SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
I read yet another letter in the paper last week from someone who said we need to support our troops and that when Saddam sees protesters, it's like giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Ugh! More warspeak.

First off, let me address one myth. Does any serious person believe that anti-war protests make Saddam feel warm and fuzzy? I can imagine it now. Saddam's in his bunker dodging Patriot Missles and MOABs, but then he flicks on CNN and sees protesters in Manhattan and goes, "Ah, it makes it all worthwhile." How ludicrous.

And if it does, so what? Any democracy is going to have disagreement; any democracy MUST have disagreement to function properly. If you don't like this fact, move to Syria or Saudi Arabia or some other dictatorship. They don't have to worry about such a pesky thing like dissent. That's the biggest single differences between a "shining beacon on a hill" like the United States and a butchery like Iraq. We don't have to toe the line for fear of being labelled a traitor. Or at least we shouldn't. That's the difference between us righteous crusaders and them evil doers. According to these people, it seems we should suspend freedom while our troops are fighting for freedom.

But the other question is about this supporting the troops thing. It's kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance or the Our Father in Church. It's one of those things that most people mouth without really thinking about it. So my question is this: when you say support the troops, what does it mean?

I'm know that most people would agree that we shouldn't personalize anything against the troops. Even those against the war realize it's the politicians filled with religious fervor (and other questionable motives) that are ordering this tragic policy. It's not the troops who have decided to unilaterally discard centuries of established international relations. It's not the troops who are trying to annihilate 55 years of attempts to patiently construct a sane, legality-based international order to replace it with an old, thorougly discredited way of doing things.

So if the troops aren't the problem, if we acknowledge that they're mostly decent guys handed a deplorable task that even opponents recognize is not of their own creation, if this is the consensus, then what more does support the troops mean? We all want as many of the troops to come home safely as possible and even the most chest-beating war gorillas would prefer few civilian casualties, so how else can we support the troops? If everyone agrees with this, then why must this mantra have to be repeatedly so incessantly?

Unfortunately, to many people, support the troops is warspeak for shut the close your mouth and toe the line. It means does as you're told, follow orders and be a good lemming.

Some people do remember with disgust how Vietnam Vets (many of whom were forcibly drafted) were spat upon and treated with contempt upon their return. For a lot of these people, support the troops really does mean just that, nothing more sinister. They don't want a repeat of these shameful actions. And I agree whole-heartedly.

But for others, support the troops just means shut the heck up. When you're told that by opposing a disastrous policy, you're costing lives of our troops, is it any wonder such virulence helps radicalize some in the anti-war movement? When you're told that it's unpatriotic to try to prevent your country from imposing a world order that will ultimately end being self-destructive, it blows your mind. It's unpatriotic to stop your country from doing something self-destructive? Was Orwell prescient or is human nature that predictable? Based on the nature and history of great powers, my guess is the latter.

When some people say our troops are fighting for our freedoms... except for the freedom to peacibly protest, is it any wonder some people question the real motives? Our troops are fighting supposedly for the rights of Iraqis to disagree with their government... a right some seem to want to deny to Americans themselves? Is it any wonder some in the anti-war movement overreact?

I know three people who have people they know well in harm's way over in the Middle East. My brother, my sister and a friend/ex-colleague. I was relieved to learn that my friend in the Army is still in Missouri undergoing deployment training; he won't be sent over to the Middle East until mid-May, by which time the worst of the crap will hopefully be over. While I realize that my tiny little world is hardly a scientific cross-section of American society, I can't help but noticing that all four of those people (me, my brother, my sister and my ex-colleague) are all against Bush's war. I feel bad for my friend in Missouri; he signed up to defend our country, not to participate in an unprovoked attack on a country that's never done anything to us nor is any kind of serious, immediate threat to us. It's angers you to be told that you hate the troops when you know a soldier in harm's war. Perhaps when one of your relatives or good friends is in or will be in harm's way, you require a slightly higher standard of proof than, "Saddam's a bad guy, he might be a threat to us in 1 or 5 or 100 years, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11."

When those people scream that anti-war people are responsible for our troops' being killed, I wonder how my ex-colleague feels. His brother is in Kuwait... or possibly by now, in Iraq. I'm not sure he appreciates this vile slander. When it's your friend or relative who could be sacrificed for the imperial crusade, maybe it makes you a little less cavalier and a little more circumspect about the whole thing.