Baghdad ER - The Movie
The Independent reports: "This Sunday, subscribers to the American cable channel Home Box Office will be treated to a film about the Iraq war unlike any other. Almost at the start, you see a medical orderly carrying a human arm, amputated above the elbow, which he puts into a red plastic bag."
I am reminded of my time as a combat medic working as a psychiatric technician at Brooke Army Medical Center during the Viet Nam war. I had occasion to head over to the burn unit where debrising tubs (vats of antiseptic water in which burn patients were placed in order to cut from their bodies the dead and dying flesh) were mostly empty. Only one patient as I recall was in a tub. There were no screams, as there often were there. I was spared that bone chilling experience. But, I can never, ever, get the smell of the burn unit out of my memory.
Other memories include conversations with a patient with no nose; only gaping empty holes winding back deep into his head sat 1/4 inch below those eyes I was committed to talk to. I was supposed to see the soldier, not the horror of his injuries. But, it was all I could muster to not avert my eyes from his eyes atop the deep red caves in his face. And I can never forget the tears I shed when news reached me that a patient on my unit had jumped from the 3rd floor window during lunch. Last I heard, he survived with half the bones in his body shattered: as if his psychological pain were not enough.
I was a Buddhist before entering the military to become a medical person to help those maimed and injured in Viet Nam. I am still a Buddhist today. I like to believe that if I had been sent to Viet Nam, that I would not have chosen to kill another human being nor run. But, no one going to Viet Nam knew what they were going to do in a firefight until they were there and in it. Did my experience working with the casualties of the Viet Nam war change my views on war as many fear the documentary Baghdad ER might for viewing audiences? No.
I enlisted in the Army knowing I opposed the war in Viet Nam. I enlisted in the Army hoping to aid and comfort our soldiers trapped by law and love of country into fighting it, and injured and maimed from it. I enlisted in the Army also because I was poor, and the GI Bill was the only way I was ever going to be able to afford to go to college. I enlisted in the Army
believing there are times when war is inevitable, as when an aggressor seeks to take all that you have and all that you are, from you. The Viet Nam War was not such a case. But, many believed it was.
I still believe that today I would fight to defend my daughter's homeland when attacked. I believe al-Queda still wishes to harm my daughter's homeland and I support our military's efforts to eradicate the al-Queda and the Taliban that support and nurture these butchering attacks on us and so many other nation's peoples. I still believe today, that like the Viet Nam War, the greatest evil humanity can commit is to elect war when other options remain open. I held all these beliefs before I confronted the shattered lives, broken psyches and torn and ripped bodies of our soldiers returning to Brooke Army Medical Center during Viet Nam. I hold all these same beliefs still today, just more fervently.
I opposed this elective war in Iraq when it was still being discussed as an option. I oppose it all the more today, for it has created far more pain and evil in the form of human carnage and suffering for Iraqis and coalition soldiers than leaving Saddam Hussein in power and in check ever would have.
So, will the airing of Baghdad ER on TV to our troops and our civilian population alter public opinion about, and support for, the war in Iraq? I doubt it. It will make beliefs already held stronger. But, it will not change most people's beliefs about the Iraq War. A majority of Americans already believe Iraq was a mistake. Baghdad ER will not change that. The majority in our government believe we have no option but to continue fighting in Iraq. Baghdad ER will not change their minds.
The only thing that will change our politician's pursuit of this war in Iraq is being voted out of office. Challengers will follow the policy dictated by public polls which say find an end to this war and bring our troops out of Iraq. Incumbents who voted to go to war in Iraq have a vested interest in continuing the war in hopes of finding dignity and victory in it. They seek vindication for their decision and no cost is too large to acquire that vindication. But such vindication could be decades away, if it exists at all. Baghdad ER is not going to bring the war in Iraq to an end. Only voters can do that in November's elections.
Comments
David R. Remer,
That was moving.
Thank you for that.
Thank you for your service to your country.
And, thank you for VOID, whose goal of educating voters is important to help prevent these things from happening in the first place.
The history of the U.S. shows we have been in several wars that are unnecessary. Korea, Vietnam, the first Iraq War, and the 2nd Iraq war were not absolutely necessary wars. And, what good came of those wars?
According to the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, is states:
However, spineless, do-nothing, irresponsible incumbents in Congress did everything they could to avoid making such a declaration of war with Iraq, because they lack the spine and courage to do so.
Congress has shirked their duty in every war since WWII, leaving the decisions to the Executive Branch. That has been a huge mistake.
Hence, irresponsible incumbents in congress would rather give that duty to the President than ever risk making any tough decisions that may possibly risk their re-election. Thus, you can't even get a YES or NO out of them.
Congress, almost all 535 of them, refused to officially declare war, which is exactly what it is. Not just a police action. We invaded and are occupying Iraq. And, the longer we stay there, the more suspicious the motives appear.
Irresponsible incumbents n Congress want to straddle the fence and be on all sides, so that, if the war goes badly, they can weasel out of it, and if it goes well, they can take credit for it. They accomplished that with a nebulous half-assed vote, and an purposely confusing "authorizations" that they can back double-talk their way out of later if necessary.
So, Congress effectively transferred its authority to declare war to the President. Congress not only violated the Constitution, but also sold out the American people by doing so.
Only Congress should decide whether to go to war. Not the President. Therefore, if Congress believes war is justified, Congress should provide the means to prosecute the war effectively.
The fact is, Congress is inept and don't even understand the Constitution.
Some day, soon I hope, slumbering voters will wake the hell up and start holding these irresponsible incumbents accountable. If not, voters have only themselves to thank for it.
In World War II, Congress declared war against Japan and Germany. There was none of this irresponsible-wishy-washy-cowardly nonsense like our congress today, as it shirks one of its most import duties. Shame on them, and shame on voters for tolerating it.
Posted by: d.a.n | May 18, 2006 7:47 PM
Thank you for serving our nation, and more importantly our soldiers, in Viet Nam. That was a difficult choice to make and I honor you for choosing the path that you did.
While I disagree that going into Iraq was a mistake--I personally believe that war with Saddam Hussein was inevitable, and if not him, than war with one of his sons--I do agree, now, that the timing was poor. The strategy was poor. The circumstances were wrong. Iraq was not a threat to us, as Bush claimed, but we were a threat to the Iraqi people for helping to put Hussein into his position of power. We helped place him there, and in a very real sense, we had a responsibility to rectify our error. More importantly, we have a responsibility to prevent making the same mistake in the future--which our government does not seem moved to do.
Though, I do not watch cable and will not see this movie, I do agree that it is not going to change people's minds. While, I'm sure there are still those out there who do not understand that war is bloody, gruesome and costly in ways that far surpass the monetary costs of such ventures, material like this is probably not going to move them to understand it.
Posted by: Stephanie Crist | May 19, 2006 3:39 AM
Thanks Dan and Stephanie for the comments.
Congress ceding war powers to the Oval Office has been going on in increments for decades. The Oval Office does and should have the Constitutional Authority to engage the military in the event of an attack or in the event of an imminent attack.
But the Oval Office's current power to engage our military overseas absent attack on our shores or imminent attack, must be taken back by Congress. The temptation to use the military for political reasons has just shot through the roof.
Posted by: David R. Remer | May 19, 2006 6:35 PM