Don’t support the troops…inform them.
For some, the phrase “support our troops” is merely a euphemism for: support the policies that put the troops there in the first place. For others–including many activists–the mantra is a safe way to avoid taking an unqualified, uncompromising stand against this war (and all war). Many who identify themselves as “anti-war” still vigorously defend the troops…no questions asked.
The excuse making typically falls into two broad categories. The first being: “Our troops are just following orders.”
A simple Web search will find many reasons why this concept has no legal basis. For example, Principle IV of Nuremberg Tribunal (1950) states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
Besides this, it can be easily posited that “only following orders” also has no moral footing. Of course, the facile example would be Nazi Germany. But surely every suicide bomber is merely following orders as are those detonating IEDs in Iraq. The Left praised Vietnam era draftees who fled to Canada. Yet, today’s volunteer warriors are given a free pass because they didn’t give the orders in an illegal war and occupation. This is not only illegal and immoral; it also lacks any radical credibility. Somehow, individuals and groups can stand tall against war and military intervention but refuse to shine a light on those who choose (and get paid) to fight. Nowhere else in the realm of activism does such a paradox exist.
Consider the animal rights activists struggling to end the morally indefensible and scientifically fraudulent enterprise of animal experimentation. Can they expose the corporations and academic institutions but somehow “support” the actual scientists performing the lab experiments? Surely, they are “just doing their job” and “following orders.”
How about those fighting to end unfair labor practices? Is it acceptable to call out the CEOs of Nike & The Gap but hang yellow ribbons for those who handle day-to-day operations of a sweatshop in, say, Vietnam? These men and women are just as “stuck in a bad situation” as any grunt in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The second excuse usually sounds like this: “It’s a poverty draft. These poor souls have to enlist because they any economic options.” America is certainly an unjust economic society and this would be a compelling argument…if it were true. A 2006 New York Times op-ed highlighted a study by Tim Kane and Mackenzie Eaglen that “analyzed demographic data on every single enlistee, not just a sample, and found that in terms of education, last year’s recruits were just as qualified as those of any recent year, and maybe the best ever. Over all, wartime recruits since 1999 are in many respects comparable to the youth population on the whole, except that they are on average a bit wealthier, much more likely to have graduated from high school and more rural than their civilian peers.” They also found that youths “from wealthy American ZIP codes are volunteering in ever higher numbers” while “enlistees from the poorest fifth of American neighborhoods fell nearly a full percentage point over the last two years, to 13.7 percent. In 1999, that number was exactly 18 percent.”
So, are some of the soldiers in Iraq there primarily for economic reasons? Sure. Did others sign up for a chance to shoot some “ragheads”? Probably. After factoring out these two relatively small groups and rejecting the illegal, immoral, and reactionary “only following orders” defense, I ask this of anti-war activists: Exactly how are the men and women who willingly signed up to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan immune from any and all scrutiny and/or blame?
After all, what do you think “our troops” are doing? “We know that 99.9% of our forces conduct themselves in an exemplary manner,” says Donald Rumsfeld. “We also know that in conflicts things that shouldn’t happen do happen.”
If only 1/10 of 1% of US soldiers make “things happen that shouldn’t happen,” what are the rest doing to have us standing and singing “God Bless America” during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee Stadium? How do we define exemplary manner?
By Rumsfeld’s reckoning (and the standard company line of most every politician, pundit, and peon) “exemplary” includes (among other things) the use of Daisy Cutters, cluster bombs, napalm, depleted uranium, white phosphorus, and the launching cruise missiles into crowded cities.
“Things that shouldn’t happen do happen,” Rumsfeld explains. But what about all the stuff that this society accepts “should” happen? Why would anyone besides a sadist feel compelled to support that unconditionally?
There are two powerful myths/ironies propping up the “support the troops” premise. The first involves what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place. I can’t tell you how many e-mails I’ve received over the years that read something like this: “While you sit at home in your luxurious apartment, making money off your writing (insert laugh track here), those brave men and women are putting their asses on the line to fight for your freedom to write your anti-American garbage.
I say: Bullshit.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not fighting for my freedom. They are fighting to keep the world safe for petroleum. If anything, since 9/11, our freedom has been slowly eroded and the presence of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan makes it harder for anyone to speak up in dissent. If I were in an airport, and I spoke aloud what I’ve written in this article, I’d likely be detained or arrested.
Irony #2: While most American citizens are manipulated, harassed, coerced, and guilted into hanging yellow ribbons–even if they’re anti-war–from Shays Rebellion in 1787 to Coxey’s Army to the Bonus Army to the Gulf War Syndrome to a quarter-million homeless vets today, generation after generation of US military personnel has suffered a lack of support from their own government (and the corporations that own it). “Our troops” are just as controlled and exploited as the US citizens that worship them.
And one more thing: Let’s stop with the “our troops” charade. You and I may foot the bill, but “we” have no say in what they do. If those truly were “my” men and women, I’d bring them right home and put them to work doing something useful…like turning the Long Island Expressway into the world’s longest organic farm.
Don’t support the troops…inform them.
Mickey Z. is the author of the forthcoming novel, CPR for Dummies (Raw Dog Screaming Press). He can be found on the Web at http://www.mickeyz.net.
Being pro-troops is being anti-war. Hawks are inherently anti-troops – they want to put our soldiers in mortal danger to line their own pockets. Doves are inherently pro-troops – we want to keep our soldiers safe, and deploy them only when absolutely necessary, for peacekeeping, humanitarian, or purely defensive purposes.
There was a time at BT when a diary like yours would shoot to the top of the list and been vigoously discussed and debated, mostly in good faith by all. Worse than having a polarized discussion is not having one at all. But, there seem to be none left place enough importance on how Americans in general percieve their troops, and more closely viewed, how does our support of them help to continue the occupation’s of Iraq and Afghanistan.
For myself, my view, and support or not of American troops has evolved greatly in the last two/three years especially. I’m no longer able to say that I support them. I no longer get myself twisted up in tortured excuses for how I can be anti-war, those current or all war, by tiptoeing that fine, unwalkable (imo) line that’s required to find a balance. The balance needed to defend yourself against charges of being anti-american if you don’t offer support. Now of course, I see American troops as paid enforcers and even murderers by association. At minimum, collaborators in war crimes and crimes against humanity. My support for any troops is for those who refuse to continue aiding and abbeting those crimes. Those who, like at the current Winter Soldier hearings, are speaking out publically about the atrocities they’ve witnessed and participated in, under orders, mind you, more often than not. They are the courageous ones.
I’m not even inclined to inform them either. Thes aren’t blurry lines we’re talking about here. These are stark choices between continuing to abett the Iraqi genocide or not.
This discussion is, apparently, not worth having here anymore. In part because there are few, if any left to carry one out, and, ya know, it’s election madness time! Nothing I see though, gives me much if any hope that any of the three current candidates are much inclined to put an end to these wars. Only mealy mouthed platitudes designed to hoodwink the voter into voting.
on my car that reads “Support the troops, Bring them home”. I am with Mr. Supersoling here. There was a time that I felt it would be “Un American, UN patriotic” to not support the troops. I no longer feel that way. They were not drafted, they signed up because they were going to defend this country after 9/11. Thery new they were going to war with someone over that tragedy and the fascists in the WH used it to hood wink these kids in.
War on any level is just plain wrong. Diplomacy, communication is the only answer. Not guns and nukes.
My identity has less and less to do with my nation of origin. And the ties that have bound me to being patriotic are being severed daily. I really don’t care anymore what anyone might think of me or how I’ll be judged for no longer supporting the troops. The way I look at it is that the troops aren’t supporting me. They, as an arm of the government, and not just George Bush’ government, are undermining mine and my family’s safety and security. They are implementing a more dangerous future for us and all Americans.
For me, to say that they were mislead by fascists is no longer a defense. I can empathize to an extent, but the line that delineates what is a mistaken, yet honest loyalty, to a government that lied to them and used them, and the point where it became clear what the true objectives were and how no obstacle of international law or moral law would be left uncrossed, no matter who had to pay the price, was crossed a long time ago.
At what point are they to be held accountable for the choice to fight on, on the behalf of this lie?
At what point am I permitted to say that you do not honor your oath to the Constitution without being told that my criticism is invalid without evidence of my own sacrifice? How does any sacrifice I make, or the sacrifices of anyone who opposes the war and holds them accountable, lessen their responsibility to that oath and to oppose illegal orders? It doesn’t. It only serves to further remove responsibility from those who are directly prosecuting the aims of a government that seeks to shirk it’s own responsibility and accountability and place the burden of it’s actions on any and all convenient bodies and individuals.
We’ve crossed so many lines that I’m not optimistic that there is any path of reversal available anymore. And to see the war set aside for political purposes while three products of the sick society we inhabit try to out bullshit each other and claim some ownership of integrity is pathetic because none of them intend to change much of anything.
point of view. I am pretty close to that right now too. I also agree that the line BushCo crossed and very few people being as outraged as we are AND willing to try and stop the insanity by marching or camping at Bush’s digs in Texas or yellow feather campaigns or writing to our so called representatives and where has it gotten us. ANy European country even communist countries rail against their corruption in the streets and/ or have coups and take over. What do Americans do(most of them) write about it on a blog.
It is total insanity Supersoling.