Memorial

I usually do a Memorial Day post, so okay I'm late this year. I noticed yesterday a common trope, about remember those who "died defending our freedom." (Here, for example, the Veep.)  Err, no. Or for the most part no. 

The origins of Memorial Day are a bit obscure, but it appears that the earliest precedents were remembrances at the graves of Confederate dead, and indeed the first official observances were in former Confederate states. I'll grant you that the Union army dead had fought in the cause of freedom for people who are now at least nominally a part of our national community, so put one credit on the freedom side of the ledger.

The next big war even, the Spanish-American War of 1898, was an imperialist war in which the U.S. seized many of Spain's overseas possessions, including Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. Although intervention in the Cuban war of independence against Spain was the proximal cause, this wasn't really about anybody's freedom -- certainly not ours.

 

As for WWI, there's certainly a respectable argument to be made that intervention was in the U.S. interest and probably morally justifiable, but our freedom was most definitely not at stake, nor was the ultimate outcome any victory for freedom. U.S. involvement in WWII was inevitable and morally compelling. But Phillip K. Dick's alternative history aside, it is not really plausible that defeat would have meant Japanese and German occupation of parts of North America. It would be curmudgeonly to complain about referring to "our freedom" in relation to WWII, but it's not entirely accurate. Same goes for Korea. It was an international action to which the U.S. made the largest contribution, and it did ultimately result in a successful democracy in the South and certainly benefited U.S. interest, but again, it wasn't about "our freedom" unless you are paranoid about the ultimate success of international Communism, which I would not have been.

 

After that, however, it gets unequivocal. The argument that the Vietnam war was somehow about "our freedom" was at best, as Neil Sheehan labeled it, a Bright Shining Lie. As you may have noticed, we lost, Vietnam is now an important trading partner, and no, we are not a Communist country. The invasion of Afghanistan for the purpose of hunting down Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda would certainly have happened under any U.S. president. However, the argument that fighting a war there for almost the next 20 years (while bin Laden was in Pakistan) had anything to do with defending "our freedom" or any other discernible purpose is specious. I don't think I need to say anything about Iraq.

 

So by all means, let us honor the dead and remember their sacrifices. But let's be honest about why they died. Defense of "our freedom" depends on what you think that means, but right now it has nothing to do with soldiers or sailors or parades.  

Note: There may be value "in having traditions that encourage patriotism, allegiance and loyalty to our country," but there is no value in lies.