Sacrifice and the Toll of War

Here is an accounting of the toll war has taken on the United States since 1775. The numbers provide good insight into the sacrifice we were once willing to pay as compared to present-day "cut-and-run" policies by some politicians.

For example:

World War I (1917-1918)
Battle Deaths.................................................53,402

World War II (1941-1945)
Battle Deaths................................................291,557

Global War on Terror (as of May 31, 2007)
Battle Deaths...................................................3,842

In the two world wars alone, spanning five years total, close to 345,000 military personnel lost their lives as a direct result of the conflicts. Some of these fatalities resulted from massive operations that saw thousands die in a single day. We have been actively fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for close to six years, and fatalities are just under 4,000. Compare that to the 4,435 who died fighting over a period of eight years during the American Revolution.

From such a perspective, one can see that the price for freedom and democratic principles has dramatically changed - and to those opposed to an alleged "unjust war" is too high a cost - since the founding of this nation, and even more so since World War Two. It is sad that over 200 hundred years ago, 4,435 patriots died for their beliefs, and now some cannot stomach one fatality in defense of those beliefs while simultaneously voicing opposition under the very umbrella of freedom for which those patriots past, present, and hopefully, future, fought and died.

Fact Sheet: America's Wars

Operation Enduring Freedom & Operation Iraqi Freedom

©2007 Steve Sagarra

Liberty Nibbled Away

Like any other routine traffic violation, a primary seatbelt law allows police to stop a motorist, and their passengers, for not wearing a seat belt. Under current Missouri law – St. Louis County excluded, having passed a primary law in March – police can only cite seatbelt violations after stopping a motorist for another traffic offense. For obvious reasons, enforcement and safety are the goals of any primary seatbelt law, with advocates and opponents alike citing statistics to prove or disprove the effectiveness of seatbelt use. For Missouri officials, another would be the millions in federal grant money the state would receive - that could be used toward education, enforcement and infrastructure - by amending the law from secondary to primary enforcement.

With an inherent suspicion cast upon enforcement, the issue in the seatbelt debate is about choice. Under a secondary seatbelt law, a person has the choice to wear or not to wear a seatbelt. A primary law leaves no choice – an infringement on the fundamental values upon which this country was founded. The fact that wearing a seatbelt is an enforceable regulation is a moot point, as enforcement is often discretionary, and despite the letter of the law, maintains a personal choice under it. As such, responsibility lies with the individual to weigh the consequences in the decision to wear or not to wear a seatbelt.

Primary seatbelt laws are simply part of a growing trend, a footnote in government’s continual intrusions and micromanagement of our daily lives. For all its ills past and present, the United States has thrived, and is sustained, by personal rights and freedoms; with the potential cost to civil liberties, legislation that debases that idea erodes any future for it. The expansion of governmental powers under such would be a potentially opportunistic – and legalized – tool by zealous law enforcement. As political theorist and philosopher Edmund Burke stated, “the true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts.” Despite a country founded on life AND liberty, that sentiment is slowly, but assuredly, coming to fruition.

©2007 Steve Sagarra

What Price, Our Freedom?

In 1796, a fledgling nation was wrought with disagreements over the role of government, issues of domestic policy and factionalization over foreign policy. All of this was offset by the nation's determination to become a world power and preserve the peace. Thus, the stage was set for President George Washington to leave office with words of advice to the nation. In his farewell address, Washington wished to instill what it meant to be an American patriot and a member of a common nation. He warned against being swayed by those who would attempt to take away those shared traits, both internally and externally. In the same speech, Washington warned against two other enemies of the nation: partisanship in deciding national issues and entangling alliances. He called for the nation to put aside party politics and unite for the common good, wholly free of foreign influence. He went further by stating that the United States should concentrate only on American interests, acting "for ourselves and not for others." While necessary for the country to be friendly and open in commerce to all nations, he felt the country should avoid long-term alliances that went against the interests of the United States.

In all his foresight, what Washington saw as potential trouble for the nation has steadily become one. The United States has forgotten its fundamentals, its culture, and its history. Style points rather than substance of statement dictate debate, while policy decisions are seen by some as a multilateral round table rather than what is in the best interest of the nation. Our leaders should guide, control, and appease with no favoritism, without coddling to the whims of those who do not share our national interests. A leader unites all, whether they want to or not, and ends bitter partisanship. Most of all, a leader shows strength in the face of insurmountable odds, while pursuing a course of peace with all nations – even if the path to such means the use of arms and unpopular decisions.

The problems of the nation, and the world, will take more than one generation to fix. It will also take leaders with strength of heart, resolve, and purpose. Twenty-four hour news coverage continually shows a world on the verge of destruction, and it washed up on our shores on September 11, 2001. Ironically, it did not come from two Super Powers playing a chess match on a world map, but from small-minded lunatics with a death wish. The world has become a dangerous place, but only because of those who shirked the opportunity to make it otherwise. We must not stand with just a strong voice, but with a united front against those who oppose the fundamental principles of this nation. Throughout the world, change often comes from the barrel of a gun or an explosives-laden car. We as a nation should be grateful that we do not live under such conditions. To ensure a peaceful future, our main goal should be the spread of such values to those parts of the world living in turmoil and terror. Otherwise, the lives of those who have fought and died for such will have been in vain.

©2007 Steve Sagarra