By Allen J Duffis
Published: August 26, 2005

      To all who read this editorial, regardless of political preference, I think we can agree on one point. This woman, Cindy Sheehan, who stubbornly camped out in protest near the Bush ranch in Crawford Texas, is as mortally wounded as the son she lost to the war in Iraq. Like her son, she too can never recover.

     She’s lost the child it took almost two decades of dedicated nurturing to raise. And she must have done a good job, because despite his mother’s obvious anti-war sentiments, he was compelled by a sense of patriotism to enlist to fight in Iraq.

     Personally, I don’t see anything at all evil or unpatriotic about this woman. She votes regularly, takes an active part in the politics of this nation, and has given a child to a war she doesn’t believe in.

     Cindy Sheehan is everything America represents on many levels, and in this case, an opposing viewpoint to that held by the President of the United States. In essence, isn’t that what this country is supposed to be about - the constitutionally given right to dissent? Isn’t that the supposed right we are sending our youth to develop and defend, to the death, for others in Iraq?

     Well, why not start here and afford this same right to one of our citizens who, like many other mothers and fathers in this great nation, have paid the ultimate price to be Americans? She has given her child to a war of questionable value and legitimacy, and she has the right to voice her opinion: even if it is in opposition to the leadership of this country.

     For the record, I do not agree one hundred percent with every avenue of her position. America had every right, if not moral obligation (bestowed by the brutal attack of 9-11) to go into Afghanistan and wipe the country clean of Bin Laden, his al Qaeda network, and the ‘thugocracy’ leadership of their supporters, the Taliban.

     I do, however, agree with one segment of her viewpoint. And that is that we had no right, or justification of necessity, to forcefully enter a sovereign nation, particularly one that did not attack us or pose any immediate threat to our safety. We simply had no right to invade Iraq - period.

     This administration, however, has skillfully managed through the talented services of people like Karl Rove, to build a blind following to their policies. There are otherwise normal right leaning Americans out there who, believingly, hang on every outright lie and preposterous explanation they give for this faltering war; almost as though the words were directly from the gospel.

     I cannot remember any previous presidential administration that has had the audacity to parade ‘controlled’ public meetings (where only supporters are allowed entry), as though they were actually open discussions. Nor can I remember a President who has so stubbornly refused to attend any military funerals.

     Yet despite this undemocratic and morally questionable behavior, President Bush and his people have managed to convince a large segment of the population to believe, almost with a religious fervor, his clearly ridiculous justifications for the war in Iraq.

     “We’re fighting them over there, so that we won’t have to fight them here!” Really? Does the President and his people really believe that terrorists’ have to change planes in Baghdad to get here? I think the British experience of recent should dispel such thoughts, forever.

     “Iraq is the frontline in the war on terror. A war we dare not lose!” Really?
Again, I think the historical record will show that there were no terrorists to speak of in Iraq, until we provided them reason to come. At best, the only terrorists in existence were the Saddam administration, and they didn’t allow competition.

     This administration has no realistic timetable to get out of Iraq, and they are projected to run out of available replacement troops by September of 2006. So what do they do? They threaten Iran’s nuclear aspirations with “All options are on the table”. Just where do they plan to get the troops to fight that war?

     Even more horrifying, the defense department has let ‘leak’ a worst-case scenario proposal, indicating that they may have to keep 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for up to 9 years.

     At a conservative estimate encompassing a mean average loss of 2 personnel a day, we would be looking at the loss of another 7000 soldiers – minimum. And keep in mind; this proposal does not address the possible level of seriously wounded servicemen and women.

     So, Mr. President, to be completely truthful to your stance on this war (that you started), it does not come down to speaking to mothers like Cindy Sheehan. They, like her, have already lost a son or daughter to your military folly.

     What you need to do is to speak to a mother (or father) who is about to lose a son or daughter. Yes, try that. Face to face if possible. But since past behavior has made it clear that you envisage such confrontations as politically discomforting, try writing a letter to them instead. May I respectfully suggest you start it with the following?

     “Dear Parent of an American Soldier,

In my power as Commander and Chief, I am about to dispatch 1500 relief troops to Iraq. Based upon almost 3 years of fighting, reliable statistical projections indicate that there is every possibility, due to the escalating violence within this theater of war, 22-23 of them will be coming home in body bags; more than likely, one of these casualties will be your child.

However, I feel the expenditure of these young lives is necessary. Here are the reasons I want you to sacrifice your child’s life. They are .....”

Do this, President Bush; we’d all like to read such a letter. And please, as a show of respect, send a copy to Mrs. Sheehan.