Of late, Cora has been falling asleep at night holding onto a fistful of my beard. This little 18 pound sweetheart grabs the whiskers of her irascible 215 pound dad to feel secure as she sleeps. As she lays there in my arms, I swear that she’ll experience no harm that I can prevent or absorb.
I can imagine fathers in Baghdad whose children fall asleep the same way. Those children look to their dads for protection, and those dads feel duty-bound to defend their children from harm. If bombs rain down there those fathers may lose their children, and I feel for them. If bombs rain down there those children may lose their fathers, and I feel for them.
In President Bush’s state of the union address the other night, he mentioned going to war with Iraq to stop a madman. He simplified the question to something along the lines of, “Do you want to stop a madman? Yes or no?” This simplification glosses over the losses of those defenseless children and their protective fathers.
I understand that, rhetorically, one achieves persuasive potency by making an issue black and white and excluding any middle grey areas. But I don’t trust an argument that glosses over the killing of one group of innocent people to protect the lives of another group of innocent people. The true face of “collateral damage” should not be left out of the argument in an attempt to reduce political wind drag with middle America. Call attention to the inevitable civilian losses. Let me see that the man setting them in motion understands the gravity of his decision. Give me the reassurance of knowing that it bothers him.