Bush as Comforter in Chief
One of Bush’s less well-publicized roles is to pay condolence calls on families of soldiers who have been killed in the war. To date, he has visited:
…more than 1,500 relatives of the 4,255 American troops who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to White House officials. As he travels around the country, the president often makes the time to console them — one family at a time, often including children — in sessions that he calls “one of the hardest things” about his job.
I’ll bet it is; this must be an almost unimaginably difficult task to add to the other burdens of a Presidency.
Some who think the Iraq War was fought for oil, plunder, hubris, or other nefarious reasons, will say it’s the least Bush should be doing. Others who support him will consider it a mark of his compassionate nature that he spends so much of his time this way.
Although I’ve been unable to document this, it’s my distinct impression and recollection that this sort of intense activity on the part of a President is new. In wars such as World War II, in which the casualties were magnitudes greater, FDR wouldn’t have had the time even if he had the inclination, which he apparently did not.
I doubt very much that LBJ or Nixon did anything similar during Vietnam, either. And Lincoln’s famous letter Mrs. Bixby is the only Civil War reference I can find to the subject. Here’s a brief treatment of how the military itself helps the relatives of fallen members of the armed forces; there’s no mention of the role of a President.
It’s clear that Bush gets encouragement from many of the grieving military families he sees who convey to him that they support the war and the mission there. Even so, it must be emotionally wrenching to talk to these people. And a certain percentage of the families are hostile and accusative.
Ordinarily, grief counselors are neutral parties who have no role in the death of the person involved. But as a combination Commander and Comforter in Chief, there’s a dual relationship here of major proportions. This puts Bush in the role of both counselor and accused when facing hostile families, but by the sound of it he does an exemplary job.
Bush wisely doesn’t seek to argue with the families nor to defend his policies; these activities would be futile, insensitive, and inappropriately defensive. He’s there to express his condolences, and to listen. When criticized, he merely says he’s not there to argue politics, and that the deceased was a hero who died for his country.
Of course, that doesn’t protect him from press criticism of his policy of not entering into arguments with bereaved families:
[Bush’s bereavement sessions] also reveal his distaste for engaging those who question his policies. Rather than entering into a substantive debate with angry relatives, he disengages.
While it may be true that Bush generally avoids engaging those who question his policies, these particular cases reveal nothing of the sort. His behavior is highly appropriate under the circumstances; it’s not “disengagement,” but compassionate and non-defensive listening. In addition, since Bush is reported as regularly crying during these encounters, “disengaged” would hardly be the correct word. It’s difficult to see how a even therapist could recommend a better attitude than the one he already exhibits, given the complexities of the situation.
The families who support the war still twist at Bush’s heart, but they give him some emotional encouragement as well. Their message to him is that he not “disengage”—but this time, from the Iraq war and the reconstruction effort itself—so that their fallen relative would not have died in vain.
Neo,
I think the very fact that he does this visiting with bereaved families at all, whether he “disengages” or not, gives the lie to the left’s and the MSM’s portrayals of BusHitler.
The people who fault him for not defending his policies when he visits bereaved families show themselves to be insensitive dunderheads.
Jamie Irons
[Bush’s bereavement sessions] also reveal his distaste for engaging those who question his policies. Rather than entering into a substantive debate with angry relatives, he disengages.
The usual disgusting behavior by the press.
After battle auditors bayonet the wounded, lawyers loot the bodies, and journalists feed on the corpses.
People who don’t like Bush won’t give him credit for any of this. They’ll say it’s all a PR show – sort of like the Nazis giving Rommel a state funeral after they forced him to poison himself.
I think the fact that he doesn’t order the military or Secret Service to vet the families and pick only the supportive ones to visit shows that, at the very least, he’s doing his duty the best way he knows how.
As to his actual conduct when confronting supportive or non-supportive families – well, we know the ‘official’ Bush is not especially polished socially. I suspect his ‘disengagement’ just means he doesn’t know what to say, or knows that there’s no way to win a policy argument with a grieving mother or father. Not knowing what to say or not wanting to say anything, he also doesn’t have the ability to charm and schmooze his way out of the situation and come out looking all sparkly. (Contrast how Bill Clinton might handle a similar encounter.)
Of course, if he didn’t ‘disengage,’ the headline would be ‘Bush uses condolence visit to tout Iraq policies’ or ‘Bush trumpets Iraq success to soldier’s grieving mom.’ It’s a no-win situation, and I’m sure he knows it. But he visits them anyway…
This President will be honored in the fullness of time. Like any great man, he is underappreciated by those who do not know him at all. History will vindicate his policies.
“It’s a no-win situation, and I’m sure he knows it.”
Yep, when your entire idealology stems from “Bush is Wrong” it doesn’t matter *what* he does. You can almost always work backwards from a conclusion and find a set of circumstances/rationalizations to make it fit.
In this particular case it is *real* easy to do, PR stunt or doesn’t care, Disengages or is mean, or some of the other ones I have heard. One is he uses the anti-war families in an attempt to diffuse the “PR” angle, that’s why he doesn’t argue with them and why so few are that way given that most are anti-war (at least, “most are” in those people minds, all the contrary evidence is is just propaganda because they know the Truth).
Bugs, I have read that people who meet the president in person come away with a much differant opinion about the unpolished thing, it may be a camera or crowd shyness thing or an elaborate evil ploy to get people to underestimate him. Public speaking is difficult for a majority of people.
As far as military personnel and families, he shows much more respect and gratitude than any other president in my lifetime and career of almost 25 years now, Reagan would be second. The last time the president came to my base the tickets went very fast, voluntarily. In contrast when Clinton came attendance was mandatory and there were several cases of him being booed from an active duty audience. Uniforms were banned at the whitehouse, Salutes not returned etc….
A few years ago I was telling anyone and everyone that he would go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents. I would point out that Lincoln was widely reviled and mocked in his own time.
More recently, my support for him has waned because of his support for open immigration and his endless declarations that Islam is a “religion of peace”.
But maybe I was right the first time. Visiting bereaved families without cherry-picking only the supportive ones is definitely a class act. It is utterly unprecedented in American history as far as I know; and probably in world history as well.
Though I know it’s important to appease the Turks temporarily from invading Iraq; I was nevertheless disgusted that he wasn’t from the recognition of the Armenian genocide.
***wasn’t ‘for’
At the risk if taking a differnt view, and democracy is predicated aon the exploration of views that differ and thier exploration, I am with Christopher Hitchens and his waning sense of anything good about the Iraq experience. I also must note that Mr. Bush is no Lincoln, and his attempt at consolation of bereaved families is, I suspect, more akin to General Lee’s apologies to his troops for the horrid (and needless) losses at Gettysburg. Iraq, if it is anything, has become Bush’s Pickett’s charge.
Some correction is needed of Mr. Lincoln’s concern for the wounded and their families. True, his letter to Mrs. Bixby has been mentioned, but untrue is that this was his only effort to reach out. Washington in 1864 had become a city filled with hospitals, filled to bursting with the wounded and dying. Untold more thousands filled schools, public buildings and private homes. Lincoln was a constant visitor and would be seen going unattended from bed to bed greeting all day after day. Once he was stopped from entering a particular ward and was told that the wounded in there were “only rebs.” He was reported to have answered, “You mean Confederates,” and he entered to meet all the wounded. Evenings he spent at the White House telegraph office awaiting daily reports of battle and wounded and every day he was horrified. No, Mr. Bush is no Lincoln.
The Bixby letter is worth noting. It was written because Mrs. Bixby had lost all five of her sons. The letter is totally Lincoln:
Executive Mansion
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864
Dear Madam.–
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts, that you are the mother of fivve sons who have died on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot but refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solem pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the alter of freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln
Lincold grieved for the losses of a war he had to fight. Lee grieved and apologized for the losses of a battle he did not have to fight. Mr. Bush is more like Mr. Lee but has yet to offer the apologies for the war he did not have to fight.
Sorry I killed your kid.
Why did the civil war have to be fought?
I know I come back with this every time someone tries to claim that some past war was a “good” war. Why not just let the south succeed? The Civil War was horrific beyond anything that we can really imagine. Would a Confederacy have been so bad? Would the badness of a Confederacy have really been worse than the whole sale slaughter on the battle fields of the Civil War?
Yet we say that it was worth it… that Lincoln *had* to fight that war… that it was necessary. By what standards? And by those *same* standards, how can you (or anyone) say that this war is not necessary in the same fundamental fashion?
It’s easy to like war that is removed in time and consequences. Could you (or anyone) defend Lincoln’s war of choice today?
I have a photograph of my Dad shaking hands with Bush in US embassy in Moscow, with Russian and American flags on background, and with Bush autograph on it. The event took place at celebration of 60 anniversary of V-day, 9 May 2005, when Bush gave a reception for Soviet veterans of WWII. Bush did it for every veteran he invited. Nobody else from other heads of states arrived to Moscow for celebration did that. My Dad was very, very moved by this event, he told me how sincere and passionate the President was in his address to veterans; and all this reception was completely personal idea of Bush, it was not included in protocol and was added to program at the last moment, without notification of Russian authorities, so no selection of invited was done and my Dad took the invitation by chance. He is 83 now and every time I visit him he remembers this episode.
Was this reception of Russian veterans mentioned in US press anyway? There was nothing in Russian press, and no journalists at the reception itself. The only memories left were these signed photographs handed to veterans.
Donald Wolberg: Thanks for the info about Lincoln visiting the wounded. However, the site I linked to in my post about the Bixby letter mentions that it is disputed whether Lincoln actually wrote it; John Hay may have actually been the author. Also, interestingly enough (although parenthetical to the issues under discussion here), it turns out that “only” two of her sons had actually died in battle. More germane to our discussion is the fact that:
Mrs. Bixby was believed to be a Confederate sympathizer and destroyed the original letter.
If you read Hay, and Hay indeed had a distinuguised career, and was the erstwhile editor of Mr. Lincoln’s writings in many volumes, Mr. Lincoln did indeed write the letter. I suspect, as others have, that Mrs. Bixby loss was real, that the loss of five sons was reported to the President, and that as in so many cases, he agonized over the deaths of som many. As to Mrs. Bixby’s southern sympathies, I cannot comment since there is no record other than attacks on Mr. Lincoln by those who did not know the lady, but did know the President.
Of course the Civil War did not have to be fought except: the South attacked the North; southern States felt they could disolve the Union; southern states felt they could keep human beings as property; southern states felt they could extend slavery into new territories; southern states felt they could abrogate the Constitution as they wished; southern states felt they coul issue their own currency; southern states felt they could put their own armies into the field to contest the Nation’s armies and southern states felt they could enter into treaties with other nations as they wised. But other than these reasons, I guess the war did not need to be fought.
[Bush’s bereavement sessions] also reveal his distaste for engaging those who question his policies. Rather than entering into a substantive debate with angry relatives, he disengages.
Note the clever word “distate.” It implies a certain default expectation — that Bush should argue policy with grieving parents — that’s unfulfilled due to his own peculiar “distaste” for doing so. A less biased term would have been “unwillingness.”
BTW: During WW2, Ms. Roosevelt often visited wounded soldiers abroad.
Mrs. Roosevelt indeed make many trips to visit the wounded abroad and at home, for her husband who was less mobile, and herself, and frequently at some risk to herself. Of course General Eisenhower sopent a great deal of time looking after the wounded (remember something like 3000 americans died the first hour of the D-Day landings). General Patton, although notorious for his one bad slapping action, frequently visited front-line hospitals and would pray for and with the wounded.
General Lee apologized for a battle he felt could be won, but lost. Considering the issue of Iraq is still in question, especially since at the moment the Coalition is winning, I wonder exactly what Bush is supposed to “apologize” for at this point, Donald?
Bush may not be Lincoln, or Mrs. Roosevelt, or Eisenhower, or Patton, or Churchill, or Grant, or Caesar, or Hannibal, or Zukhov, but at least he’s not Donald.
In the end, even Jeff Davis was forced to renounce his belief in confederacy, and even tried to establish a federal government over it during the last year of his term, as counties began seceding from states and cities began seceding from counties. The whole Civil War was started when the first obvious crack in the states’ rights argument appeared, as Fort Sumter elected to remain Union, only to be seized by force by Confederates who suddenly decided they didn’t need to respect the rights in others that they sought for themselves.
Mr Bush needs to apologize for the deaths of 3700 or more American kids, and another almost 30,000 maimed American kids, who paid the price for his hubris in a struggle that had no American interest involve, And now we are propelled into an involvement in a civil war in a failed nation that was never a state and will never be a state. Much like Christopher Hitchens, the realization of this folly is apparent finally to most Americans. He has stressed the military to the point where its efficiency and effectiveness have been seriously compromised, a fact recognized and enunciated by most of the general staff (recently retired and active) and wasted almost $1 trillion dollors in the process that could have been used to modernize the damaged military.
Now those are “accomplishments” that make even Jimmy Carter look good.
One can of course get swept away with the emotionalism of Americans dying or maimed in absurd parts of the world at the behest of what looks more and more like an absurd Presidency. But there is more to this administration than the Iraq fiasco. There are many toher fiascos to consdier from Katrina to Mexico, to a miserable policy on illegals and border security, to giving away the industrial base of this nation, especially to the Chinese, and the lack of any policy to thwart the real danger, Iran and its clone, Syria. An now the Bush administration has ceded American sovereignty to the World Court in the Hague in the case of a convicted Mexican rapist and murderer and the Bush Justice Department lawyers pleaded his case befor the Supreme Court a few days ago.
I am certainly glad I am not myopic and a single issue person. The Bush failures have sadly advanced the viability of Ms Clinton or Mr. Obama as candidates to occupy the Oval Office.
What, exactly, should be done to thwart the “real danger” of Iran and Syria?
See, these words… they’re such good sounding words until they have to be pinned down to action. Iran has not attacked us. Syria is a nit. What is the solution, Donald? Should we attack a country who hasn’t attacked us? Should we rely on UN and international diplomacy and social pressure?
What should we do about the real danger?
What we *are* doing may not be to your liking, but the fact that it is not to your liking by no means defines the actions that this administration has taken. Your opinion doesn’t define what is real. It defines your opinion.
To state as if it is a fact that “Mr Bush needs to apologize for the deaths of 3700 or more American kids, and another almost 30,000 maimed American kids, who paid the price for his hubris in a struggle that had no American interest involved” is hubris of your own.
Bush believes this war is necessary and that it addresses fundamental issues which put us at risk. He’s not the only one who thinks so. Good arguments can be made to support Iraq as *a* way of accomplishing our security. You aren’t required to agree but no one is required to accept your take on the issue either.
To state as a fact that Iraq is “a failed nation that was never a state and will never be a state.” Is not a statement of fact but a statement of faith. There is no Historical parallel to show that Iraq can not succeed and will not. In fact, looking at real nations to compare, Iraq isn’t doing so badly. The belief that Iraqis are somehow doomed to be hopeless can only be attributed to wearing blinders about just how hopeless normal people are *everywhere* and yet we muddle along, form nations, work things out. The demands for perfection don’t hold water. In fact, I’d say they are self-serving.
Many people, at the time, disagreed with the Civil War.
Whatever stupidity the Confederacy was up to, why not just let them go off, be their own country, and be stupid?
Fewer people would have needlessly died.
Probably.
We can’t know what would have happened instead, just as we can’t know *now* what would have happened instead. Which is why the wars we win are *all* good wars.
Always.
Iraq is more important to the safety and security of the USA than South Korea, so let’s use the duration of troops there as a basis.
As JFK said in his inaugural: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
What can you site that hitchens’ support for regime change in Iraq is wanning?
And why hasn’t anyone responded to, “Why did the civil war have to be fought?” are we not going to contend with this statement? Of course we could have left slavery to it’s own institution’s, perhaps it would be alive and well today. WTF?
“Why did the civil war have to be fought?”
Was my answer too complicated for you? Allow me to shorten it then: Because the Confederacy attacked the Union. It really had no choice, as its government wasn’t viable, and the only way to keep its citizens from abolishing it and returning to the Union was to go to war on a hypocritical pretense.
It was a rhetorical question, you know.
The point is that, oh, sure, the Confederacy attacked the Union but there wasn’t going to be a succession allowed anyhow. The idea that the war was because of slavery is untrue except for the fact slavery was *one* issue where the South disagreed with the North. The Civil War wasn’t *about* slavery any more than the war in Iraq is *about* WMDs. Someone maybe mentioned it a few times and it was a simple concept to latch onto but neither were ever the primary issue for either conflict.
Now Donald *did* answer me by saying,…
“…the South attacked the North; southern States felt they could disolve the Union; southern states felt they could keep human beings as property; southern states felt they could extend slavery into new territories; southern states felt they could abrogate the Constitution as they wished; southern states felt they coul issue their own currency; southern states felt they could put their own armies into the field to contest the Nation’s armies and southern states felt they could enter into treaties with other nations as they wised.”
As I already pointed out, most people were willing enough to tolerate slavery and the North wouldn’t have gone to war over it.
As for the rest… was the attack on the “North” any more than a localized thing? Why add more deaths? Was the Confederacy planning to force the North to accept Confederacy rule? I’ve never heard anyone suggest such a thing. So they wanted to print their own money… whoop de doo. So they wanted to enter into treaties with other nations. Why not draw a line at the Mason Dixon and just hold it? Let them be their own nation. Because it was against the *law*? Oh, my freaking gawd. Do you have any idea just how bloody the Civil War *was*?
I could argue for the Civil War better than this list of nits. Iraq under Saddam broke the law, too. He felt he could defy the world and do his own thing, too.
Why did forcing states to stay in the Union against their will increase and support freedom and liberty?
Tell me, and I’ll tell you why an occupation of Iraq and imposition of a representative, pluralistic, government there is fighting for freedom and liberty and our security *here*. (And “fight them over there” is so simplistic it counts as gross error.)
Synova said ““fight them over there” is so simplistic it counts as gross error.”
The argument that it “is so simplistic it counts as gross error” is itself “so simplistic that it counts as gross error.”
Was it possible to avoid the Great War? Hardly. Did anybody imagined in August 1914 how bloody it would be? Not. Anybody awaited dissolution of the three main empires – Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian? Nobody. We never know what future holds for us. So be patient and humble, and keep hope.
i didn’t read all of the other responses, so maybe this point has already been made — don’t you think bush should be spending more time on managing the war rather than visiting all the people who have died for it? visiting the families is a nice afterthought, and one that probably makes you and the other conservatives feel better about your misguided decisions during the last few years, but stop apologizing (it’s too late) and move towards a true resolution of this awful situation.
It infuriates me Bush is criticized, first, for not spending time (or enough time) with bereaved families, although he actually does and does so more than any other president, apparently, and if that doesn’t cause trouble, he is criticized for spending *too much* time with bereaved families and then, if that doesn’t do the trick, they drag out the old disparagement of him as dumb and powerless, on the one hand, yet fling blame at him for doing things he can’t do (cause hurricanes in New Orleans, fires in southern California, etc., etc.) or shouldn’t do (call out the National Guard for state crises), and then they refuse to credit him for things he does thoroughly and well. He (and Laura) must be more equanimous than any other beings on earth.