2,000 Bumps in the Road: Fighting and Dying in Afghanistan

After 11 years of war in Afghanistan, the death toll for American troops has hit 2,000, a morbid mark and a reminder of the human wages of a remote engagement. Like so much of the war today, the threshold was crossed with a minimum of press coverage, the media increasingly negligent in reporting both the successes and failures of the American enterprise, even when historically spectacular.

This neglect is in sharp contrast to the macabre obsession with casualty counts that enveloped the media during the Bush years, ticking off each fatality like another counterfactual repudiation of the war itself, evidence mounting daily of his administration’s incompetence or perfidy. That scrutiny was more often than not unseemly, appropriating individual sacrifice for political purposes, using the eulogy as thinly disguised stump speech, heartfelt remembrance as cloying attempt to tarnish the very cause for which that sacrifice was made. But now with their own ilk at the presidential helm, the press has turned a blind eye to the losses and an endlessly scrutinizing one to campaign gaffes and gerry rigged polls. These are inhospitable days for gravity.

During Bush’s presidency conservatives often pointed out what liberals like to point out now: by historical standards, these are impressively low numbers, especially given the magnitude of such a sustained projection of force into a such an intransigently hostile land.Of course, they’re both right. But what sanctifies the sacrifice is a commitment to a greater purpose, some sense of triumph articulate enough that it will be known when seen. Obama’s narrative was always as conscientious objector on the Iraq war and a patriot on Afghanistan: the former was an exercise in oil hungry imperialism and the latter a “just” war, imposed by necessity, certainly enough to stir righteous resignation, if not indignation. His tipping of the hat to the recalcitrant anti-war crowd was always his conviction’s expiration date; we’ll decamp as soon as politically possible, victors in speech if we can’t muster it in deed. In the age of self-esteem, maybe it’s enough to simply announce our mission accomplished to feel the gratification of accomplishment. In this sense,we can have a truly postmodern presidency.

Now, Obama’s latest ad celebrates the savings of our withdrawal:

“As we end the war in Afghanistan let’s apply the savings to pay down our debt and the rest for some nation building right here at home.”

Let’s set aside minor quibbles for now like: how is this “our” debt, promiscuously assumed by his profligate administration? And “nation building at home”? This seems to imply the US is a developing country in need of sweeping structural reform rather than the unleashing of its recently corseted potential. Much more importantly, what justifies our departure from Afghanistan now? By what metric for success, can we reasonably declare our mission accomplished? And if we have not “won”, then why isn’t our departure a premature surrender? Obama committed 30,000 new troops to the surge strategy, ensuring that more Americans would die in harm’s way. If he never believed in the mission, if he always preferred to earmark this money for whatever domestic stimulus, then why march our troops to their graves?

However historically modest, each slain American soldier represents an unfathomable loss, the surrender of an irreplaceable human life. These missions are justified by the national purposes to which that are dedicated, to the causes that men are proud to die for. Whether the press chooses to notice or not, our men and women perish in distant lands for a Commander in Chief whose cavalier detachment from their efforts dishonors their faithful commitment.

Category: Featured, International