866 American Lives Lost

It is said that in peace, children bury their parents; in war, parents bury their children.

American deaths and Afghanistan have weighed heavily on my mind these past few days. Claims of the "deadliest month" has become a repetitive headline; each month. There have been 866 American lives lost since the 2001 invasion; 53 deaths in October; and, President Obama met 18 fallen American personnel in a midnight visit to Dover Air Force Base last evening.

In a cold and misty night, the President and his entourage, quietly saluted the return of the flag-draped coffins in what the military calls "a dignified transfer." A Chaplin raises his hands in prayer as the "cases" exit the "precious" cargo plane. It is only recently, that the American public is once again allowed to see the return of these fallen victims of war. The Bush Administration had restricted the media coverage of these "transfers" since the onset of the Iraqi and Afghan invasions. Some say to give privacy to the soldiers' families; others say it was to mask the casualty count that these wars have produced.

I came of age during the war in Viet Nam; or the conflict as it was called. I remember the news coverage each evening of the bloody battles and knew young men that lost their lives in the "conflict." I knew and know many men that live "lost lives" because of that "conflict."

While President Obama has inherited these wars, the pundits proclaim that it will "define his presidency." As he, and his military advisers, ponder the deployment of yet more Americans into Afghanistan, he is being called "overly cautious and indecisive." I am having memories of Lyndon B. Johnson and his decisions to escalate American presence in Southeast Asia; in these lands where a civil war threatened the freedom of many. Viet Nam, sadly, defined the Johnson Administration too.

If we learned nothing else from the Viet Nam tragedy, we should have learned that you can not fight for someone else's freedom. It is not our fight. Freedom is something for which each individual must make a sacrifice. Do we, or can we, really "give" freedom? Do we all share the same definition of "freedom"? We went to the Middle East to search and destroy the Taliban and Bin Laden. We went there for selfish purposes and now claim we are there to protect the freedom of the people.

Whatever happened to good, old fashioned covert operations? If Bin Laden, one man, was our mission, why have we sent so many? Saddam is gone, why are we still there? Are we really there to "root out evil" and "crush injustice" or are we on a proselytizing mission to assimilate western culture into an ancient civilization? Did we not learn from the Crusades?

H.G. Wells said, "If we do not end war, war will end us." It is not my wish for our children.

To Prize or Not to Prize, Whether tis Nobel. . .

Barack Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize? I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. Do I think he has yet to accomplish what he has set out to accomplish? No. Do I think he is smart and working hard to achieve the goals of his campaign? Yes. Should he accept the Nobel Peace Prize? No.

I struggle to understand the decision criteria used by the Nobel Foundation to make this award. There does not appear to be any clear qualifications for nomination and presentation. Alfred Nobel's will stated that the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." It is accepted that the Peace Prize can be awarded to persons or organizations "that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace."

The announcement of his award stated "only very rarely has a person of the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. . .his diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Is Obama getting the award because more nations "like America" now? Is it because Obama is a "rock star"? In which case, was Bono nominated?


The scientific and literary Nobel Prizes are usually awarded in retrospect after the achievement has been published, discovered, accomplished; sometimes decades after the accomplishment. The Peace Prize seems to be awarded for more recent or immediate achievements. Again, I struggle to understand the "achievement" for which Obama is being lauded.


Commentary has suggested "that to award a peace prize on the basis of unquantifiable contemporary opinion is unjust or possibly erroneous, especially as many of the judges cannot themselves be said to be impartial observers." A nomination requires "only support from one qualified person." The description of qualified nominators is broad, and detailed in the statutes of the Nobel Foundation.

We are engaged in war on two fronts; we have been "outed" for tortuous and inhuman treatment of prisoners; we just "bombed" the moon. I am not feeling the "love".

I have no suggestion for a more deserving candidate for the Prize. Let's remember that Ghandi was never awarded the Peace Prize and the year after his death, no Peace Prize was awarded. It was announced that "no living person met the qualifications for award."

Should Arizona State University have awarded Barack Obama an honorary degree? Yes. Should the Nobel Foundation award Barack Obama the Peace Prize? No.

Sorry Mr. President, I love ya, but think you have to pass the test before you get to go to the prom.