Mother Talkers

War dead and grieving

Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:21:27 PM PDT

The war in Iraq ad its victims are there in the back of my mind like a nasty bruise that hurts when I press it by accident, but is not something I re-injure daily. It is a source of pain and shame and dread when I do think about it, but I don’t discuss it with many people, partially because it’s not part of my daily reality, partly because I almost feel it unseemly to play war pundit when I have absolutely nothing at risk in this fight.

But occasionally, it pops out and this time I want to talk about it with you. In this month’s Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens writes an essay about the death of Mark Jennings Daily, a soldier from Irvine, California who died in Mosul in January. Daily was 23, and left behind a family and a wife of 15 months. Tragic. But the reason why Hitchens wrote this essay is because Daily noted on his MySpace page that one of the reasons he volunteered for war was Hitchens’ writings in support of invasion, particularly his "Fighting Words" column in Slate magazine. The sad, sick "nut graph" to this sorry essay:

I don't exaggerate by much when I say that I froze. I certainly felt a very deep pang of cold dismay. I had just returned from a visit to Iraq with my own son (who is 23, as was young Mr. Daily) and had found myself in a deeply pessimistic frame of mind about the war. Was it possible that I had helped persuade someone I had never met to place himself in the path of an I.E.D.? Over-dramatizing myself a bit in the angst of the moment, I found I was thinking of William Butler Yeats, who was chilled to discover that the Irish rebels of 1916 had gone to their deaths quoting his play Cathleen ni Houlihan. He tried to cope with the disturbing idea in his poem "Man and the Echo":

Did that play of mine send out
Certain men the English shot? ...
Could my spoken words have checked
That whereby a house lay wrecked?

Abruptly dismissing any comparison between myself and one of the greatest poets of the 20th century, I feverishly clicked on all the links from the article and found myself on Lieutenant Daily's MySpace site, where his statement "Why I Joined" was posted. The site also immediately kicked into a skirling noise of Irish revolutionary pugnacity: a song from the Dropkick Murphys album Warrior's Code. And there, at the top of the page, was a link to a passage from one of my articles, in which I poured scorn on those who were neutral about the battle for Iraq ... I don't remember ever feeling, in every allowable sense of the word, quite so hollow.

  • ::

Hitch has been one of the strongest supporters of the war in the journalistic space, and I believe he has displayed shocking leaps of intellectual gymnastics – eliding and glossing over fundamental facts that do not suit his argumentation, and, when all else fails, backflipping to explain away all failures and shift all blame from the neocons who sent the country down this fool’s path. Before his out-front war mongering, I respected him as an essayist, but now everything of his I read, I do so from the perspective that he is a man who was deeply wrong about the war and refuses to admit it.

Fine. We don’t agree. Live and let live. But then he uses this young man’s death as a platform and a chance for him to expend cheap emotion (how un-English). He weeps in the prose, so that we may forgive him his trespasses and I don’t buy it. He contacts Daily’s family, who show a remarkable gentleness of spirit and meet with Hitchens. Hitchens is invited to Daily’s funeral and manages to choke out some Shakespeare through (ostensibly) a tear-blocked throat  – tears the Daily’s own family manages to hold back. At this point, I really lost it.

My idea had been to quote from the last scene of Macbeth, which is the only passage I know that can hope to rise to such an occasion. The tyrant and usurper has been killed, but Ross has to tell old Siward that his boy has perished in the struggle:

Your son, my lord, has paid a soldier's debt;
He only lived but till he was a man;
The which no sooner had his prowess confirm'd
In the unshrinking station where he fought,
But like a man he died.
This being Shakespeare, the truly emotional and understated moment follows a beat or two later, when Ross adds:
Your cause of sorrow
Must not be measured by his worth, for then
It hath no end.
I became a trifle choked up after that, but everybody else also managed to speak
[...]

I think this stinks. Honestly, Hitch, who gives a $hit about you being choked up? Who cares that you were touched by this boy’s life and death. It isn’t all about you; it is about a grieving family. Go expiate your guilt – and yeah, as such a pro-war pundit, you do bear guilt, you armchair hawk - somewhere else.

It is obvious that part of Hitchens is greatly troubled by the fact that his words caused another person to enlist and go to war and die. But I don’t think he’s entitled to use that man’s death as an opportunity to hash through his feelings publicly. To my mind, it’s being unfair on Daily’s family and widow, who have been through enough. I’ll close with another, far briefer and respectful expression of remorse and grief – Lincoln’s letter to Mrs. Bixby

In the fall of 1864, Massachusetts Governor John A. Andrew wrote to President Lincoln asking him to express condolences to Mrs. Lydia Bixby, a widow who was believed to have lost five sons during the Civil War. Lincoln's letter to her was printed by the Boston Evening Transcript. Later it was revealed that only two of Mrs. Bixby's five sons died in battle (Charles and Oliver). One deserted the army, one was honorably discharged, and another deserted or died a prisoner of war.
The authorship of the letter has been debated by scholars, some of whom now believe it was written instead by John Hay, one of Lincoln's White House secretaries. The original letter was destroyed by Mrs. Bixby, who was a Confederate sympathizer and disliked President Lincoln. Copies of an early forgery have been circulating for many years, causing many people to believe they have the original letter.

Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.
Dear Madam,--
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln

How much more of this are we going to have to go through before our soldiers come home? Your thoughts, ladies?

Tags: Iraq, war, dead, children, parents, Christopher Hitchens (all tags)

Permalink | 47 comments

  • rachel, you are brilliant! (0 / 0)

    hitch should check into rehab and reduce his lability in public.

    this, from WaPo, is so self-indulgent too, i just want to puke.  
    White House Staff has Souls ?

    fav quote is the opener:
    "It had been four days since Meghan O'Sullivan left her job at the White House. Just four days since she gave up her Secret Service pass, her classified hard drive and her entree to the president. Four days since she gave up any day-to-day responsibility for Iraq.

    Too soon, evidently, for the dreams to end. "In fact, I was dreaming about Iraq last night," she said. "And I woke up and thought, 'When do you think this will stop?' " "

    It's like Mitt Romney talking about his sons' Service to Their Country while campaigning for him!

    These people have NO clue.  Not hitch, not the white house staffers, not willard mittster.  

    It makes me want to beat my head against a wall sometimes.  Or at least a pillow.  

    of all the things i've lost, i miss my mind the most.

    by jlms qkw on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 12:10:02 AM PDT

    • First Lady (0 / 0)

      You know, she said no one suffers as much as she and her husband about this war....yeah, right.

      As for Hitch, I read something by him the other day wherein he was discussing whether Al Gore might run for President if he were to be award the Nobel Peace Prize this year.  In it, he said that Gore had been right about the Iraq War.  So, I guess you can say that he has sort of admitted he was wrong.

      I also used to be a huge fan of his, in fact I want to read his book on atheism that came out recently.  But his stance on the war has certainly lowered my estimation of him.

      • You know, I've seen him (0 / 0)

        do several interviews and quasi-debates promoting "God is Not Great".  I haven't read the book, but he uses much the same kind of circular logic to back up his points about religion as he does about Iraq.  I wasn't impressed and thought he came off petty as usual.  As far as I'm concerned, he's one who thinks he's a bit more clever than he really is.

    • Oh, that article outraged me. (0 / 0)

      I'm supposed to give a damn about the legacy left behind by a 38 year old moron and the evilest politician known to man?  This was on the FRONT PAGE of Sunday's paper here.  I only managed to choke down half of it.  When I got to the Karl Rove section, I threw it away in disgust.

  • Thanks (0 / 0)

    Thanks for posting this one Rachel, very interesting.  I agree with you, although I am not surprised by Hitchens.  Lots of people in the media are quite self-centered.

    • And based on the New Yorker profile about him (0 / 0)

      he's usually sauced, so his tears may have been alcohol induced.

      He has made lots of money and gotten lots of attention by writing and saying outrageous things. I have a feeling that he's someone who has gradually become closer and closer to the character he assumed to attract attention to himself. With someone like that, who knows what is genuine and what isn't?

      He's not one for quiet shame, unlike me, who feels it pretty much all the time.

  • Thanks for posting this, Rachel. (0 / 0)

  • I really don't understand. (0 / 0)

    Do people like Hitchens really believe that this all has been a game?  Did he  not understand what effect his part of the warmongering had on real, individual people?  Is he, in effect blaming this young man for taking him seriously?  Sadly, this is the impression I get.  

    • I think he was shocked (0 / 0)

      to find that he had a real-world impact via his words. We writers always mouth that the pen is mightier than the sword, and in this case, the pen caused a young man to take up the sword and die by it. Hitch's position to me is the highest form of intellectual abdication and strange, since he admires writers like Orwell, who definitely hoped to stir passions and recruit to causes like the Spanish Civil War. Maybe he assumed that because he didn't enlist in the military after reading people like Orwell, no other young man would.

      But I'll give Hitch this: at least he went to a soldier's funeral, something Bush and Cheney have yet to do. Hitch did feel some sort of responsibility and wanted to acknowledge it, which Bush has not yet done.

      • You know, I think I view (0 / 0)

        his going to this young man's funeral as some sort of attempt to appease his own conscious (if he has one).  What I find disheartening is he appears to be using this to show that he "gets it", but I still don't think that's the case.  Its almost as if he's saying that its this young man's fault for taking his words seriously.  Hitchens is so in love with his own use of language he often seems to me as if he's asking us just to be amused...as if its all just a game, or an exercise in debate.  In the end, I think he falls back on this...there is sort of a "silly boy" labeling going on...yes, regret that this young man didn't "get" that to those like himself(Hitchens) this is just all about playing the game, but its kind of passing the buck, isn't it?

        • yes, you're right (0 / 0)

          totally, absolutely, right and I agree that a lot of the motivation was laving his conscience. And I make the point grudgingly - at least he feels he has to appease his conscience.

          To be honest, all my respect and regard goes to Daily's family and widow; I would not have the grace in me to invite the man who partially influenced my son to go to war to his funeral. And if he did show up, I think I would have let loose a king-hell banshee of fury on him.

          • I would like to think (0 / 0)

            I could take the approach the parents of the slain Amish children took last year...however, I'm not sure I could pull it off.

            • What was that? (0 / 0)

              We don't get a lot of coverage over here...and I'm not as up on US news as I'd like to be sometimes... What was their reaction?

              • Almost a year ago (0 / 0)

                to the day, a man went into an Amish school house in Pennsylvania and forced several little girls to lay down on the floor.  He shot them execution style before shooting himself.  No one knew that this man was so troubled...he led a normal life and was married and had children.  Apparently, he left a note, I believe, in which he said he was seeking revenge for some kind of slight of the religious community or whatever involving the death of his own child several years earlier.

                When money and attention started pouring into this Amish community, the community members made it clear that they forgave this man for killing their children and that they expected his wife and family to be recognized as being in grief just as they were.  In our eye-for-an-eye society, I thought this was a powerful statement made by the Amish community.  

                • have to add (0 / 0)

                  They went to HIS funeral, and put some of the money into a fund for his children.  It was a very stunning and moving show of true forgiveness.  I was so affected by it.

                • ick. (0 / 0)

                  We heard about the shooting here, but, as per usual with the media,never heard any more. Once the sensational bit is over ("SHOOTING IN AMERICA!!"), they kind of leave us hanging.

                  I've always been a bit amazed at the serene way in which the Amish lead their lives. I doubt that I could be so serene in such a situation...I'd have to rage and scream first. And then want revenge. After twenty years or so, I might be able to see the other person's perspective. Maybe.

                  • the amish community (0 / 0)

                    bulldozed the old schoolbuilding and built a new one, too.  

                    of all the things i've lost, i miss my mind the most.

                    by jlms qkw on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 08:32:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    • This happened about 15 miles from where I live (0 / 0)

                      And we've had quite extensive coverage in our local paper as you can imagine. Not only did the Amish forgive and donate and everything you have said, they also have established relationships with all of the first-responders who were at the scene that they have maintained. The police chief and all the people who were there that day have routinely been invited to their houses for dinner and they were at the memorial service last week. The thing that amazes me is the emotional intelligence of these people - they seem to understand what needs to happen to help themselves and their children as well as everyone else to heal.

  • this is beautiful Rachel (0 / 0)

    You are a bigger person than I am.  I have so much anger, impatience, and contempt for the warmongers.  I have not found it in my heart to believe they were just misguided, which I know is a lack of charity on my part, but there it is.  I literally cannot believe that anyone smart enough to put together a stirring paragraph could not have seen Bush and Powell's Potemkin village for what it was.  And I should know better, because even my DH was initially in favor of invading Iraq.  A good, kind, smart, thoughtful, informed person who thought it was necessary to bomb Iraq.  Because he was afraid, with all he knew of terrorism in general and Al Qaeda in particular, he really was afraid.  And that made him lose his analytical edge and his commonsense, if only briefly.  So it happens.  But yet for these writers, I am unforgiving.  (DH soon came around, and in any event, he didn't try to convince anyone else of the rightness of his way.)

    I haven't forgiven George Packer, and it hurts my heart to pick up the New Yorker and find he's still their man in Iraq.  How could they have gotten it so wrong?  (Makes me wish David Remnick could be in all places at all times.)  And that's not so fair of me, because I don't do more than an occasional flip through one of Packer's piece -- which always seems to be scraping bottom for finding something going well, instead of describing the discouraging bigger picture.  So he may have apologized and I missed it.

    I do appreciate mea culpas, although I'm not reading that in these passages.  (Thanks, Hillary, for pointing out that he has put that out there elsewhere.)  I do think it takes guts to come out and say the war was a mistake.  But in my grudging way, I want more.  I want these writers to say, "I was wrong, and I caused suffering, and I'm so, so sorry."

    • I'm having a very difficult time (0 / 0)

      accepting those who now have conveniently changed their minds about Iraq.  I know its necessary, for political purposes, to accept these later-comers  into the fold, but while I might grudgingly let them in, I'm afraid I can't be too welcoming.  

      It isn't just about Iraq.  Its about all this administration has done.  Maybe its sour grapes on my part.  Maybe it has to deal with people who believed like we believe were treated so badly during those times.  Its true that I might well just want to rub their noses in it now that I have the chance.  I think, however, its going to be a long, long time before I can ever feel the same way about my fellow citizens again.  Political expediency requires that we allow those who were supposed to be "leaders" to save face through some exercise of recantment, but how are we ever to trust any of them again?

    • I'm surprised (0 / 0)

      by what you say about George Packer. A lot of the pieces of his that I've read are VERY negative about the war, in particular about the impact on individual Iraqis. Last spring he wrote a piece about Iraqi translators that got me hopping mad - not at him, but at the terrible mess we've created.

      • as I said, (0 / 0)

        I don't feel like I've given him a fair shake as I stopped reading him thoroughly a while back.  He was pro-war before and in the early days of the invasion, and although he started to be critical of the execution and aftermath, I never did read where he took responsibility for his role in selling it.  It's practically inconceivable to me that someone would take George Bush and Dick Cheney's word that invading an oil-rich country was ever necessary.  I always felt that Hendrik Hertzberg was more clear-eyed.  However, Packer was on the ground and I wanted to know what he was seeing.  When I lost faith in him, I lost a window into that situation that I really resented.

        I recognize that I have perhaps unreasonably high standards for journalists in this situation.  When I can't trust a word coming out of a government official's mouth, I turn to the Fourth Estate to do the digging and thinking.  I have been quite disappointed in their collective efforts.  

        I feel that the coverage is more balanced now, and that I am getting a better picture of what's going on.  However, my very sour grapes feeling is, Too little, too late.  A lot of people have suffered.

        • No, those are totally reasonable standards (0 / 0)

          That is their job, their only purpose for even existing, imo.

          I feel the same way about our alledged Fourth Estate. Collectively, they completely screwed the country, all the way back to not vetting and pounding on candidate Bush's flat out lies about his record in Texas (which Paul Krugman, bless his heart, has aired of late) and his evangelical beliefs.

          The NYT used to consistently bury the comments of Hans Blix, UN arms inspector in Iraq, down on paragraph 17 on page 2. I knew back then that they were failing us, just by that.

          The only people who have any credibility with me these days are Paul Krugman and Frank Rich.

          What's really pathetic is that the ridiculous section we routinely make fun of here on MT - "Thursday Styles" - has been added in just the last couple of years. I am so fricking glad they have their priorities straight.

          Sorry for the general rant, mamacita! I get really angry about this.

          RachelD

          • oh, it's good to know (0 / 0)

            I'm not the only one in a righteous huff.  Thank you!  If it were up to me we would have let all subscriptions lapse except the New Yorker.

            I remember very early on, before the invasion, when Thomas Friedman wrote that although, as a Middle East expert, he KNEW the chances of anything good coming out of the invasion of Iraq were very small, he decided to go with "hope, rather than experience."  What a freakin' idiot.  

            I can't help but think the lot of them are on the take in some way.

            As for Blix, to hear Bush tell it the inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq and that's why he had to invade.  The mind boggles, as Blix and Iraq literally begged for additional time!  Obviously it was set up as a no-win -- how does one prove a negative? -- unless you happen to be a war profiteer.

    • Being wrong (0 / 0)

      That's how I feel about the whole second term of the Bush presidency (and basically, the first as well).  Why has it taken so many people so long to figure out the Bushies don't know what they are doing?  Why didn't they see through their lies?  

      I really think the short answer to that, is the media misled them.  Not everyone is well informed.  They get their news in soundbites.  I'll never forget Jon Stewart reading Tucker Carlson the riot act for "hurting America".  That's exactly what they've all done.  

    • Oh... and for the record... (0 / 0)

      My DH had the exact same reaction as yours regarding invading Iraq.  

      • Really? (0 / 0)

        I found it so hard to deal with that.  I even ridiculed him in front of our friends, hoping to snap him out of it.  I just found the whole idea so offensive and wrong, and it creeped me out to be married to someone who thought shock and awe was a reasonable response to terrorism.  But, he works with people who are closely involved in anti-terrorism programs, and he is much more aware of potential threats than me, and I think his fear just overwhelmed his thinking faculties temporarily.  

        How did you deal with it?  Or did you initially agree with him?

        • not to cut across (0 / 0)

          My husband was also initially supportive - for like, the first three months of the invasion. It really got to the point where I had to stop talking about it and say "you wait and see, buster." It was really horrible, and worse still to be proven right. Totally toxic conversation overall.

          I remember when the invasion started, we were living in London, and Blair made a big statement explaining, ostensibly, "why." It was about 24 or so hours  before the launch, and it was also about two days before my birthday. I was sitting in a pub with DH and I remember thinking "this is the worst damned birthday present I ever got." Selfish, I know, but that was my thought!

          • so alienating (0 / 0)

            For the first time in our marriage, I was wondering, "Who the hell is this guy?"  It really freaked me out.  So out of character for a man who carries moths and spiders outside so as not to kill them.  I was conducting peace vigils and he was hoping the U.S. would "get the bad guys."  He was so, so angry about the the attacks that I guess he just lost his mind.  And, he insulted me my implying that I was soft-headed about the whole thing.  Very patronizing.

            I wonder if there's a gender element to this.  I know for DH it was very wrapped up in protecting the family, which can be a pretty primitive emotion.

            I'm glad it sounds like we all got our men back into the land of sanity on this.

          • Same here... (0 / 0)

            I was so shocked he didn't see through the BS.  How could an otherwise intelligent person not see what I was seeing?  I think like I posted to mamacita, it was totally based in fear.  The whole "lets fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" mentality.

        • I did the same... (0 / 0)

          and I hate to stereotype, but it was mostly males I saw in favor of it.  My brother was in favor of it too.  

          It was tough... and we had many arguments over it.  When things didn't go well, he eventually saw the light.  

          Of course it was fear based.  Now he's angry.  Because like many of his fellow Americans, he had been duped.  

  • The Gore Article (0 / 0)

    Here's the Al Gore essay where he admits his error in an off-hand way.

    Apart from the awards, not only could Gore claim that he had been a fairly effective senator and a reasonably competent vice president, he could also present himself in zeitgeist terms as the candidate who was on the right side of the two great overarching questions: the climate crisis and the war in Mesopotamia.

  • Never liked that guy (0 / 0)

    I could never get past his contempuous tone. I am deeply suspicious of that, even if I agree with the opinions of the person.

    What you see is what you get, imo.

  • narcissism (0 / 0)

    is how i would sum up hitchens along with a good dose of too much booze.  he was funny.  but he lost me when he went after mother theresa( before she died) and his latest spew on religion leaves me cold.  and i can't begin to figure how he got to where he is on the war.

    christopher hitchens seems to be a mean spirited man who is far too full of himself.

    btw rachel...great diary and i loved the lincoln letter. have you read Team of Rivals?

Permalink | 47 comments