Left exploits troop deaths

Ralph Peters:

LAST Saturday, as the num ber of American fighting men and women killed in Iraq approached 4,000, my wife and I crawled through traffic in the DC suburbs - in the safety, prosperity and congestion that our troops guarantee with their lives.

Up ahead by a traffic light, an unkempt figure held up a hand-lettered sign. But as we inched forward, I realized this was no homeless person.

The man was scrawny and middle-aged, with mad-scientist hair and a wispy beard that proclaimed he had no wife to discipline him - but his clothing was clean (if sloppy). He just looked like one of those guys who nurse their coffee far too long at Starbucks on the weekends.

His sign said: SUPPORT TROOPS BRING HOME. Stingy with definite articles and punctuation, the poor devil seemed as if his cause had been chosen at random, as if he would have been equally distraught over UFO "coverups."

As we passed him by, I would've bet my life that I could tell you three facts about him: He'd never served in our military and didn't know anyone in uniform; he had nothing better to do on that lovely afternoon - and he was a Barack Obama supporter.

Since that lonely activist sighting, our war dead in Iraq reached the 4,000 mark after five full years of war. Historically, and given the scope of the conflict, the figure's remarkably low. Yet, as a former soldier, I know it's a foul against the families to argue either that our casualties are limited or exorbitant. For those who lose a loved one, that single casualty might as well be a million.

Soldiers die in war. They always will. They know that when they sign up or re-enlist. Nonetheless, our nation's leaders have the responsibility to employ our troops as wisely as possible and never to squander their lives for political ends.

As we reached the 4,000th service-member killed in action, I found myself disgusted with both the Bush administration and its irresponsible, cynical opponents. The slogan, "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home," may be the most dishonest that ever intruded on American politics - but the war's original sponsors haven't rushed their own kids to the recruiting office, either.

...

For his part, Sen. Obama at least has the integrity to not even pretend he cares about the troops - he doesn't go anyplace more dangerous than a Chicago church pew. No recent aspirant for the Oval Office has known or cared so little about our military.

...

We also face, for the first time, national-level leaders who would rather lose a war than lose an election.

...

Peters seems to be angry with everyone, but his fire should be directed at Democrats and the left. They are the ones who are using the sacrifice of these troops as props in their political campaign to lose the war. Their goal is not to prevent the death of troops, but to lsoe the war anyway they can. They should be the objects of our disgust.

I will throw the media into my disgust bucket too this morning because they are playing numerology games with the 4000th death as though it is somehow more important than the first or more meaningful than the 3999th. Historical context is missing in this rush to exploit the 4000th for political purposes by those who want to lose. It should also be noted that not all 4000 are combat deaths, but deaths from all causes including accidents and illness. Will they put us through this same charade when we get to the 4000th combat death?

Investor's Business Daily writes an editorial that captures the truth about these stories on the numbers and the opponents of the war.