Wasted Sacrifices

In the past month two of the leading 2008 Presidential candidates have criticized the war in Iraq for 'wasting' American lives. While both Barack Obama, a Democrat, and John McCain, a Republican, quickly retreated from their statements, they never the less raise several interesting questions which should at least be asked.

The different tacts taken by the two candidates in explaining their comments are of interest, as are the reactions to and especially the media coverage of their original statements.

Most importantly it should be asked whether the lives of the 3171 American soldiers killed in Iraq to date have been wasted or sacrificed.

Speaking with David Letterman on his late night television show Sen. McCain said;

Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives.

His comments closely resembled those of Sen. Obama's, made at a rally in Ames, Iowa;

We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.

When Sen. Obama gave his speech, nearly a month prior to Sen. McCain's interview, his use of the word 'wasted' garnered immediate mainstream media coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times as well as among many other news outlets. In contrast Sen. McCain's comments were only picked up by the AP, while the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times all failed to mention Sen. McCain's 'wasted' utterance despite covering his appearance on Mr. Letterman's show. Media Matters for America has more on the disparity in coverage presented by the mainstream media as does Keith Olbermann.

Two candidates made almost the same statement and were treated completely differently over it, why? This one, arguably, small story says much about the level to which the mainstream media has bought into the right-wing fallacy that Democrats are failing to support the troops, while Republicans support the troops completely.

In response to media coverage and calls to apologize both candidates backed away from their original use of 'wasted' to describe the loss of American life in Iraq. Both men said that they should have used 'sacrificed' instead of 'wasted.' Which brings up the much more important question of which term is more appropriate as a description of American deaths in Iraq?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines sacrifice as;

Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.

and waste as:

To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly.

The war in Iraq has not made America safer, it is the creation of neo-conservative war-mongers who do not possess the courage of their convictions and will never themselves pay the ultimate price and have their lives or the lives of their loved ones wasted. Those who have lost loved ones do decry the waste. It is these war-mongers who insist on referring to lost lives in this war as sacrifices. This war in Iraq does not have a 'greater value', it never has. The sad truth is that the American soldiers who have given their lives in Iraq have been 'thoughtlessly and carelessly expended.'

It is well past time for this waste to be acknowledged and an end to it demanded. War opponents and their elected representatives must stand up and do so.

War-mongers must be questioned, they must be made to explain specifically and in detail why the war in Iraq has a higher value than the lives of so many young Americans. Empty rhetoric must not be excepted and passed on any longer.

The national media must reclaim its post and fulfill its journalistic obligation to the American People that it has forfeited for the past six years.

Tom Toles weighs in.