A couple of weeks ago, in a rather insignificant exchange on Anti-State.Com, the world famous Joe relayed a little anecdote that he picked up from his cousin whose husband is in Iraq. Apparently, or so the story goes, Iraqis are now throwing their babies in front of humvees so that the kind and gentle Americans will stop and make themselves vulnerable to roadside explosives. Stopping is obviously too dangerous and thus, the orders are in: run those babies over.

Now assuming they are true, though I am skeptical, it seems to me that most reasonable people would find such tales to be alarming and outrageous. I would. A parent has no right, at least that I know of, to choose to lay their young ones upon the sacrificial alter of a cause that their children are incapable of comprehending and much less capable of embracing. If a parent wants to give their own life for an ideal then fine but a child's life is not a parent's to give. This seems like a fair explanation of why most rational and sane people would find it offensive to throw babies in front of trucks.

But then I had a conversation with one of those self-proclaimed liberty lovers who insist that the war in Iraq is, or at one time was, a good thing on account of it being a so-called war of liberation. That got me thinking. Maybe these parents aren't murderous degenerates after all. Maybe they should be honored as heroic freedom fighters. Many do, at last, believe that they are fighting for freedom and isn't freedom worth dying for? Isn't it worth a life or two?

Such is the common justification given by war supporters when confronted with images, accounts or statistics of deaths and casualties among innocents. Aren't a few (hundred thousand) lives a fair price to be paid for freedom? I mean, live free or die! Right? Those innocents died for a good cause. They died for liberty.

So, can't those throwing their babies in the road make the same claim? After their baby's skull has been crushed by a humvee and their young brains splattered in the gutter, can't those parents pump their fists in the air and quote Patrick Henry, "give me liberty or give me death?" Can't they claim that it is worth it to lose one's life in the fight for freedom and, therefore, their baby's death is acceptable? Can't they just call it collateral damage and thereby grant themselves immunity from receiving the title of murderer?

Well, according to those good supporters of liberating wars, the answer to all of the above questions is "NO!"

You see, it is only the state, particularly the global hegemon, who can make such claims. It is not ok for a parent to throw their own babies under a truck but it is ok for Americans to throw someone else's babies underneath bombs, tanks, bullets and maybe a few boot heels. Hell, Americans don't have to stop at babies either. Oh no, we get to make the choice between liberty and death for men and women as well as children. By god, we Americans love liberty so damn much that we won't hesitate to kill you in order to set you free. You may not be willing to lay down your life for freedom but don't worry, we'll make you.

Wow, what an honor, what a responsibility. I'm so glad I'm an American.

But seriously, I don't think I can stand to hear one more person claim that the war in Iraq is, or was, one of liberation. That may have been a charming and almost believable bromide in 2003 but 3 years into this catastrophe can we please call it what it is? Throwing babies in front of trucks.