Why, I think, some families continue to support Bush after their children

[Maddy McCall]

are killed in his war:

I honestly believe that the parents of sons and daughters killed in Iraq go through a grieving process in which they have to confront the question:

Did my child die in a necessary, just war?

Cindy Sheehan, and the parents of slain soldiers who support her, confronted this question the most painful way...she was honest, even though she knew that the answer to this question would cause her even more grief and sadness. To have lost a child in a war that was neither necessary nor just, and to realize that, has to be a tremendously depressing. She realized that her child was lost for NOTHING. NOTHING.

Parents who have lost children in Iraq who continue to support the war either have not taken the time to confront the question that surely looms in the recesses of their minds, or they have confronted that question and know that an honest answer to it would be too painful to admit. So they continue to "support our president" and "support the war" because they can't endure flood of emotions that the painful admission would cause. I truly believe that this is why they continue to support Bush--I cannot fathom parents choosing Bush OVER their child.

Anyway, I'm not a psychologist, but I think this question should be examined. I'd like to hear other opinions as to why some parents of dead soldiers continue to support Bush after the deaths of their children in his illegal war.

[JohnnyBoots]

1. Makes sense, to think will devalue the death and ergo the child.

[eleny]

2. I agree completely

I don't fault the families for coming forward and saying these things. But I do fault the netowrks for trying to turn it into a debate. Cindy Sheehan isn't asking for a debate. She's firm about how she feels. Seems like "they" see the polls and are trying to help the administration fight for the hearts and minds of Americans who have changed their minds and are now against the war.

[politicaholic]

3. Perhaps they can't view their children as heros if they don't believe...

that they are in fact fighting for the freedom of the United States.

I suppose the process of preparing for the possibility of death sets them into a belief holding pattern that they can't break.

[kysrsoze]

4. Yup, denial so the guilt doesn't set in

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. Yes, they find it easier to deal with the loss of their loved one

... when they can validate it as being for a just and good cause. Some of these people will go on feeling like this for the rest of their lives, others will have moments of awakening when they are more prepared to deal with the pain of their loss.

This is exploited by the wars supporters and they are told that anyone who doesn't agree with them are dishonoring the fallen.

[Diane R]

6. That is exactly what they are going through

I have posted about this before, but I'll repeat myself. When my family was notified that my brother had been killed in Vietnam, we clung to the crap they gave us...that it was an 'honor' that he had died for his country.

Well, he hadn't died for his country and it sure as heck wasn't an honor. It was murder, and it was a tragedy that resonates today. When the numbness wears off and families can stop and think....they realize that the whole thing was a fraud and a mistake. That is a tough thing to accept immediately. To survive, you really have to believe there was a reason and a purpose to the death or the rage you feel would be overwhelming.

My family became rabidly pro-Peace and anti-War, even my blue collar veteran father. Give these grieving families some understanding and time.

[Booster]

7. No one wants the death of their child to be in vain, and especially

for a lie meant to fill the pockets of a very few. Sad.

[atreides1]

8. Good points

So they stay in their delusional world, and convince themselves that
their child died for a just and noble cause, while others continue to die for the same lies that their own children died for.

I think they have taken the time, but refuse to believe the truth, they live in a world where everything is black and white with no shades of gray. They truly believe that Bush is a "Christian" and
with the Xtian Taliban that supports him, how can they belive that
he isn't.

I have no sympathy for these parents or families that continue to go
along with the murder and destruction, thinking that it's making us
safer. And I don't feel bad about that.

I honestly do not think that anything in this world will convince any
of these "true believers" that this war is wrong and it should have never happened, they will live with their delusions, perhaps for the rest of their lives, because in their world it's more important to
believe in a lie then to muster the courage to face the truth.

But it's their choice.

[mitchum]

9. You are right

[evermind]

10. Not wanting to trivialise the question, but..

I'm reminded of a social psychology paper I once read about "new religious movements" (or cults, if you'd prefer).

In it, the author noted that the more sacrifices and privations the members made for the cause the higher their loyalty soared, and theorised that these functioned as "commitment mechanisms" which the would be gurus and messiahs exploited, consciously or unconsciously, to bolster adherence to the group - the underlying reason being that since large amounts of cognitive dissonance would be engendered by the realisation that the sacrifices and privations were ill founded, or in vain, the members preferred to believe in (if you like) the nobility or justice of the cause in whose support they'd been made.

Just a thought.

[Maddy McCall]

12. I certainly think that it plays into it.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. There is a substantial bunch that believes the US could have

"won" the Vietnam war, if only there had been no protests. It's nuts, and contradicts all facts and reason, but they believe it down to their soul.

[Schema Thing]

13. Human nature, but not the best thereof.

[newswolf56]

14. I think you're absolutely right. The best psychological analogy...

(the war-mongers will despise me for saying this) is probably to an inept motorist who -- though clearly not at fault -- because of inattention or perhaps a lack of skill and experience was nevertheless unable to avoid an accident in which a child, sibling or dear friend was killed. Legally absolved and therefore relieved of any criminal or civil impetus to reform, the driver cannot bear to truthfully examine his/her contributory role in the fatality, and so remains stubbornly wedded to the original behavior pattern.

[Somawas]

15. The mentality of the serf and the peasant from time immemorial,

"God and the Tsar know."