Many reasons have been offered by those who oppose U.S. military action against Iraq. Some deserve serious consideration. Others are totally off the wall. A good number of those expressing their anger or frustration with President Bush are merely venting pent-up, hard-to-conceal hatred of Bush and will use any opportunity to criticize and second guess his every action.

One fact that must be considered in any discussion about military action is the loss of life — by those in the military or civilians.

Some suggest Bush has no concern about how many lives may be lost, that he is interested only in oil and wants to transform the United States into an imperialist power. That is ridiculous.

They claim the U.S. military could easily crush the outnumbered and out-equipped Iraqi military forces. They worry about the numbers of “innocent Iraqi civilians” who will be killed. And lastly, almost as a second thought, they note the dangers faced by U.S. troops.

How a reasonable person could suggest any American president would not be concerned about casualties if his country became engaged in a war is inconceivable.

The possible loss of lives must haunt any president when he considers military actions. But as heavy a load as this must be, he also knows he must do what he thinks is in the best interest of the United States. The loss of American lives is of paramount concern, as is the loss of civilian lives. Those in the armed forces of our opponent are not in the same category with “innocent civilians.”

But how can Bush be held accountable for the loss of lives in a war with Iraq when Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to avert a war? In any war, there are bound to be many killed, but Saddam shows his lack of concern about subjecting his citizens to danger by placing them around sensitive targets and stashing weapons in or under their homes.

At the outset, it probably was wrong to hold out hope the war with Iraq would move as quickly and successfully as Operation Desert Storm 12 years ago, with so few Americans killed in the fight. Depending on how viciously Saddam and his aides intend to fight, and whether they use poison gas or biological agents, there are bound to be numbers of American casualties. Based on the first few days of the fight, this war may achieve a successful conclusion far sooner and with fewer lives lost than anticipated.

Each death or serious, crippling injury has to touch and hurt any president who has occupied the Oval Office in time of war.

This is why recent remarks made by Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota are so bothersome. Speaking before a labor union audience, the Democrat presidential hopeful said:

“I’m saddened, saddened that this president has failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn’t create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.”

The senator didn’t back down, try to explain his reasoning or say he could have overstated his concerns. The day after his outburst he said: “I stand by my statement.”

Does he actually believe Bush caused the war? Does he actually believe Bush and his team did not try every diplomatic effort to avert it? Didn’t Bush delay and delay action, giving Saddam every opportunity to postpone or cancel U.S. military action?

Perhaps the senator is so obsessed with winning the Democratic presidential nomination that he is saying what he thinks will win him the most votes come the nominating convention.

Many of his fellow Democrats have tried to cover for Daschle, saying we should forget what he said and focus on the future. They suggest he was carried away by his frustrations and didn’t mean it the way it sounded. The only trouble is that Daschle did mean what he said and has not altered his position.

This writer believes his statement, made when he knew the United States was on the eve of launching a military attack, is likely to be harmful to Daschle’s political future and will lessen his chances for the Democratic nomination.

Freedom of speech is one of every American’s basic rights, and many in the military have died to protect it. However, it would seem there comes a time when dissident, ugly criticism should be softened — or put on hold. There had been a long-standing understanding in Washington that internal, politically biased criticism of our government ends at our shorelines when this country is engaged in war.

Apparently, Daschle and some of his fellow Democrats have abandoned this philosophy. There are many throughout the country, as well as here in Lawrence, quick to suggest they have the answers to all domestic and international situations, who pose as military strategists and are quick to fault Bush’s efforts.

Many of these critics are sure to use casualty numbers as justification for their continued demonstrations. Likewise, if the war isn’t over within a short time, critics will claim poor planning, poor leadership and poor execution.

The war could last far longer than Desert Storm, or could come to an end much sooner than many are predicting. Whatever the case, casualties are likely to be greater and the American public should be prepared for this sad news.

Aside from the parents, spouses, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of those who may die, the individual who will grieve the most over those deaths is Bush, the leader who ordered this nation’s armed forces into battle.

There’s no question he did what he did based on intelligence and input from many senior advisers, for what he thought was in the best interests of America, its citizens and the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, no matter how successful the war may be, some will continue to find fault and accuse Bush of sinister motives.

This freedom of speech — honest, fair or not — is one of the precious freedoms enjoyed by and guaranteed to all Americans.