Americans aren’t buying the ‘dying in vain’ argument

December 15, 2006

There are plenty of advocates offering a variety of arguments for leaving U.S. troops in Iraq, all of which I disagree with, but some of which have a reasonable basis in reality. This, from the president, isn’t one of them: (via Dan Froomkin)

“I met too many wives and husbands who have lost their partners in life, too many children who won’t ever see their mom and dad again. I owe it to them and to the families who still have loved ones in harm’s way to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.”

Troops have died in Iraq, so to leave now would be to betray the memory of the fallen. Or so the argument goes.

It’s always been the argument that bothered me most, because it’s an emotional appeal that gets the logic backwards. The president need not put other troops at risk to honor the troops who have already died. As Froomkin put it, “Bush is certainly far from alone in being moved by the sacrifices of those in uniform. And nobody wants to believe that soldiers have died in vain. But if they have, sending more soldiers to die after them doesn’t make it better — it only makes it worse.”

My concern is that the argument may be wrong, but it sounds persuasive. Fortunately, public opinion shows otherwise. The latest NBC/WSJ poll found that “even this potent attempt to pull on American heartstrings isn’t enough to overcome the public’s profound distaste for the current effort.”

The poll asked: “Do you think the United States has an obligation to American soldiers who have been killed or wounded in Iraq to remain in Iraq until the mission there is completed, or not?”

A stunning 53 percent of respondents said the U.S. has no such obligation, compared to 39 percent who say it does.

That’s very encouraging. Ideally, the majority would be even higher, but it’s nevertheless an indication that the “dying in vain” argument, while painful, isn’t working. John Kerry’s poignant 1971 question — “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” — still resonates.

It looks like war supporters will need some other kind of demagoguery.

I don’t mean to seem callous here but our men and women have died in vain. The only legitimate reason Bush could have had to go to war was to protect America from Hussein’s WMD. There were none. They have died to protect this nation from a chimera. Now we are fighting only to protect Bush’s vanity.

  • I’m stunned that 53% of Americans understand the concept of sunk costs (either that or Iraq is so bad that they don’t care).

  • The 39 percent number may be as high as it is because the polling question sounds like a tautological, common-sense statement about how anyone would think a county should use its army- of course we should stay until just the right time to leave, so as to not be derelict in duty. Just begs the question of whether some points over the past 3, 2, 2 1/2, 1 year, all points over those past years, or whatever, have been the time to leave because it’s been clear that the mission was not something that could be improved.

  • I’d update Kerry’s question, given that Iraq looks endless to Bush: “How do you ask a man to be the next man to die for a mistake? And how do you ask the rest of the country to keep sending people to die after him?”

    I wouldn’t presume to speak for the dead, but I think it’s fair to question Bush’s assumption, that the best way for the living to honor the dead is to join them and die. That seems pretty goddamn presumptuous, to say the least.

  • I hate this argument too, because arguments like this one (based solely on emotion) cannot be reasoned with. But reason we must…

    By the “died in vain” argument, as soon as one person dies in a conflict we have an unending obligation to pour in an unlimited number of people and “finish the job”.

    So, Mr Bush, do we need to “finish the job” in Somalia? If not, why not? American soldiers died there, right? And why did Saint Ronny the Forgetful pull out of Beirut?

    I’m glad 53% of us can see past the bullshit, but the 39% are troubling. We need to apply emotional arguments to these people, because logic isn’t getting to them.

  • Shorter Bush:
    “I don’t care if more people die or get maimed, ’cause I don’t want to look like an idiot asshole. Heh Heh.”
    If there’s a Hell, he’s gonna get boned by Satan repeatedly.
    Unless he’s actually into that….

  • That seems pretty goddamn presumptuous, to say the least.

    Not the least because war cheerleaders like Jonah Goldberg and their ilk aere notably reticent abotu joining our soldiers in making the sacrifices they do.

  • This is not a surprise at all. Based upon Bush’s business track record he obviously does not understand the concept of not throwing good money after bad money.

    Maybe teh Dems need to start asking if Bush and Cheney are emotionally invested too much to make good decisions on Iraq. Suggesting that these Texas men’s men are too touchy feely and emotional should really piss them off. Bleeding heart Neocons! I like the sound of that!

  • Follow up question for the 39 %: When do you think the mission will probably be over (i.e., we’ve done all we can so it’s time to get out of there) – within six months?

    If ten or twelve percent out of 39 % say yes to that, then really it’s more like 65% are seeing that argument our way.

  • “Bush is certainly far from alone in being moved by the sacrifices of those in uniform.” Froomkin

    Shruby feels nothing but frustration that he’s inhibited from unleashing holy war. The soldiers having died in vain gambit is just that. A contrivance perpetrated in order to stay the course. A way to keep the cannon fodder pipeline filled, (barely). If Shrubwit could, he would conscript thousands upon thousands to fight his war. He would throw people and money at this thing until there was nothing left to throw and the drapes and furniture were in flames around him.

    Shruby is moved by the hindrances and inconveniences experienced by his corporate buddies. Nothing else is of any real consequence.

    Shruby is a defective unit.

  • Chris, that argument isn’t really an argument about honoring the dead, it’s an argument about what’s practical in the circumstances and what’s being practical enough to be decent- if we don’t put enough energy in to an effort, then it’s not worth the costs we gave for it, and therefore it’s kind of crummy for us to act that way towards the families of the fallen troops and the fallen troops.

    The problem with the argument is the assumption that you just stop thinking about whether the war was right, was worthwhile, or can ever be worthwhile just because some people from our side have already died. A smart Republican will say that Bush is implicitly answering yes, but that’s not the problem with the argument- if he wants to argue those points to those who doubt them, he’s free- and it seems advisable- to do so. The problem with the argument is that to a lot of people who hear it, it’s going to be deceptive- they’re not going to be hearing an implicit argument just because it’s the implicit argument that makes the most sense, they’re going to be hearing the implicit argument which is the most simple: once American troops have died, other questions about why we’re there kind of don’t matter anymore. Just try to win and don’t worry about anything. That’s a shoddy attitude to have towards troops. And of course it’s a really impractical, ineffective way to run the country- so encouraging the people to think this way is leading them astray. Bush is using a deceptive, rhetorical argument, and whoever gave it to him to use doesn’t care about people, just cares about himself.

  • If you want to honor the troops, then first, use them well. And that means first and foremost not wasting lives. That means that sometimes you sacrifice a tactical goal even when some people have died to achieve it already when risking more lives to achieve it isn’t going to be worthwhile.

    Other honors that are purely symbolic can be a deception just as easily as they can be honest displays of gratitude.

  • Back in 1984, Bush 1 (then the VP debating with Geraldine Ferraro) used a similar argument.

    Bush nearly squandered his debate performance, however, by refusing to back away from his erroneous assertion that his Democratic opponents had said that American Marines killed by terrorists in Beirut had “died in shame.”

    People who think the first President Bush was so much better than the current one should bear in mind that Bush 1 wasn’t any great statesman either.

  • In the meantime, our illustrious President says he will reject all options that would not allow us to “complete the job.” The dying in vain argument is a fallacy, but more diabolical, what just exactly is the “job” our Mr. President needs to complete?
    He will try and try again to get us to chase our tails with his sophomoric rhetoric. The poll figure above is heartening, as I think it may indicate that Americans are more actively thinking about the fine mess Mr. Bush has made for all of us. -Kevo

  • Swan, I’m not sure I understand your reply to my comment (I’m having trouble sorting out what Bush said, what Bush could’ve said if he wanted to make a stronger argument, whether my comment took one or both of those things into account accurately and concisely and countered them well, and, well, you can see how easily I might confuse myself just from this explanation).

    So, I’ll take another whack at explaining what I meant: I think Bush is so sure of himself and the righteousness of his cause that he doesn’t *care* how many people get killed in Iraq. I think he’s using the “died in vain” line to keep the rest of us from questioning his plan and what I see as his death wish for others, because while I *can’t* say that he *definitely* wants anyone to die, I *can* say that I think it’s obvious he doesn’t give a fuck about how many people get killed for his cause, and he is taking *no* steps to save any American lives because he thinks that would be tantamount to compromising his moral certainty. And I think that justifies saying that *he* thinks the best way for the living to honor the dead is for them to join them and die, because I think we should force him to admit or deny that’s what he’s thinking, because it’s the *result* of what he’s *doing*, and I think people (not to all anyone out; I’m just saying there’s gratuitous discussion in the media of this issue) obsess needlessly over whether it’s something he *wants* or *intends*.

    (I’ll admit I’m not sure that clarified anything, though 😉

  • once American troops have died, other questions about why we’re there kind of don’t matter anymore. Just try to win

    The reason why what Bush and his speechwriter are doing is wrong is that the implicit argument they are making is wrong, but if it persuades people then it takes the burden off of them from having to make the case about why the war was right and why it’s winnable. So it makes it easier for them to get the American people to do something that they shouldn’t really do and maybe they’d figure out they shouldn’t really do if it was argued out more. When there are so many facts that point the other way and show that maybe the war is unwinnable, this is an unethical argument to make.

  • Bush believes that when you’ve dug yourself into a deep hole, the only thing left is to keep digging that hole deeper. If it were just him down there I’d say “no loss; keep at it”. Trouble is his digging tools are the lives and limbs and minds of well-meaning Americans. Bush will no doubt skip away from this disaster as he has all the others in his rotten life. Bastard.

  • Chris, the conclusion of the President’s argument is about honoring the dead, but the premise of the argument is about doing what’s practical. The President isn’t doing enough to account for the premises, and that’s why the argument is flawed. Obviously, we should want to know whether the war is worthwhile or not or winnable or not if we’re concerned about wasting lives- why isn’t the president talking about this?

    That’s all I meant.

    If the president should know better than to make this argument, then the argument is unethical. The president is being patronizing.

  • Thanks, Swan – I think that’s exactly where my comprehension broke down, the blurring of honor and practicality and how the two intersect for anyone who tries to decide what can be done and what should be done. And, of course, we have a president who’s intent on continuing the war, by any means necessary, using any argument necessary (for an example of how his supporters think – essentially, any rationalization in a storm – someone – TAPPED, maybe? – had a snippet of Jonah Goldberg’s argument now about how we shouldn’t have expected much from Iraq in the way of democracy, but we still should’ve gone in), and playing a shell game with logic and lives.

    Also, I like the idea of calling Bush unethical and patronizing. I’d call him those things, among others, but I’m astounded that there are people who won’t even recognize that he qualifies for either of those adjectives…

  • He doesn’t want the lives lost to be in vain, but he also doesn’t want to be “rushed” into adapting a new Iraq strategy. This might just be me, but if you’re so concerned about the lives lost, wouldn’t you tell your administration, “alright, we’re not leaving Washington until we figure out how to win in Iraq.” And if anyone complains, tell them that the troops overseas don’t get a holiday with their families, so quit your bitching or get out of my office.

    Oh, wait, that would come from an President who actually gave a shit. Sorry, my bad.

  • I’d be interested in hearing what the ‘cut and run’ advocates, of all stripes, who resolutely conclude that absolutely no good can come from America’s continuing presence, forsee for Iraq and the ME in 5 and 10 years. Surely their prescience must also include what will happen if we do leave.

  • What a quandary: to think that soldiers may die in vain or to think a greater number should die for some vain men!

    Our troops conquered a country, proved that no WMD will attack our country, and when they conquored Iraq it had few if any terrorists wanting to attack the US. Sounds like an honorable win to me. Dying for an occupation that a president wants to continue for unknown benefit to the population these soldiers came from, now that’s dying in vain. Painting a rosy legacy for W and Cheney is nothing anyone else should die for. I suppose in Bush’s view, no one in Jonestown, Guyana died in vain because everyone there died for their leader, down to the last child.

  • The died-in-vain idea is what Harry Browne called the previous investment trap. It would only be valid if we were close to accomplishing something with closure. But we’re not moving toward anything. The question I think people want Bush to ask is, “With things as they are how do we proceed from here?” Unfortunately Bush is “in it to win it” and maybe even thinks he can “win”.

    I’ve flipflopped on Bush’s laziness about announcing his New Way Forward, anything Bush does will make things worse anyway. So what’s the hurry

    A rational person treats a mistake as a learning experience, an irrational person thinks a mistake is a defect in reality.

  • Leave it to the dry drunk draft dodger to make being killed or maimed because he’s a liar sound like an honour.

    As for why people don’t buy his latest sound bite, I think it is due to the fact that he has so little credibility left, period. If he said the sky is blue people would check. So if he says pulling out now (to stop the deaths and woundings) would some how make the previous deaths less…what? Noble? Valiant? Whatever, people don’t believe it because he’s the one saying it.

    The evil simian is still operating in the “They believe me because I’m prezident,” mode. He doesn’t realize America sees him as the snake oil salesman who didn’t git while the gittin’ was good. At this rate he’s very close to the tar, feathers and quick ride on a rail treatment.

  • I think the ‘died in vein’ is a typical wrong point of view arguement. Our soldiers, from their (and my) point of view, died for our country, not in vein. From Bush’s point of view, whether they died in vein depends on whether we win or not.

  • “I met too many wives and husbands who have lost their partners in life, too many children who won’t ever see their mom and dad again. I owe it to them and to the families who still have loved ones in harm’s way to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.”

    He’s conflating two totally different groups of families — those who’ve already lost someone and those who’re dreading the news daily. You can bet your bottom dollar, that the second group wants their loved ones out of harm’s way as soon as humanly possible, preferably by Christmas. With the first group, he’s assuming that all of them are of the “misery loves company”persuasion, which is a lot of hooey. If that were true, there’d never be groups, organised by parents, which are formmed specifically to prevent happening what had happened to their children (various laws against pedofiles, against drunken drivers, mothers for peace etc).

    He’s just so full Bu..Sh.. it’s unbelievable.

  • From whatever moron it was who wasn’t able to push out the people in the cave the next valley over, telling those in the tribe that “We can’t let Orgh and Morgh die in vain, can we” to today, every worthless asshole who gets in over their head with their little wargame starts crying “we can’t let them die in vain!”

    Of course not, we have to have the proper number of those who Died In Vain before we can do anything else.

    Look at history. You can count on one hand the wars that weren’t a case of where everybody who died, died in vain.

    Fuckwits.

    • Comments are closed.