What Does It Mean to 'Support The Troops?'

[babylonsister]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mark_har_071005_what_does_it_mean_to.htm

What Does It Mean to 'Support The Troops?'

by Mark Harris


snip//

The simplistic propaganda that equates "support for the troops" with support for the President's war politics has always been cheap demagoguery, designed to shut down (or in the case of talk radio, out shout) reasoned political criticism of the war. Right-wing talk radio runs wild with such demagoguery, of course. "Patriotism is supporting our troops on the battlefield, not undermining the mission and morale," says Rush Limbaugh. Beyond giving us a window into Limbaugh's inner totalitarian, what is the man really saying? Does he mean we should endorse bombing raids that rain death and sorrow on the Iraqi landscape? Does he mean we should cheer Marine snipers who pick off human targets in the dark of a Fallujah night? Or maybe he means we should salute those soldiers who under the corrosive influence of the occupation culture erode into heartless killing machines, delivering death to Iraqis with a shrug of indifference for their "raghead" lives?

Or, does supporting the troops mean telling the truth about the war? It should. The staggering human costs of the war, measured now in the over 1,000,000 Iraqis estimated to have died under its auspices, according to the latest estimations by British pollsters Opinion Research Business (ORB), represent a historic crime against humanity. No wonder 78 percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition troops in their country, as reported in a recent ABC News-USA Today poll. No wonder nearly half of all Iraqis support attacks on American troops.

Indeed, the bipartisan beltway bickering of our political leaders over the merits of the troop surge plays out like a tragic, corrupt farce when set against Iraq's catastrophic reality. "The violence in Iraq is overshadowing a humanitarian crisis, with eight million Iraqis-nearly one in three-in need of emergency aid," concludes a July report from Oxfam International and a network of aid organizations working in Iraq. Currently, 70 percent of Iraqis are without adequate water supplies, up 20 percent from 2003. Twenty-eight percent of children are malnourished, up from 19 percent before the invasion. Fifteen percent of the population regularly cannot buy enough food. Fifty percent unemployment continues to stalk many areas of the country.

Among U.S. troops the casualties now number over 3,800 dead and 29,000 wounded. More than 185,000 returning veterans have sought medical and disability assistance for post-traumatic stress and other injuries. And the Bush Administration's only answer is more of the same. No wonder also that like the public at large, many U.S. troops increasingly question the war. A Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll taken in 2006, for example, found 72 percent of U.S. troops serving in Iraq supported an exit from the country within a year. Only one in five favored the President's "stay the course" rhetoric.

snip//

"In public life today, paying homage to those in uniform has become obligatory and the one unforgivable sin is to be found guilty of failing to 'support the troops,'" writes Boston University professor Andrew J. Bacevich in his 2005 book, "The New American Militarism." As the military power nonpareil, the United States under its current leaders is on a path that "invites endless war and the ever-deepening militarization of U.S. policy," warns the former career military officer from Normal, Illinois.

It's a path that for the first time openly embraces the option of "preventive war" as policy. With this has come a revival of the mystifying nonsense that every troop deployment is driven by the goal of "protecting our freedom" as Americans. What better way to justify a war that don't deserve justification than to elevate "the troops" onto some sanctified stage where critical thinking is sacrificed to a cartoon version of patriotism engineered by desperate, violent men.

As usual, it's the rank and file soldiers who are the pawns in this deadly game.

[Ian David]

1. There are only TWO ways to support the troops. Bring them home, or join them.

[IndianaGreen]

2. It's a modern version of wrapping oneself in the flag.

What's that about patriotism and scoundrels?

[tetedur]

3. Support the troops? My story.

The right-wing owner of the business I work at decided on Thursday to print out an email someone got and give it to certain people. It was the "wear red on Fridays" email that started circulating in 2003 with some modification. After internet research I found that in 2004 that someone tried to start up a "wear red on Friday to protest" movement. Now there's a "wear red on Friday to show solidarity with Burma" movement.

I thought about this for a long time and didn't wear red on Friday.

Everyone else did.

I think that wearing red on Friday is nothing more than lip service but how can I tell people I've worked with for years that I think that wearing red doesn't do the troops any good.

No one challenged me on my "un patriotism" but I'm sure I pissed off the bosses and the minions. It's a pretty small company.

I was ready if someone did say something to me. It went something like this:

Of course, I support the troops. I'm a Democrat. I didn't think I had to prove it to anyone. I support the troops because I didn't want troops to be sent to an immoral and illegal war. If they had to be sent I want them to be removed now from Iraq. If they can't be deployed, I support the Webb bill that would have given them R&R that they are supposed to have. If they can't have R&R to keep them from going insane, I fully support nothing but the best of care for them and their families. I give to the DAV. Instead of wearing red shirts why don't you take up a collection on Fridays and send the money to a veteran's support group? Why don't you call your representative and ask him to support legislation that takes care of the troops? No, you'll never do that because that would mean you'd have to support Democratic bills. But you'll wear your red shirt on Fridays and maybe you can convince yourself that you're doing a patriotic thing. Maybe you're getting desperate to prove that you were not wrong in supporting a regime that has yet to make a correct decision on anything. Maybe it will make you feel self-righteous when you put down someone who isn't wearing red. Why don't you think about what you could do for these people instead of patting yourself on the back?

[babylonsister]

4. You are, of course, right, and I'm glad you didn't fall for that

'wear red' ploy. It bothers me, too, because I also remember the wear red on Friday to support the war movement.
A wise woman I know responded this way: what's the matter with white for "hope" that our soldiers will return home safe and soon? or black to show our depth of grief over their sacrifice?

She wasn't too keen on the idea of red, either.

[tetedur]

5. I've got a notion that some people are coming to a critical mass

concerning this war. The cognitive dissonance is getting to be too much for them. Maybe that's why Limpbah's shrillness has been taken up a few notches. Thanks for your response babylonsister. I've never felt so alone. This is the only place I can talk about it. But I'll be damned if I back down one inch.

[babylonsister]

6. You're not alone, tetedur, and as you said, people are finally

waking up, I pray. DU gives me hope every day, though the truths I read here do tend to be depressing. But I would rather know than stick my head in the sand. And don't back down, never give up!

[Maq]

7. Support Empty Gestures