The disgrace of neglect

by Gerald Plessner

It is in the nature of an imperial power to act with arrogance in its relations with other countries. Imperialism is, after all, an expression of nationalism founded upon the idea that might dictates right, and that one nation knows what is best for another. The imperialist believes that the vanquished should be grateful for being defeated, occupied and in every case in history, exploited.

But imperialism is a heady brew for national leaders. All too often in their pursuit of national goals, they forget about those who serve and die to satisfy their objectives and ego.

Sadly, that has become the case with George W. Bush, who refuses to attend funerals for any soldier killed in Iraq, and whose administration cannot spare one official to attend even one such funeral. In some cases the families of service personnel killed in Iraq have not even received letters of condolence from the president.

America has a long tradition of such acknowledgment of the supreme sacrifice, from letters and visits from company commanders, to formal funerals with official representation, to Abraham Lincoln writing personal notes to bereaved mothers.

But this president has neither the inclination nor the time for such considerations. While he has made two dozen trips all over the country using Air Force One to raise almost $200 million for his coming reelection campaign, his advisors tell us he is too busy to participate in one funeral.

Add to this outrage his administration's efforts to reduce the budget of the Veteran's Administration, reduce pay for certain soldiers deployed to Iraq and the miserable treatment of wounded soldiers at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and you see a calculated strategy that spells utter disregard for America's fighting men and women, their wounded comrades and our veterans.

It is all part of a political strategy to minimize the cost in human terms of the president's ill advised and poorly managed invasion and occupation of Iraq. At the center of this strategy is the censorship of photo or television coverage of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, a picture that would certainly harm the president's reelection campaign.

The president's strategy can be carried out more easily than in previous wars because of an important difference in our military services. Now, with a professional military, and no families of draftees to worry about, the president can treat our service men and women as employees rather than citizen soldiers.

Other imperial nations have done the same. The French Foreign Legion is made up of non-French citizens and can be used much more freely than a citizen army. The British hired native battalions on the Indian sub-continent and used poor English and Irish enlistees around their empire. It is easier to be callous with people you hire to do the work of war.

The president's disregard for the sacrifice of our service men and women and their families begs for the answer to two questions:
1.) When will the president's ardent followers in the military and in the South where so many live, begin to understand how they are being used, and what will they do about it? and,
2.) When will the president's media friends, who excoriated Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for not attending enough funerals for those fire fighters and others who died on September 11 (a charge later found to be grossly untrue) speak up about a president who has yet to attend one funeral for the more than 400 deceased men and women he sent into harms way?

About the author: Gerald Plessner is a Southern California businessman who writes regularly on issues of politics and culture. He would be pleased to hear from you and may be contacted at gerald@geraldplessner.com
www.geraldplessner.com