thedrifter
01-18-07, 09:15 AM
THE WAY WE FIGHT
Thursday, January 18, 2007
David Reinhard
The Oregonian
B arbara Boxer and Jason Dunham -- it's a mark of our tarnished age that you're far more likely to know about her than him, especially after last Thursday. Boxer is, after all, a U.S. senator. Dunham was a soldier in the war that the California Democrat opposes.
Even if you're not up on senators' names, Boxer is the one who gained notoriety last week for the low-rent grilling she gave Condoleezza Rice on President Bush's new Iraq war strategy. "Who pays the price?" Boxer asked the secretary of state at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family."
The 52-year-old Rice, of course, is unmarried and has no children. Boxer thinks this somehow matters.
Let's assume Boxer wasn't being cruel. Let's assume she wasn't getting personal with Rice. Let's examine her argument on its own frail terms.
Was Boxer really saying that only someone with children or grandchildren of military age should have a say on matters of war and peace? That would silence lots of Americans, including career women with no children. As Rice noted a day after Boxer's ad hominem sally, "I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids."
Or was Boxer going further and saying that only kid-qualified Americans have any standing to favor this or any other war? How convenient. Other Americans must take Boxer's anti-war stand or no stand at all. You can see why it's a favorite approach of anti-war ideologues, but it's a self-serving, adolescent and disenfranchising argument. It's also offensive -- emasculating, you might say -- to the men and women who volunteer to fight in our military. Haven't these adults made their own decisions to serve?
In full damage-control mode Friday, Boxer said she was simply trying "to focus attention on our military families." Right. Old Barbara -- just thinking about our military families. Please.
One of those families was in Washington, D.C., that same day. Dan and Deb Dunham were at the White House for a presentation of the Congressional Medal of Honor to their son, Cpl. Jason Dunham.
In a better age, in a different war, last Thursday would have been Dunham's day, and not Barbara Boxer's. It would have been so much more edifying.
Dunham didn't become a Marine because he had nothing better to do. Even in high school he was special -- a gifted athlete, a natural leader, a big-hearted guy who looked out for less-popular kids. Dunham also was in Iraq by choice in April 2004. He could have been home. He extended his stay to see that all his guys made it home. His men. His decision. He was, said a fellow Marine and friend, the toughest Marine and the nicest guy.
On April 14, 2004, Dunham and his troops responded when a roadside bomb hit a Marine convoy. An insurgent jumped out of a car and assaulted Dunham. As they scuffled, the insurgent rolled out a hidden grenade. Dunham instantly threw himself on it, trying to block the blast with his helmet and body. His action saved the lives of two Marines. Badly injured, Dunham was transported to Maryland. A week later he died at the National Naval Medical Center, his parents and a small corps of Marines at his bedside.
Last week Cpl. Dunham became only the second Iraq war soldier to receive the Medal of Honor.
Of course, the families of our fallen have a right to speak up about the war -- in some ways a greater right than the rest of us. But their status as survivors gives them no special wisdom on a war's rightness or wrongness or, as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd declared in the context of Cindy Sheehan's anti-war antics, "absolute moral authority." Sorry, it just doesn't, and that's true whether they oppose or support the war in their grief. Indeed, in some ways, exploiting a soldier's death to further one's own views can diminish a soldier's sacrifice or heroism.
Did Dan and Deb Dunham want to say anything about Bush's new war strategy last Thursday? Oh, they were asked often, and it must have been tempting to answer, one way or another. But, no, the Dunhams told one interviewer, "Today's not about that."
What class. Like father and mother, like son.
And unlike Barbara Boxer.
David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com.
Ellie
Thursday, January 18, 2007
David Reinhard
The Oregonian
B arbara Boxer and Jason Dunham -- it's a mark of our tarnished age that you're far more likely to know about her than him, especially after last Thursday. Boxer is, after all, a U.S. senator. Dunham was a soldier in the war that the California Democrat opposes.
Even if you're not up on senators' names, Boxer is the one who gained notoriety last week for the low-rent grilling she gave Condoleezza Rice on President Bush's new Iraq war strategy. "Who pays the price?" Boxer asked the secretary of state at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family."
The 52-year-old Rice, of course, is unmarried and has no children. Boxer thinks this somehow matters.
Let's assume Boxer wasn't being cruel. Let's assume she wasn't getting personal with Rice. Let's examine her argument on its own frail terms.
Was Boxer really saying that only someone with children or grandchildren of military age should have a say on matters of war and peace? That would silence lots of Americans, including career women with no children. As Rice noted a day after Boxer's ad hominem sally, "I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids."
Or was Boxer going further and saying that only kid-qualified Americans have any standing to favor this or any other war? How convenient. Other Americans must take Boxer's anti-war stand or no stand at all. You can see why it's a favorite approach of anti-war ideologues, but it's a self-serving, adolescent and disenfranchising argument. It's also offensive -- emasculating, you might say -- to the men and women who volunteer to fight in our military. Haven't these adults made their own decisions to serve?
In full damage-control mode Friday, Boxer said she was simply trying "to focus attention on our military families." Right. Old Barbara -- just thinking about our military families. Please.
One of those families was in Washington, D.C., that same day. Dan and Deb Dunham were at the White House for a presentation of the Congressional Medal of Honor to their son, Cpl. Jason Dunham.
In a better age, in a different war, last Thursday would have been Dunham's day, and not Barbara Boxer's. It would have been so much more edifying.
Dunham didn't become a Marine because he had nothing better to do. Even in high school he was special -- a gifted athlete, a natural leader, a big-hearted guy who looked out for less-popular kids. Dunham also was in Iraq by choice in April 2004. He could have been home. He extended his stay to see that all his guys made it home. His men. His decision. He was, said a fellow Marine and friend, the toughest Marine and the nicest guy.
On April 14, 2004, Dunham and his troops responded when a roadside bomb hit a Marine convoy. An insurgent jumped out of a car and assaulted Dunham. As they scuffled, the insurgent rolled out a hidden grenade. Dunham instantly threw himself on it, trying to block the blast with his helmet and body. His action saved the lives of two Marines. Badly injured, Dunham was transported to Maryland. A week later he died at the National Naval Medical Center, his parents and a small corps of Marines at his bedside.
Last week Cpl. Dunham became only the second Iraq war soldier to receive the Medal of Honor.
Of course, the families of our fallen have a right to speak up about the war -- in some ways a greater right than the rest of us. But their status as survivors gives them no special wisdom on a war's rightness or wrongness or, as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd declared in the context of Cindy Sheehan's anti-war antics, "absolute moral authority." Sorry, it just doesn't, and that's true whether they oppose or support the war in their grief. Indeed, in some ways, exploiting a soldier's death to further one's own views can diminish a soldier's sacrifice or heroism.
Did Dan and Deb Dunham want to say anything about Bush's new war strategy last Thursday? Oh, they were asked often, and it must have been tempting to answer, one way or another. But, no, the Dunhams told one interviewer, "Today's not about that."
What class. Like father and mother, like son.
And unlike Barbara Boxer.
David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com.
Ellie