Your Son Died So That You Have the Freedom to Protest

Andrew Bacevich says he didn't do enough to stop the war, and that, in this way, he failed his soldier son who died in Iraq.

Jules Crittenden asks the $64,000 question: short of insurrection, what could Bacevich have done?

One of the frustrating things about having adult children is that they have that gosh-darn freedom of will thing going and they get to make decisions with which we disagree. At that point, we are supposed to support those decisions, regardless of our personal feelings.

I'm too old for military service. My husband wouldn't have passed the physical because of health concerns. None of my children are old enough for military service. But I can say unequivocally that I would be proud of them if they chose the military for a career.

Bacevich seems to think that he "didn't do enough" to oppose the war and that his Congressmen and Senators failed him by putting the brakes on the war immediately. But the truth is, this is still a democracy and there are other states filled with people who supported the war at the beginning and still support it now. Why is their opinion less worthy of consideration?

It's hard to lose a child under any circumstances. Bacevich should be proud of his son's service to his country in a time of war and let the political consideration fall to the wayside. His son's sacrifice allows his own protest. That should be a heavy enough burden to bear.

UPDATE: This guy thinks you are too ignorant because you supported the war in 2003 (and/or still do). Since you don't vote the way he thinks is logical, he suggests that certain people who pass tests get extra votes to cancel yours out. Given that this would be entirely unconstitutional--we do have that whole one-man-one-vote thing--it's a ridiculous suggestion. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone took it seriously.