Only the rarest politician is willing to criticize his or her nation’s soldiers. Even in the face of something as dreadful and inarguably indefensible as the photos from Abu Ghraib, a politician’s first instinct is to carve out a special category (rotten apples) that will enable them to continue praising the vast majority of the troops in the field. This is true in all countries, in all cultures that field militaries, and never more true than when a country is actually at war. It’s even true in nations that don’t have politicians (in the sense of standing for election), but only leaders. Saddam Hussein, for example, or any of his ministers or generals, would not have given a speech questioning the bravery, loyalty, or praiseworthiness of the Iraqi Army.
Under normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be a problem. A healthy country (or culture) doesn’t engage in wars that are not absolutely necessary. Provided that a defensive war is being waged for national survival against a hostile and aggressive adversary, the mission of the military is not open to debate. Sustaining morale for the war effort will be a vital and defensible consideration, and any moral shortcomings of the troops can and probably should be dealt with quietly. Even in a defensive war of this type, it is still necessary to observe the laws of war and the treaties concerning human rights. If you become worse than your enemy, you no longer have the right to prevail as a country (or a culture). But, provided that your leadership is willing to correct and punish violations, it is probably best not to harp on them when they occur. The mission is survival and victory.
The problem for the United States is that we have undertaken many wars of choice since our victory in World War Two. And when you wage a war of choice, you have to obey a different standard. Regardless of the necessity of the combat, the soldiers will behave with bravery, demonstrate tremendous sacrifice, and be worthy of some praise for their service to their country. But that doesn’t mean that what they are doing is justified. Soldiers that are waging a war of aggression may be brave and patriotic, but they don’t deserve praise for the mission they are carrying out. Not all wars of choice can be properly termed ‘wars of aggression.’ Our intervention in Kosovo is a good example of a war of choice that was not aggressive in intent. But, if you begin committing war crimes in a war of choice, you will quickly run the risk of transforming your action into a war of aggression.
In Vietnam and in Iraq, we had some noble goals, but those goals eventually became unrealistic in large part because we made a transition from a war of choice to a war of aggression through the use of war crimes (I admit that I am being generous here in regard to Iraq). In both cases, politicians heaping uncritical praise on the troops became a way to deflect debate about what those troops were being asked to do and how they were being asked to do it. At least since the time that the New Left turned against the Vietnam War, the Right in this country has been using uncritical praise of the troops as a kind of political litmus test and a bludgeon to curtail any debate about the wisdom of continuing whatever conflict we happen to be engaged in at the moment.
In that sense, the Right’s constant questioning of the Left’s support for the troops has been used as a political weapon and as a way to maintain domestic support for unpopular wars. Many Democrats have become defensive about this and will go to great lengths to insist that they are as (or more) supportive of the troops as any Republican. In doing so, they often participate in the practice of shutting down debate about the wisdom and morality of military conflicts (including, especially, the methods used in those conflicts).
This is what Paul Rosenberg is referring to when he criticizes Barack Obama for his response to this question during his 100 Days press conference:
During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?
Obama answered:
Enchanted? Enchanted. I will tell you that when I — when I meet our servicemen and -women, enchanted is probably not the word I would use. (LAUGHTER) But I am so profoundly impressed and grateful to them for what they do. They’re really good at their job. They are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. They do so without complaint. They are fiercely loyal to this country.
Rosenberg heard fingernails across a chalkboard.
This sort of cringe-inducing pandering (see, we Democrats don’t hate the troops! Honest!) not only lets the Republicans off the hook for decades of slandering Democrats’ patriotism, and tacitly endorses the jingoistic hegemonic discourse they’ve employed to radically subvert the very essence of our national identity as a republic, it also actively participates in the brainwashing on which the exploitation of young recruits depends.
Now, I don’t want to unwrap all of that (especially the part about young recruits) but I want to refer you back up to the top of this article. Leaders and politicians always praise their soldiers. There isn’t anything specific to our current situation that led to Obama’s remarks. Even in the absence of decades of Republican attacks, a Democratic president would be unlikely to make critical remarks about (or fail to praise) our troops. The pandering is unremarkable. If it is cringe-worthy (and I admit that it is) it is only because our troops are bogged down in a war of aggression and have engaged in war crimes. Unsolicited and uncritical praise of our troops can seem to be a method for shutting down all debate about what they are being asked to do and how they are being asked to do it.
But!!
Is there really sufficient reason to believe that Obama’s response wasn’t sincere? As a new president he is suddenly surrounded by hard working soldiers. They fly his plane and his helicopter and defend Camp David and the White House. He meets them in the Situation Room. He visits with them at bases around the country and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it unfeasible that Obama has been impressed with these people and their dedication and patriotism? Could he not have found this interaction to be one of the most ‘enchanting’ or inspiring things he’s experienced since he became president?
I think it is entirely plausible. I see how his comment can be seen as naked pandering of an entirely defensive nature. I also see how it can be completely sincere. And, as in all truly gifted politicians, I can see how it can be a little of both. What I don’t see is how it can be confidently characterized as ‘tacitly endorsing a jingoistic hegemonic discourse’ and as ‘letting the Republicans off the hook for decades of slandering Democrats’ patriotism.’
The problem isn’t with Obama. The problem is the kinds of wars we’ve been fighting. The Republicans treat every war as entirely necessary and just. Because of this, they see all criticism (including, of the troops) as interfering with and undermining a war effort that is essential to our country and culture. But wars of choice are by definition not essential to our country and culture. And the rules for wars of necessity do not apply to wars of choice. The lesson is not to never express appreciation and respect for the people that wear our nation’s uniform. The lesson is to never fight wars of choice.
