The so-called war on terror has probably killed and maimed more people as "collateral damage" than as purposeful combatants. Then there is the collateral damage to US civil society.
When President Bush said "They hate us for our freedom," I responded with what I thought at the time was a bon mot: If the government takes away our freedom, then they will no longer hate us.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, I was only kidding! But it's too late now.
I've quit flying, not because I fear terrorists, but I fear the irresistible urge to smart off to the TSA will land me in jail, and I'm too old for such nonsense.
When we think of collateral casualties, it is good to think of all the Iraqis and Afghans who have died for nothing. Their deaths did no good for them but they also did no good for us.
And then there are the GIs who have been recycled in and out of the battlefield repeatedly for over ten years. This is new. We've never done it before. It'll be a generation before it's clear what we've done to them.
But right now, I'd like to focus on a small group of soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas, where my son is stationed awaiting his medical discharge after serving two tours in Iraq. 44 of them, all shot on the battlefield if we really believe our propaganda that the battlefield is the whole world.
I don't think they are collateral damage. I think they are combat casualties. It makes a big difference to their families.
What do you think?