Mythmaking and the Sacred Dead

In an earlier post I quoted this passage from Chris Hedges' War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002) on one of the psychological mechanisms of war:

The cause, sanctified by the dead, cannot be questioned without dishonoring those who gave up their lives. We become enmeshed in the imposed language. When any contradiction is raised or there is a sense that the cause is not just in an absolute sense, the doubts are attacked as apostasy. There is a constant act of remembering and honoring the fallen during war. These ceremonies sanctify the cause. As Americans we speak, following the September attacks, like the Islamic radicals we fight, primarily in clichés. We sound like the Serbian or Croatian nationalists who destroyed the Balkans. The official jargon obscures the game of war - the hunters and the hunted. We accept terms imposed upon us by the state - for example the "war on terror" - and these terms set the narrow parameters by which we are able to think and discuss.

A classic illustration of this, of course, is Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.

But in a larger sense we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain… [from the “Hay draft” version].

We never want to say that war deaths were meaningless, stupid, avoidable slaughter.  Although in the 1920s and to a certain extent even until today, the First World War has been largely regarded that way.  In the context of the Gettysburg address, the Civil War was a long way from being over.  One reason this speech is considered such a classic text is that its wording leaves open the interpretation to include the Confederate dead in its scope, and to somehow find some redeeming virtue in their sacrifice.

I’m trying to keep this in mind as I follow the controversy over the photographs of the American soldiers’ coffins.  Rummy and/or the generals are reportedly upset:  Pentagon Angered by Soldier Coffin Photos  (AP) 04/22/04.

"Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified," said John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense.

Hesiod wonders if this statement may have been some kind of Freudian slip. He sensibly observes:

Note...can you identify any of of the soldiers, airmen or marines who were killed? I can't.

And is it "undignified" to show the photo? In what way? It's politically damaging, perhaps. But "undiginified?"

It sure as hell isn't "unwarranted," given the number of troops we are losing in Iraq.

One is that, as in the examples Hedges cites or with Lincoln at Gettysburg, recognizing the dead is used to sanctify the cause.  There’s nothing inherent in seeing flag-draped coffins that would elicit an antiwar response.  On the contrary, for many it will be an emotional encouragement to support the war to avenge the killers of our brave fallen soldiers.

So why do the war fans, including the Bush Administration, automatically think it damages the prowar cause to have those photographs published?

I’m not at all satisfied I know the answer to that question.  Part of it is the sloppy lesson that the Republican conservatives and many military officers learned from Vietnam: that TV coverage undercut support for the war.  That idea, by the way, is also accepted without much question by those who were actively opposed to the Vietnam War.  But I think that it’s, at best, a misreading of how the media coverage worked.  And maybe just flat-out wrong.

But many war managers decided that one lesson of the Vietnam War was to make sure that even more happy talk and even fewer disturbing images made in into the news.  Republican conservatives embraced the idea because it fits perfectly with the core mission of the Republican Party, to comfort the comfortable.  What they missed was that the “credibility gap” of the Vietnam era came about because the civilian and military leaders kept over-stating the progress that was being made, minimizing the problems and promising the famous light at the end of the tunnel.

Eventually, reality crashed in hard.  And more and more people stopped believing the happy talk.  Ironically, by learning the wrong lesson, the civilian and military leaders have created a new credibility gap over the Iraq War far more quickly than occurred with the Vietnam War.

In other words, if people believe in the cause, dignified images of the dead can function as Lincoln tried to encourage in the Gettysburg address.  If people are losing confidence in the cause, its progress and the leaders of the war, it may have more the opposite effect.

Kevin Drum managed to say something like that much more succinctly than I just did:

And I just don't get it. I don't even support the war, but if anything these pictures might push me in that direction, not the opposite. It's almost impossible not to be moved by these photos, and impossible not to recognize from them how much care is taken with the bodies and how seriously these deaths are taken.

The Bush administration's political judgment is obvious: pictures of dead soldiers on the front pages of newspapers will turn people against the war. And maybe they're right. But my guess is different: seeing these pictures would make most Americans feel pride in their country and determined that these lives not be lost in vain. On the other hand, hiding the pictures just makes it look like the administration is ashamed of its war.

This Christian Science Monitor article, for instance, profiles two-star general Alfred Valenzuela, who has made it his particular mission to attend funerals of our current war dead and remind the public of the sacrifice they have made:   A general of taps and tears 04/22/04.  Valenzuela sounds like a thoroughly decent guy who’s doing a genuinely patriotic service.  But he repeats the myth of the anti-veteran bias of the anti-Vietnam War movement, quite possibly without knowing how outrageously false it is:

"They need to feel that the public is supporting them," he says. "I'm not sure I saw that inthe early '70s." …

He heard stories of his father and uncles returning as heroes from World War II, but watched boys of his own generation return from wars as pariahs, with fruit thrown at them on the streets and protesters along parade routes. He took away a firm sense of the importance of a unified front. (my emphasis)

Just to be doubly clear, I think what Valenzuela is doing today for those who lost their lives in combat is admirable and patriotic in the very best sense.  But the fact that he believes in that particular myth without question shows how widespread that image is. 

If such scenes ever happened at all during the protests against the Vietnam War, they were very rare indeed.  Antiwar protesters did not target veterans.  In fact, many veterans like John Kerry were active leaders and participants in the antiwar movement and they were welcomed by non-veteran activists.  The antiwar activists actually made great efforts to reach out to veterans and to active duty servicepeople, through approaches like off-base soldiers’ coffeehouses, which was quite an active thing in the early 1970s. 

Protesters did, however, often taken actions like blocking buses that were taking inductee into the Army.  But those protests were very obviously aimed at preventing the individuals from being sent to a war the protesters considered unjust.  Whether the draftees individually agreed with them or not, most of them understood that the protesters meant it as a gesture of support to the draftees.  As the lyrics to a 1965 Pete Seeger song put it, “If you love your Uncle Sam/Support our boys in Vietnam/Bring ‘em home, bring ‘em home.”

Valenzuela seems to have blurred a common aspect as the folklore, though.  During the Gulf War, the most popular version of the story was that protesters targeted veterans, and that Vietnam veterans were not given the victory parades that World War II veterans had.  In fact, most returning World War II veterans returned individually or in small groups when they were released from the service, just as Vietnam veterans did.  Victory parades were more the exception than the rule in their experience, as well.  Valenzuela’s comments has the Vietnam vets being the targets of protests and fruit-tossing while they were in parades.

So, one thing I’m watching carefully these days, as we have large numbersof troops beginning to return from Iraq, is to see how their public reception goes.  So far, I haven’t heard of a single antiwar protest aimed at returning veterans.  Nor of any veterans spat upon, nor having a tomato tossed at them.

It’s also worth paying close attention to the comments of their families of the fallen who choose to speak to the press.  Some of them echo comments like the one quoted from Valenzuela above, which seems to equate honoring the troops with supporting George Bush’s war policies. 

But the Monitor article quotes an uncle of Adolfo Cesar Carballo, killed in the Iraq War, whose funeral Valenzuela attended, as follows:

Back at Carballo's funeral, though, grief is still strong and understanding a little less evident. His uncle, for instance, wishes President Bush had a close relative fighting in the war so that he could better understand the families' terror.

"We're not bitter, but I would like for President Bush to reconsider what we're doing over there. These kids are flesh and bone, not just numbers or statistics," says Jose Angel Carballo, watching hundreds of friends and family make their way past the casket, shuffling, crying,reaching out to touch the coffin before they move on.

His friends remember Adolfo as shy and helpful, caring and dependable, a confidente and role model for many. He fell in love with weapons early and spent four years on Reagan High School's ROTC drill team. After graduation, he immediately enrolled in the Army, and planned on becoming a police officer when he got out.

Often, in letters and phone calls home, he would mention his fear of dying.

His story is not atypical of the others Valenzuela has heard. Most of those he'sburied joined the Army for an education and knew the dangers they faced. Five were noncitizens. Seven were only sons and two, only daughters.

If Valenzuela has encountered any hostility or protests or expressions of disrespect aimed at the dead soldiers or their families, the article does not report it.  But the last paragraph quoted indicates that Carballo’s grieving uncle is not the only survivor with doubts about Bush’s war policies that he’s encountered.

I'm quite sure it won't be the last.