politics.
