Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
The President Takes the Dover Test
Mark Shields
Former U.S. Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, who as a Marine pilot had flown
59 combat missions during World War II and an additional 90 missions
in Korea -- where in air-to-air combat during that war's last nine
days, alone, he had shot down three Soviet MiG fighter planes -- knew
firsthand the suffering of war. So the plain words John Glenn spoke in
the Senate on Jan. 22, 1997, about what he called "the Dover test" are
worth recalling: "It's easy to see the flags flying and the people go
off to war, and the bands play and the flags fly. And it's not quite
so easy when the flag is draped over a coffin coming back through
Dover, Delaware."
Waiting until after midnight to leave the White House, President Barack Obama traveled to Delaware, and there in the pre-dawn darkness on Oct. 29, 2009, he personally took "the Dover test."
The most momentous of national decisions -- to send American citizens into combat -- ought to first be subjected to the Dover test, which according to former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton, begins with whether "the American public (is) prepared for the sight of our most precious resource coming home in flag-draped caskets."
The scene, so familiar to older generations, where the military pallbearers in their white gloves so respectfully carry the caskets bearing the human remains of the fallen -- and where the families and loved ones mourned, but were also comforted by the ceremonial care -- had been banned from public view since 1991 until the Obama administration changed the policy to allow families to decide whether the solemn occasion could be covered.
The scene at Dover is no ordinary picture. No, Dover is truly the portrait of sacrifice and of human loss. Statistics do not bleed. Real sons and real fathers -- and, yes, real sisters -- bleed. And they die. However any of us might feel about the wisdom of the decision to go to war or of how that war has been waged, all of us need to appreciate -- and to share -- the grief and pain of the human cost of war.
The president of the United States is not just the commander in chief. The president is also the comforter in chief. That is what President Ronald Reagan was when, after 241 American servicemen, mostly U.S. Marines, were killed by a terrorist attack on their Beirut barracks, he went to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina to honor those killed, to comfort those who survived and to give voice to the national grief. War's endless expense in human suffering ought not to be shielded from either public view or from public responsibility.
President Obama, during his winning campaign, promised to make Washington more "transparent" and more "accountable." At 4 a.m. on Oct. 29, as he stood silently by as six soldiers carried the remains of Army Sgt. Dale R. Griffin of Terre Haute, Ind., back to American soil and to those who mourned him, President Obama made both himself, and the national government he leads, more responsible and made the reality of war more transparent.
At Dover, he personally met with and consoled -- in their time of profound sorrow -- the families of 18 fallen Americans. No form letter or phone call. Just human being to human being.
As John Glenn said: "It's easy to see the flags flying and the people go off to war, and the bands play and the flags fly. And it's not quite so easy when the flag is draped over a coffin coming back through Dover, Delaware." Barack Obama, by choosing the "not quite so easy" path, has earned his nation's thanks.
========
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Distributed By Creators.Com
Copyright 2009 Mark Shields
This news arrived on: 10/31/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
11-04-2009 23:44
JCE wrote:
It isn't that simple. I don't expect you to understand. But the NWO, the right, and many special interests want the troops to stay there. The people want them to come home. Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Whatever he does, he will be punished by someone. And unlike Bush, he doesn't have the option to just lie to the people, stir up their panic, or just jump into the fire without thinking. Believe it or not, he does have to think this one thru. Bush didn't feel the need to do that. Bush also had Cheney to think for him, and make decisions. Bush also had the congress and most of the people blindly panicking, and following him. Bush didn't have much else to worry about, except where to play golf. And I imagine that whatever Obama does, people like you will criticize him. He may not do what I think he should do, but then, he has a lot of info that I don't have, and pressure that I can't even begin to imagine. So I will give him some credit, and some support, just because it is his decision, and unlike Bush, if he screws up, he won't get away with it.
11-03-2009 17:16
HHJ wrote:
If Obama is so concerned for our troops, he needs to s*** or get off the pot in his decision making. As he muddles around he is getting more of our troops killed. He's playing the fiddle while Rome burns. He does not have a clue and the election in NY, NJ and VA will reflect his incompentency.
11-03-2009 16:51
JCE wrote:
Don't forget it was Cheney who enforced the dishonor the troops policy, to protect Bush and keep the public from seeing the truth.
11-03-2009 16:44
JCE wrote:
Of course, Obama dragged along plenty of cameras and newsfolks. It is his job to ensure that America sees its dead, the sacrifices that they made. It is his job to correct the policies of the Bush family, that Clinton didn't enforce, or follow, but didn't get rid of either. Obama is being a true commander in chief. Which neither Bush was. Especially the draft dodging one. One reason that France and Germany didn't want to get involved in these stupid military actions is that they remember that war isn't fun, which Bush tried to make it seem. They remember the horrors and the cost of war. But Bush wanted war so bad that he, and our country, disrespected these countries sovereign rights to their opinion, belief, and safety of their people. Our leader could care less for those things, so he led our country in an insult to France, promising to get even for not supporting Bush. The American people, if they are going to have a military action, and have even 1 soldier die, need to know the truth about war. And the cameras showing the dead return home is all about transparency, honesty, honor, respect, and above all, the truth. So you right wingers who disrespect and dishonor our troops and country, wise up or just go away.
11-03-2009 16:36
JCE wrote:
When daddy Bush was laughing while the dead were being unloaded, and the people saw it on the news, and were unhappy at the dishonor, daddy Bush decided to make the dishonor complete. No longer would he see the dead returning home. Easier to send them to die for his personal goals. No longer could the cameras show the people the dead returning. This was counter productive to the Bush propaganda (read lies)and would make the people think twice about supporting the military action. The June 27, 1967 Life magazine contained only photos and stories about the soldiers who had died in Viet Nam that week. It did wonders for getting normal Americans to turn against the war. Apparently the Bush family thinks that respecting the troops is to not let anyone know that they are dead. In Britain, every returning casket is met with a military band, an honor guard, a member of the royal family and a cortege is formed to publicly escort the fallen soldier. We don't speak the same language in this respect apparently. That in itself is plenty of dishonor to our troops, and those who support that dishonor them as well. Then there was the little bit about baby Bush denying that soldiers got PTSD, wouldn't allow them to be diagnosed, treated, or considered disabled for having PTSD. He talked a lot about honoring our troops, all the while cutting benefits to them. That is pure dishonor. Where have you been while all this was happening? Did you not know, or were you supporting it?
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
|
View Politics ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
VideoSquares.com
