A Life’s Work
This term I am teaching an 8:00am University Physics class. For those who aren’t familiar with university life, no one wants an 8:00am class. The students don’t want it because it is too early. They usually struggle to get to class on time, and are often so tired they fall asleep in the middle of lecture. Faculty don’t like it because getting sleepy students to participate and learn is like herding cats. But someone has to teach the 8:00am class, and this term that someone is me.
I’ve had several early classes in my academic career, and this is one of the better ones. The students still struggle to stay awake, but they are eager to participate. As I sip coffee, they chug down Mountain Dew or Red Bull. They still get sleepy, but if it gets too bad I have them jump out of their chairs and do jumping jacks. A few have invented a caffeine drinking game, where they take a swig every time I quote a phrase from Monty Python. It isn’t an easy class, but they are good students. They want to learn, and that always makes it easy to teach.
This particular course is part of the core curriculum. Most of the students who take it aren’t physics majors. Most want to be engineers, some will go on to medical school, a few have no idea what their life’s work will be. Right now they simply want to learn and explore. All of them are fortunate to attend university, and a few of them realize it. The rest simply see my class as one more hurdle in their path, just one more obstacle in their way. But whether they are taking my course out of choice or obligation, they are good students. Twenty-five intelligent, hard-working young men who remind me how rewarding my career–my life’s work–as a physics professor really is.
Over the weekend twenty-five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq. The equivalent of my entire 8:00am class in a single day. My entire class. The student who calls Mountain Dew a girlie drink, gone. The one who thinks he knows everything, gone. The one who struggles with math, gone. The one who sits in the back staring at the ceiling only to ask really advanced questions from time to time, gone.
I do not know any of the twenty-five soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq, but today I saw them in the eyes of my students. Twenty-five students. Twenty-five casualties. Twenty-five funerals.
In a typical year I will teach university physics to about 100 students. If I’m successful most of them will leave my classes prepared to reach their goals. They will go on to become engineers and scientists, go into teaching or start a business. They will undertake their life’s work, just as teaching physics has been mine. That is why I became a professor. I had a love of science and wanted to pass my excitement and knowledge to others.
A typical professor might teach for 30 to 35 years. For me, that means about 3000 to 3500 students, roughly the same as the number of soldiers killed in Iraq thus far. There is an American casualty for every single student I will ever teach. My life’s work. For those 3000 soldiers, their life’s work was sacrificed to their country.
That is how I compare those numbers to my life. How would you compare them to yours? How does 3000 compare to the population of your town? The number of people who attend your local church? The population of your child’s school?
Add to that the more than 20,000 American wounded, and estimated 60,000 Iraqi men, women and children who have died in this conflict, and make the comparisons again.
Then answer me this: How many more human souls will we pay in tribute to the demon of war? How much more blood do we have to sacrifice on the altar of fear?
Be Brave. Be Human.
January 26th, 2007 16:14
When I mention at my blog the cost in lives of Bush’s elective war, his completely unnecessary blunder war in Iraq, a regular commenter usually comes back with a stock response. He recalls how in World War II there were actions in which we lost 2,000 to 3,000 soldiers, sailors and/or airmen in a single day.
Well, there are wars and there are wars. This blunder war of Bush’s bears no equivalency to WWII. It is all the more wrong for being the equivalent of death by a thousand cuts, a few here and a few there but with chilling, steady certainty.
It’s good that you call attention to this terrible price. That you challenge people to not let these lives being sacrificed at a steady trickle become a mere statistic, an abstraction to which people need not relate personally and emotionally.
I am not a doctrinaire pacifist. I hate war but recognize there are times and circumstances where it’s necessary to fight and keep fighting until we’ve won.
This time, as in Vietnam, our troops have been sent on a fool’s errand and their lives are being not so much sacrificed as squandered. This is the terrible price to be paid for electing a president unworthy of the great opportunities and terrible responsibilities of his high and powerful office.
January 26th, 2007 22:01
Yes Brian, it is sad, each life lost is precious and we need to do more to protect them while they continue to complete their mission.
With that said, I have several thoughts for all of us to consider:
Is it naïve to think that war or ‘terror’ won’t come to our soil if we decided to let Iraq or other situations like it, to work it out for themselves, even never getting ‘involved’ from the beginning?
If we (the U.S.A. and all its resources) weren’t fighting this war, then who else could the Iraqi people count on?
If no one else would step in, how many more countless lives beyond the 60,000 Iraqis would be lost in genocide and pointless killings at the hands of an evil tyrant? And the ones that don’t get killed - what oppression would they live under? I believe it was Patrick Henry who said “Give me liberty or give me death!”?
I was a U.S. Marine. I believe that if you could somehow ask the 3,000+ soldiers that lost their lives and the 20,000+ wounded in Iraq if they would do it again, you might be surprised that most would say they would and you might even here the same thing from the spouses and families they left behind.
The reason we can ask these questions, even have this discussion openly (even burn flags) and live our lives in relative calm, is because of those that give up their ‘civilian’ way of life, personal rights and freedom, sacrificing their whole selves to the cause of liberty, justice and right.
A friend of mine had recently ended his emails with this quote:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made
and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” - John Stewart Mill
I don’t know if you saw it, but I posted a letter on my blog from an Army medic in Iraq - click here to see it.
January 26th, 2007 23:42
Jonathan, in the late 1930s, Germans were subjected to a steady barrage of negative propaganda about their Polish neighbors to the east. As time went on, the propaganda featured alleged border violations and provocations — incidents denied by the Poles and never verified by any third party. The propaganda intensified in 1939.
In early September of that year Adolf Hitler gave the order and the Wehrmacht rolled into Poland. What ensued was more a slaughter than a war. Great cities were gutted, small rural villages laid waste. The Poles were not only savaged, terrorized and occupied but enslaved.
Hitler had set up and then waged a war of aggression on trumped-up charges, in violation of international law.
President Bush did the same thing in 2003 with his order to invade Iraq.
You can say all you want about how barbaric and evil Saddam was (and he was both). You can say all you want about planting the seed of Democracy in the Mideast. The rule of law is vitally important, as are national boundaries. If it’s OK for the U.S. to bomb and invade a sovereign nation it finds objectionable, on its own say-so, why shouldn’t other nations or groups feel entitled to do likewise to the U.S., if they find our country objectionable?
Your next-door neighbor might be a wife-beating, child-abusing lout, but the law won’t excuse you for taking matters into your own hands and blowing him away some evening because you’ve finally judged him unworthy to go on living and mistreating his family.
The first thing you’re likely to hear from a prosecutor is, “Who appointed you judge, jury and executioner?”
In fact, the world is riddled with evil tyrants. We could depopulate our country and decline into insolvency if we were to devote all our blood and treasure to eradicating every one of them. Along the way, you can be sure a large, powerful coalition of other countries would form to stop our reckless warmaking.
Had there been a pro-democracy movement within Iraq calling for our help in removing Saddam, we would’ve had at least arguable cover for invading. As it is, the U.S. is seen in much of the world as a dangerous, clumsy aggressor, one much better at toppling a regime than at replacing it with anything better than murderous chaos, waste and corruption.
That’s not the reputation I want for my country.
January 27th, 2007 21:47
S.W.,
I agree about our perception around the world. I’ve heard comments like “acting like the world’s policeman’ from my cousins over in Italy. But I don’t think popularity should win over what’s right or best.
You say, “In fact, the world is riddled with evil tyrants. We could depopulate our country and decline into insolvency if we were to devote all our blood and treasure to eradicating every one of them.”
You’re right, we can’t ’save the world’. I guess that’s where the old saying comes in - “Choose your battles wisely.”. You prioritize your defenses or offenses by what is either overall most threatening against our security, people or interests and then secondly, that of our region or allies. Yes, I did say interests, whether thay be allies or resources. That is the reality.
You also said, “Hitler had set up and then waged a war of aggression on trumped-up charges, in violation of international law. President Bush did the same thing in 2003 with his order to invade Iraq.”
I don’t see how Hitler and Bush, or their respective actions, motives and objectives, can even be reasonably compared.
In the end, I don’t think being President is easy. There are a lot of things going on internally and internationally and issues to resolve. There is no way he can please everybody. We may not even be aware of the background information that leads to a decisoion. We judge so harshly, usually based on what the biased media presents. In the end, he has to seek counsel, consider the information or intelligence in front of him and make a call, take a risk. Sometimes, he makes bad calls. Hopefully more good calls than not. I am sure making a decision for war or more troops is not something he does flippantly or with malintent.
“We make war that we may live in peace.”
- Aristotle
“From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered
with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.”
- Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian political philosopher, statesman.
“We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
- George Orwell
January 27th, 2007 23:48
Jonathan, with all due respect, you seem to be in denial about the facts of our Iraq debacle.
Iraq in 2003 was a small, poor Third-World country ruled by tin-pot dictator whose third-rate military was run by cronies and dolts chosen for their loyalty. If you doubt that, what can you say about a country with absolutely no viable, coordinated plan to defend itself against invasion? That is the most basic responsibility of any country’s military, yet Iraq’s military mostly dispersed. A few units and ad-hoc groups of soldiers skirmished.
That was the veritable basket case presented to us as an imminent threat of nuking us, of interrupting oil traffic, of making war against other countries in the region.
Yes, being president calls for making sense of sometimes incomplete and confusing information. It sometimes calls for erring on the side of safety. None of this describes U.S. aggression against Iraq. In fact, as we’ve learned, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others discussed invading Iraq during the first two weeks of Bush’s presidency.
Your patriotic quotations are all good, all worthy of remembering. But when it comes to choosing foes, as you mentioned, why not go for ones guilty of the largest-scale wrongdoing? That would mean invading and forcing regime change in China.
Are you up for that? And if not, why not?
January 28th, 2007 08:24
You have a good question that I too have pondered. I’ll even ‘help you’ by adding another to that list - North Korea.
But you ask, “Why Iraq?”, or the Middle East for that matter?
Maybe it has something to do with the area of greatest instability with the potential of developing or using a ‘nuke’?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that that is the source, location and training grounds for terrorists at this time.
Couple that with it being America and the world’s major supply of oil together with our support of the popular-to-be-hated ally Israel, both of which the media and Hollywood love to ‘reveal’ as the dark conspiracy behind our Middle East involvement).
Who is ‘in denial’? I wonder how we all would react to rationing of gas or electric power, gas at $20 a gallon or oil-dependent industry stopping, causing massive loss of jobs?
It is now presented as fiction on TV shows like ‘24′ or “Jericho’, but what if terror came back to America’s soil and even involved ‘nukes’?
January 28th, 2007 23:47
Jonathan wrote:
“But you ask, “Why Iraq?”, or the Middle East for that matter?
Maybe it has something to do with the area of greatest instability with the potential of developing or using a ‘nuke’?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that that is the source, location and training grounds for terrorists at this time.”
All credible points. But they apply solidly to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, with little or no relevance to Iraq. That makes our invasion of Iraq all the harder to understand. Saddam contributed money to “charities” that funded suicide bombers and such. But Iraq was stable, relatively secular and its regime was in a tight box operated by our military and intelligence.
I think Iraq was seen as an especially tempting target by Bush and his swivel-chair crusaders because it has the world’s largest or second-largest untapped oil reserves, its military’s weaknesses had been made clear in the Gulf War and its leader was perceived as an ignorant oaf whose bad leadership and yes-man general staff posed their greatest threat to Iraq’s own troops. Low-hanging fruit, in other words.
As for risking the interruption of oil supply from the Mideast and dealing with much higher prices, it’s only a matter of time anyway. Consider how many new drivers and vehicles will be taking to the road as the economies and living standards of India and China grow at an accelerating rate over the next 30 years. All those Indians and Chinese competing for oil products will inevitably cause steep price increases.
Is pursuing wars of aggression the answer to ensuring our oil supply? I hope not. But there’s clearly a pattern of having to spend a few hundred billions and sacrifice some troops every few years if we’re to be sure of a steady flow from the Mideast.
It’s simply wrong to keep doing this. What’s more, it’s ultimately not worth it. Not in lives or in money terms.
January 29th, 2007 07:12
Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Oval office…
January 30th, 2007 00:27
Jonathan wrote:
“Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Oval office…”
And thus be the smartest critter in the room. (grin)
January 30th, 2007 08:12
(smile)
February 1st, 2007 11:10
Before I start, I’m fed up with the war. I don’t like the way it was fought, I don’t like the way it was declared over with. I’m unhappy about it, and every death of an American over there is a terrible thing.
I also think that if a country *WANTS* freedom and democracy, then the citizens *THERE* need to fight for it, not us.
That said…
It seems undeniable to me that the current events in Iraq are indeed saving us from some terrorist actions on our own soil in America. Thousands of would-be mall bombers are dying over there confronting our military, rather than getting Iranian or Saudi funding and plane tickets to come here and bomb malls and schools.
So those who are “sacrificed” to the demon of war actually are protecting and securing life for us here and for others elsewhere that may have been a target.
Yet, here in our own country, we sacrifice souls to the demons of convenience and self-centered irresponsibility via abortion. Millions more are killed here in clinics than in Iraq.
I seems hypocritical to me. Where is the outcry over the human souls burned in acid, dismembered piece by piece, or stabbed in the skull to have their brains liquefied? Death in battle is with honor and usually shorter and less painful than the torture foisted upon the most helpless.
I’m sorry, I know this is not the point of your post, but the topic touched off the obvious contrast.
February 1st, 2007 11:51
You make an interesting point, Scott. Maybe you’d like to write a post on it?
On one level, there IS outrage over abortion. There was a large March for Life on January 22, just five days before a large March for Peace.
The real interesting question is whether anyone marched in both of these, or whether they are formed of two separate camps. My own suspicion is that they aren’t entirely separate.
You’ve got me thinking, Scott, which is always good.
February 21st, 2007 18:04
I believe that I can safely concede the fact that war is an aspect of the world in which we live that will not soon change. It may be argued that war is an instinctual response, as evidenced by our tendency to declare war upon poverty or drugs or injustice, as a sign of our dedication to eradicating a problem. Unfortunately, I believe that most people’s understanding of war is colored by unrealistic perceptions, fantasies, and expectations about what war can accomplish.
The major products of war are death and destruction. It does not matter on what scale. War does not create democracy. War is not conducive to sectarian cooperation. War does not produce societal progress and development. It is vitally important for people to understand what war is, and more importantly, what it is not. It is even more important for those that make the decisions to have a clear understanding about what war can and cannot accomplish.
These things being said, I believe that war is sometimes necessary. However, I also believe that it is the responsibility of government, especially the commander and chief of the armed forces, to insure that the forces under his command are used efficiently and to accomplish objectives that are within the scope of military operations. To do otherwise is an abrogation of any right to command, or it should be. There will be losses in war. But, they should be kept to a minimum. Troops and materials should not be squandered to “send a message.” The other branches of our Federal Government have responsibilities in this regard as well: to the people that they represent, to the Constitution, and to the nation.
I had hoped that our President, when determining that Sadam Hussein and his government posed a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, would have had the courage to respond differently. (Now, when this whole issue came about, I suggested this plan of action might be followed as we discussed issues around the faculty room. So, I hope not to be accused of hindsight infractions.)
Problem: Eliminate or render powerless the Leader of a hostile government/terrorist who had asserted possession of WMD and has demonstrated willingness to use such weapons within his own nation.
Solution: Use the intelligence resources of the NSA and our allies to monitor communications and satellite tracking for the express purpose of locating Sadam Hussien (and any other government officials determined to be a threat to the security and sovereignty of the United States.)
Having identified most likely location(s), use drone surveillence to verify presence of the target(s).
Use drones as targeting devices for the cruise missile strike(s)on target.
All that would have been required to make this completely legal and above board would be an executive order or presidential finding declaring it so, and informing the appropriate congressional oversight committees in a timely manner.
This would have been an efficient use of the intelligence and military assets of The United States without the destruction of the infrastructure of an entire nation. The Iraqi people, free of an invading army, would be able to restructure their government, if they so desired.
Casualties- much fewer than the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed thus far, and the over 3,000 US and Coalition troops killed.
Cost- much less that the billions already spent.
Message sent- Threaten the security of the United States at your own risk. You won’t have the chance to hide, let alone run. And, mission truly accomplished.
If only the president had had the courage and willingness to put it all on the line that is demonstrated every day by servicemen and women around the world in the service of their country.
I believe that that were a number of options that would have more efficiently accomplished the stated goals of our government. I am distressed that we are not making use technological advantages we have, and insist on modeling conflicts as we have in the past.
I fear that we shall continue to repeat mistakes, and fail to learn from our own and those of others. And, unfortunately, the lives of our courageous servicepeople around the globe, and our rights here at home, are the cost to be paid.