War Weary

There are times when I am ashamed of my generation, although not for the reasons that you might assume. I am not naive enough to think that our generation is the first to struggle with difficult moral issues, and to be pulled through the mire of various kinds of depravities. Indeed, when it comes to being morally reprehensible, there is truly "nothing new under the sun."

What often disappoints me about my generation is the shocking lack of willingness that we have to defend ourselves and our culture from threats - and the weak-kneed lack of resolve to see even the most banal conflict through to its conclusion. Nowhere has this become more evident than in the current conflict in Iraq.

It has become a point of political extremism these days to point out the rather obvious fact that, in the historical scale of warfare, the casualties we have sustained in the Iraq war have been small. Infinitesimally small, in fact. Let it not be said that any of us would wish to minimize the lamentable loss of a single human life in warfare, much less approximately 1,800 in the same war. However, our respect for the dead and their sacrifice does not mean that we are obligated to abandon historical perspective in a sea of shrieking hysteria.

The reality is that 1,800 deaths casualties in a span of almost three years (approximately 600 per year, approximately 2 deaths per day) barely qualifies as warfare. Consider that, among a similar representative population in the United States, approximately 80 people will be murdered right here at home. In certain urban areas the number can rise as high as 300 per year or higher. In other words, there are certain areas of this country where innocent civilians are almost as likely to be killed by a flying bullet as our soldiers in Iraq are.

In further comparison to the wars of the past, our casualties in the Iraq war seem even smaller still. In a single day during a single batter (the battle of the Bulge) in World War II, it is estimated that over 5,000 U. S. soldiers died. Throughout the course of World War II, the greatest generation watched as hundreds of thousands of the best and brightest were forcibly drafted into a war to stop a madman who was terrorizing a far away continent, and further as over a hundred thousand of them died over a four year period. Even the widely disparaged Vietnam generation tolerated several years of forced enlistment, and much higher casualty rates without the benefit of an alternative media before becoming utterly war weary.

Our generation, on the other hand, in becoming weary of a war not yet three years old, fought by an army composed entirely of volunteers, in which we are suffering an average of two deaths per day, has demonstrated itself to be the most spineless and weak-kneed generation in recent American history. It is expected, given the way that post-invasion events have unfolded, to find a number of Americans disagreeing with our entrance in the war in the first place. It is unexcusable, on the other hand, to find the growing number of Americans who are now advocating immediate withdrawal, regardless of the future consequences upon the strength of our bargaining posture. This is nothing more than war weariness, and we have not yet earned the right as a generation to be weary of this war.

Part of the issue here, regrettably comes down to our President. It is true we should not have to be handheld through this conflict. However, it is equally true that we have demonstrated that we must have our hands held, if we are willing to stay the course. I have a sense that our generation is ready for more greatness and resolve that it has currently shown. However, we must be dragged, kicking and screaming, if we are to achieve it. The President should realize this. It is not difficult to perceive how many have forgotten the importance of this war, the other reasons besides WMDs that we fought it, and the disastrous consequences of demonstrating to your enemy that you can be defeated by constant irritation. These fears can be allayed by a constant and determined communicator. It is not that this President cannot be that communicator. It is rather that he will not.

The liberals in this country love to berate the President for spending so much time in Crawford, accusing him of taking a five week "vacation." Honest folks know, however, that the job of being President never stops, regardless of where the President is. One of the things that Conservatives like about Bush is that he genuinely seems to dislike Washington, and being there. However, it is time to criticize the President for being in Crawford for so long for an entirely different reason. During this critical juncture in the war, when even prominent members of his own party are publicly defecting over the war, the President should have been using this time taking his message to the American people. We will not lose this war militarily, we will only lose it politically. For the President to ignore this reality and spend five weeks in Crawford while his detractors flail away at his policy and the public at home grows increasingly war weary is tantamount to neglecting his duty in the prosecution of this war. Sometimes, a President who wishes to be perceived as a man of strength and conviction, as the President claims to be, must do things he should not have to do for the sake of the cause he believes in.

I call upon the President to do so now. Remind us now, and remind us often, why this war is worth fighting. And remind us, most importantly of all, even for those who simply will not agree that the war is worth fighting, why immediate withdrawal represents disaster, and will cost more American lives in the long run than staying the course until the conflict is done.

UPDATE: Welcome, readers of the Daou Report! I can always tell when I've been linked by a liberal hotspot because the quality of the commentary around here relentlessly goes up, up, up!

A very few commenters have made some actual arguments (I seem to recall one in particular that talked about an "America as bully" perception, I'll try to deal with that later tonight or tomorrow when I have time), but most have been exactly as relevant to this discussion as the comment, "I like fried chicken!" Most frequently, I am accused of being a chickenhawk, a coward, or by people with enough sense not to actually argue ad hominem without discovering whether the basis for their personal slur has an attack, asked whether I have past military service. Well, given that my post was a point of sociological history as it relates to military action, I must assume that you're attempting to say that I cannot comment upon sociology unless I enlist in the military. In other words, as far as I'm concered, you're responding to the substance of my post by asking me whether or not I like fried chicken (I don't).

To be sure, that's a fascinating question, and one that we could spend all day debating, but being that I spend pretty much all day debating useless questions with folks who will never accept a solid answer (yes, I am a law student), I'll take a pass at doing so on my own blog as well.

Second, a bunch of people are positively puzzled at my "no profanity" rule, so I'll try to explain it using small words. If you use a word that would have gotten your name written on the board in the second grade, I will delete your post. If you continue doing so, I will block your IP, and report you to your ISP for abuse. Now, all of you are more than welcome to think that what I said was profane, and through my largesse I will allow you to call me all sorts of colorful names (principally because it demonstrates the intellectual vapidity of your own position... oops, did I say that out loud?), but you can't, on my blog, use certain words I don't like.

What is the lesson in all of this? Get your own blog, pay for your own bandwidth, and then you can use all the wordy-durds you want to when you're talking about that evil conservative over there at Macho Nachos. I may even visit sometime.

UPDATE: Welcome, readers of Norwegianity! Fear not! I have advice for your fearless author!

But first, a couple of minor points in response to a very entertaining post. First, if the nice fellow who writes for Norwegianity had noticed that my student loan post was encouraging Teri to act like a company, not a bureacracy, he might have reasonably implied that I was taking out a private student loan - but then, implication is a function of logic, which is neither the first nor the last refuge of most liberals. Nevertheless! I will grant the author that my student loan is welfare, if he will grant that all welfare is to be repaid to the government at about %11 APR, with an 8% origination fee. And thus conservative and liberal can agree on a compromise!

Also, a little mouse clicking through some links might have revealed that I covered Justice Sunday II at the behest of RedState.org co-founder Mike Krempasky, who asked me to cover the event since I would be in Nashville that Sunday anyway. A little reading might have led him to realize that I had to borrow the laptop I used at the event. In other words, I've yet to receive a cent for any blogging I've ever done, but I appreciate all the sincere efforts of my liberal friends to drive my hit counter up and remedy that situation!

Now, to the question that the author was so desperate for me to answer:

Dear Macho,

When I was young, my Mother had a job in town but my Dad was a farmer and worked at home. He fixed our noontime meal and did dishes while Mom brought home a paycheck.

Does this mean I’m gay?

Good news, the answer is no! However, given that you thought this question was somehow relevant to anything you read on my blog (especially the interview with Charmaine Yoest), it seems obvious that somewhere along the way something in your upbringing caused your powers of reading comprehension and logic to become horribly stunted and inadequate. My advice to you, as a friednly conservative to a friendly liberal, would be to get yourself some "welfare" (you'll have to pay it back someday, even if you go bankrupt) and see if a local community college can offer you some remedial courses in those two subjects - I don't think the damage has to be permanent!

Regards,

MachoNachos

UPDATE: Dear Lefties,

I shall make the same response en masse here as I have to your ideological brethren at Tacitus. Just because you can flood my comments section with crap doesn't mean that you're each entitled to an individual response, especially when you're all making essentially the same "point". Most of you are simply content to make the point that I am a "chickenhawk", and therefore nothing I have said of a factual basis in this post is worthy of your consideration. Which is absolutely fine, but it does make me wonder why you thought it worth your time to respond with the chickenhawk meme in the first place. Notwithstanding, you may rest assured that your constant assaults on my character have produced some very sincere shrugs. To those who are actually attempting to make points, let me say this:

Never have a group of people demonstrated such a spectacular failure to understand a fairly simple point as most of the left-leaning posters in this thread have done. Perhaps if more of you had bothered to read the entire post, rather than just posting a bunch of knee-jerk talking points after discerning that the post had something to do with BushCo, and furthermore, the war, you might have dealt with anything I actually said. I emphasize might.

The question of whether the war was a good idea to begin with is, perhaps, a useful mental exercise in a theoretical sense, and perhaps even a valuable one for loyal donkeys to make come election time (it worked great in 2004, keep it up!). However, in the real world, where we already are in Iraq, it does precisely zero good.

So, in a world where people are fighting the political battles of today, rather than the political battles of three years ago (or heck, even last year), the important question is not whether we should have gone to Iraq in the first place, but rather - now that we are there, should we leave immediately?

The point of my post, which has been reinforced by numerous commenters here, is that numerous folks of this particular generation apparently see no value of seeing a conflict through to its end, they don't see the value of keeping promises in the foreign affairs arena, and they think it a worthless proposition to avoid showing weakness to a deadly and dangerous enemy. This is dismaying to me, and it is the reason I am ashamed of this generation.

To draw an analogy, a husband and wife are debating the purchase of their new car. The wife, being generally the smarter of the pair, says, "No, honey, the interest rate on the loan is ridiculous." Says the husband, "But we need the car because of X, Y, Z. We will consider the interest rate later."

Two years later, when the couple is upside down on said car, the wife may enjoy some well-deserved I-told-you-so's. But they don't change the fact that the car is now in the couple's possession, and the bills come due every month. THe question for the couple is not whether they can undo signing the loan (they can't), the question is whether it is worth the numerous and far reaching consequences upon their credit rating to give the car back and suffer a foreclosure, thus affecting their finances detrimentally for years to come in a far greater manner than just paying the ill-advised note to its completion.

The liberals in this debate are perfectly willing to screw the foreign policy credit rating of this country for a quick fix of what they perceive to be a bad interest rate (that being, 600 dead soldiers a year) - never perceiving that the long-term ramifications of showing that weakness and lack of resolve might be exponentially higher in both military and civilian lives. There is always a long-term penalty for attempting to apply a band-aid to a leaking dam.

Now, of course it might be true that some interest rates really are too high, that some prices are not worth paying, that some situations might become simply so atrocious that immediate extraction is the only reasonable course of action, future consequences notwithstanding.

May God help our nation if that breaking point is reached when we have undergone a war that has not yet lasted three years or cost 2000 American lives.

Comments

[ahumbleanon]

The American people are smarter than you think. The war is simply wrong. It never should have been started, it has made us less safe and less respected in the world, and we should end it ASAP. It was never about defending America, unless you want to count attempting to take over Iraqi oil as defending America.

You think you know better than the American people, and you're simply wrong.

[anne]

Guess you never took statistics...or for that matter any math class. You cannot compare WW11 Vietnam or any other war with this. We have 139,000 troops in Iraq. We had 8 times as many in Vietnam and 15 times that many in WWII. Your denigration of the sacrifices being made by the military and their families is appalling.
ENLIST. See how you'd like being canon fodder.

[Lars Gruber]

Mr. Nacho,

There is a recruiting office probably very near to where you are. Or, if you publish your address, I'll look up one for you. I understand that they are having trouble finding new recruits and it appears that you are more than willing to be sent to the middle east. That is, unless you have an excuse of anal cyst or 'other priorities' as other Chicken Hawks have declared. Bon Voyage.

[Unabridged]

This is the most bizarre apology for the Iraq war I've seen yet. If Iraq isn't a "real war", then why on earth are we there? Much less spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives? If it's as inconsequential as you are arguing, we should never have invaded at all.

If the Iraq war really is as important as the Second World War, why isn't the President calling for shared effort and sacrifice instead of rewarding his corporate cronies and the wealthy and telling the rest of us to go shopping? The entire burden of the war is being carried on just a few shoulders. The Army, the National Guard and the Reserves are stretched to the breaking point. Yeah, these people are volunteers who knew that it was risky to enlist. But their leaders have the corresponding responsibility not to spend their lives in vain. And it's their leaders who have failed miserably in successfully prosecuting this war, disregarding all advice from professional military leaders and experts in the State Department.

Even die-hard Bush supporters whose gas-guzzling monster SUVs are plastered with flags and yellow ribbon magnets want no part of fighting this war. They may be spineless hypocrites and wimps, but they aren't fools.

When in your opinion will the Iraq war become a "real war"? When 10,000 Americans are killed? 100,000? It's easy for an armchair general like yourself to set such a threshold. You clearly have no concept of what war really is.

[MachoNachos]

Dear Kos Kids,

I allow pretty much anyone who wants to to yell and scream around here and in general have their fun. However, any comments containing profanity will be summarily deleted, so keep that in mind if you'd like for anyone else to read what you have to say.

Secondly, I don't respond to non sequiturs, of which the "chickenhawk" meme is the among the largest in history.

[Matthew Benz]

Well, at least 23,589 Iraqi's have died so far, and probably 1000s more. Is that enough to qualify as a real war worth getting weary of?

[MachoNachos]

Sven,

Profanity has nothing to do with this argument, or any other, which is why I don't allow it on my site. It has everything to do with respecting the webspace of others.

Now, if you are capable of formulating an argument without resorting to schoolyard language, you may say about me virtually whatever you wish. Or, I can just ban your IP from posting here and report you to your ISP for abuse.

Your choice.

[MachoNachos]

Matthew,

If you want to start comparing enemy casualties with enemy casualties in WWII, we can do that, too. But since the point of the post was about our resolve as a nation when it comes to losing our troops, that's another non-sequitur.

[fran liscio]

i am stunned by your argument about the statistic of 1800 american casualties in a three year period. i do hope you are planning to enlist this afternoon so that you can go to help out with this fight. this is absolutely the most immoral, staggeringly callous and disturbing rationale for ignoring this war that i have read yet. i appreciate and respect your desire to keep profanity off your website, however, i perceive the real profanity to be the support of a heinously wrongminded involvement in iraq.

[Sven]

Oh geez. I'm so sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities.

Here's an idea. Let's go find a Marine just back from Iraq. I'll say something intemperate about his mother, and you tell him what he did over there "barely qualifies as warfare."

We'll ask him what he finds more offensive.

[MachoNachos]

Somebody help, Sven's being oppressed!

I've got a far more relevant idea, how bout if we find someone who lived through the Battle of the Bulge and have Cindy Sheehan explain to him why our troops have to come home RIGHT NOW THIS VERY INSTANT!

Whaddya say?

[esmense]

Margaret Mead wrote a study for the government -- very interested at that time in understanding American attitudes toward war and the values that motivate them to fight -- in 1942, titled "Keep Your Powder Dry." I happened, during the time when the Vietnam war was raging, upon an old copy of the book that was made from this study. I thought her observations were correct -- among them that Americans' dislike for bullies and our traditional notion of fair play made it unlikely we would ever be comfortable, certainly not for long, in a fight where it was perceived that this nation was a naked aggressor -- especially against a smaller, weaker enemy. As Mead pointed out, Americans prefer to see themselves as protectors of the weak. Genuinely challenged by a powerful enemy, or, faced with the necessity of coming to the aid of a weak ally, we will not flinch.

But, I think the implications of her observations make it obvious why support for a war like that in Vietnam eventually waned. And why support for this war is falling off.

Over the last 40 or 50 years, it seems to me, this nation's elites have developed a fondness for notions of "empire" that just don't mesh with the American public's still republican (small "r") value system.

People who normally would be uneasy with the idea of invading a country as militarily weak as Iraq really was, were happier to do so when they were told it was a dangerous state that was close to striking us with powerful WMD.

They were also happy to remove Saddam -- a leader who did terrible things to his own people, and from whom it was assumed his people would be happy, and grateful, to be liberated.

But now Saddam is captured, we know there never was any WMD, we know Iraq was never a threat to us, and while we are seeing a lot of chaos and violence being visited upon the Iraqi people, we aren't seeing much happiness or gratitude flowing from the Iraqi people to us.

Of course American's are starting to ask "is it worth it?" in terms of the continuing death of our troops, and, "was it worth it?" in terms of the on-going suffering of the Iraqi people.

When Cindy Sheehan asks "What 'noble cause,' Mr. President?" she is asking the quintessential American question. We ARE willing to fight for a noble cause.

But it better be a real one.

[Lars Gruber]

Chicken Hawk = Coward.

A person that will fight to the last drop of someone else's blood. I know the term "Chicken Hawk" hurts you, but it's true. It cuts to the truth of your core. Until you and the other Bush boys are willing to risk your own death for your half-baked theories, you and the rest of your crowd are cowards. Or you could prove that you are not a coward by signing up for your cause. It's really not that complex.

Also, something is not a non-sequitor merely because you wish to play dumb.

[Matthew Benz]

"If you want to start comparing enemy casualties with enemy casualties in WWII, we can do that, too. But since the point of the post was about our resolve as a nation when it comes to losing our troops, that's another non-sequitur."

Maybe so, but to compare this war to WW2 is itself a non-sequitur. The nation as a whole was committed to fighting that war, to do whatever it took to finish it; in all areas of life, there was sacrifice. The Iraq war was started as a matter of policy, the administration has made a point of not asking for sacrifice, and the country was never fully committed to invading Iraq. If your generation seems wobbly about the war after just 3 years and less than 3,000 deaths (and what is it, over 10,000 more injured?), then all that shows is that your generation never really wanted this war, not at this cost. Hardly surprising. This is not how it was sold to us, with reasons for the war changed to suit the President, 1000s dead, 1000s injured, no end in sight, and finally, setting up what seems to be an Islamic Republic. So why be surprised if the public turned against it just 3 years in?

[Bruce]

"The reality is that 1,800 deaths casualties in a span of almost three years (approximately 600 per year, approximately 2 deaths per day) barely qualifies as warfare."

So the root of your argument is this: we should welcome the death of our sons and daughters. More have died before. Why shouldn't more die now?

I guess you'd rather more soldiers die, then? Are you sad that we haven't had a "real war" yet? Do you think public opposition to the war would be justified if more of our soldiers died?

[Aaron]

Interesting. Mr Nacho finds even the most innocuous "swear words" offensive enough to warrant censorship, but then feels free to post the most foolishly offensive apology for the Iraq war that I've yet read.

A Baptist Minister once began his sermon this way:
"I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a sh*t. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said sh*t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
- Dr Tony Campolo, Mount Carmel Baptist Church, West Philadelphia.

Now Mr Macho, before you start bleating "non-sequitur", I am sure that if you think real real hard, even you might dimly perceive the multiple connections here.

[Joe]

Your argument regarding other's unwillingness to sacrifice is contemptible, but it doesn't even bear examination because your fundamental assumption is wrong.

Most people who are opposed to the war do not hold that position because they are unwilling to sacrifice to protect their country. They are opposed to the war because they believe that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., and that our war efforts have made the U.S., and the world in general, a more dangerous place.

I am personally opposed to the war. I believe that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. Here is why:

A) Saddam Hussein had been in a box, under U.S. and U.N. control for over a decade since the first Gulf War.
B) Saddam Hussein was a secularist, disliked by fundamentalist terrorist groups such as al-Qaida.
C) The WMDs, identified in great detail by Colin Powell, unseen by active weapons inspectors, proved to be a fabrication.
D) Most of the 9/11 hijackers were either Saudi or U.A.E. citizens – None were Iraqi.

I shouldn’t even have to mention (D), but 9/11 and Iraq have been conflated so often that I think it bears repeating.

I believe that initiating a war in Iraq, and maintaining our presence there, have made the U.S. less safe. Here is why:

A) We have distracted ourselves from capturing Bin Laden – the real source of the 9/11 attacks.
B) We have alienated our allies and buried valuable intelligence within the fog of war.
C) We have created a perfect recruiting tool for al-Qaida – An apparent Christian jihad against Islam.
D) We have squandered lives and enormous military, monetary and political resources in occupation.
E) We have substantially raised the cost of oil, weakening our economy.
F) We have stained the soul of our country, by abandoning our role of the protector for that of the bully.

It is also worth noting that it appears that the new Iraqi constitution will be subordinate to Islamic law. We have gone to war only to help create a new theocracy.

I think that the facts strongly support the thesis that the war with Iraq is bad for the U.S. and bad for the world. If you have some different facts that support the war, I would be happy to listen.

[Howard West]

Are you serious? People complain that war protestors are harming troop morale in Iraq. I can just imagine how it must look to someone over there that someone stateside thinks its not really war because not enough of their buddies are getting killed.

The question of resolve is really "resolve for or to what?" The real lack of resolve was before the war started when their wasn't enough counter Bush's head-long rush to it. Now that we're hip deep in it and it has become clear that it is a war that was initiated under manifestly false pretenses, is there any surprise that enthusiasm for it is down and doubts about the President's credibility are up?

I agree with you on the surface with respect to disappoinment at this generation. However, my disappointment is at its credulity, not its resolve.

[docdave]

To all you anti-war idiots who are wasting Nachos bandwidth with your illogic, the soldiers in Iraq that are fighting for you and me don't consider their efforts to be in vain nor do they consider themselves to be cannon fodder, and I suspect if they read your bilge water dissertations they would vehemently disagree with you. In case you have forgotten there are still people in this country that love it and are willing to lay down their lives for it. These brave warriors, men and women, do not need your cowardly run-home-with-my-tail-between-my-legs kind of support.

[eddie]

I am appalled at those who profess righteous indignation at the moral relativism of today's society and blithely make statements like "infinitesimal casualties".

You and our current leaders talk like global politics is some kind of game and because we have the biggest offensive line we can do anything we want.

And enough with the comparisons to WWII. In that war we were called to action by allies and faced a unified and belligerent enemy that clearly threatened us. We had no choice. And moreover, since we knew we had to win, we took steps to insure that, which meant sacrifices for all, including corporations and businesses.

The Iraq war was and still seen by our leaders as part of some kind of global game of chicken. "We'll show 'em whose boss as long as we don't flinch." This "war" was never about establishing democracy; there was no call from Iraqis for assistance in their war for independence. This was a game of Texas hold 'em played by a bunch of guys who play fast and loose with the truth and wagering with other's lives.

The fact that you justify a senseless war because it has less deaths belies the justness of the cause. Tell that to the wounded and maimed. Have you thought about them? Or the fact that they are having trouble getting health care?

No. You want to sit tall in that saddle and question my manhood and my patriotism because only a couple of thousand men have died in two years of conflict.

Where is your outrage concerning body armor? Where is your outrage at the insufficient number of troops? No are so insecure in your own manhood that you need to criticize "wimps" who have no stomach for fighting just because a few people have died. This is stunning.

You and our president are more concerned about your macho nachos than democracy or the value of anyone's life.

[circlethewagons]

docdave; I guess a majority of Americans don't really love this country then.

And its not about being cowardly. Its about common sense.

[Shadrach]

I don't think non sequitur means what you think it means. Run it by your law professors.

Also, I'm more than war weary. I'm weary of jerk offs painting all military servicemen and women with the same brush. Ask Paul Hackett what he thinks of the war.

[Lars Gruber]

dear doc "The Chicken Hawk" dave,

I'm sure if you ever found the nerve, you too could enlist in your 'noble cause'. If you're lucky, you might even get a little body armour.

Does bush jr. refer to his theory as a 'noble cause' because it benefits all the Nobles?

btw. where's Osama?

[Percy's PoP]

For docdave.
Chill for a minute and think about what you just ranted. In what way are the soldiers in Iraq fighting for you and me? I am in no way putting down the troops. They are valiantly trying to do the impossible task Fearless Leader has given them.
What I want to know is - What do you see them doing for us? Are they preserving our country? Our country was not at risk from Iraq. Are they preserving our freedoms? Our freedoms were never at risk from Iraq. Are they preserving our oil? Oooops - that's right, it wasn't our oil.
Every time I hear knee-jerk rants like yours I despair for our country. The USA was founded on higher principles than 'might makes right' and 'love it or leave it'.
This war was and is a criminal misuse of our armed forces. The fault is completely and totally with our Commander-in-Chief and if you all believe in it so strongly - by all means, get your sorry behinds over there. Don't try and tell those of us who take a different view that we don't love our country. We love it enough to want it to be better than it is. It isn't love of country that turns a blind eye to its faults. That's ignorance.

[jim]

You are condemning most of a generation of Americans for not being willing to make a sacrifice - that YOU YOURSELF are unwilling to make.

Why don't you think the Iraq War is worth risking YOUR life?

The answer to that question, is the answer to why other people aren't interested either.

I seriously suggest you introspect on that a bit. You might find that not even you think the Iraq War is worth a life - when it's yours that's on the line.