I was always moved by the story of The Five Sullivan Brothers. How can anyone even comprehend the sorrow a family would feel to lose all five of its sons at the same time, the same place, in combat? Yet after the tragedy (during World War II), the parents appeared at war bond rallies, they christened a ship, and more, all in the name of the cause for which the war was fought. Even so, it was such a horrific thing that the U.S. Navy decreed that siblings would no longer serve together, to prevent such a thing from happening again.In the film Saving Private Ryan, were not the Rangers sent in to retrieve one single solder -- Ryan -- because he was the last surviving son in a family, his brothers having been killed in combat? That too was considered too great a sacrifice to make, even in a noble cause.
Now, I'm not going to debate the relative nobility of our cause in Iraq at the moment, because that's not my issue today. My feelings on that are well known, but there are others who disagree with me and believe that it is a worthy reason to fight, and I respect their rights to have those beliefs. But I saw something on another diary the other day, and it's been haunting me. It was the mention by the diarist that she had encountered a young woman who was in service, and was about to be shipped over, and that her husband was already there. Their small baby would be left with family while both parents were in Iraq.
I keep thinking about this, over and over. The Sullivan Brothers policy and the Private Ryan thing may no longer be in effect; I don't know. But I simply cannot accept the fact that our government will put both parents in a family in harm's way, and their child's welfare be damned. I'm not saying that this particular baby isn't being left with loving family; she probably is, and let's be thankful for that. But a government so concerned with family values must believe that the best caretaker for a child is his own parent, either one of them. Why doesn't our military make sure that at least one parent, if both are in service, be assigned to a non-combat position? Why can't they make this clear to people, that if they're both in service and they choose to have children, that this is the way it's got to be, even if there's some sort of penalty, financial or promotion-based, or whatever?
Why don't they show with their actions what they claim to believe? Are we all the way in on this family values thing, or is it a load of crap? Are they telling us that we should believe it, but if it's in the government's best interest to screw over families, well, then? Certainly, that's where they stand on families where both parents are of the same gender. Family values, family values, but if your boring, tax-paying family in the suburbs with a mini-van and soccer kids happens to have two daddies, well f-- you then. You don't count.
Whether you agree with the war or not, how can we watch while the government screws over our soldiers again and again and again? Will the government provide homes for these children if both their parents are killed, and that becomes necessary? Why doesn't the government provide them with socks, and underwear, and sunblock? And armor? Armor! And the weapons they need, and the ammunition? Why did we send them if we weren't going to take care of them properly, and of their families?
