War provokes very passionnate, often hyperdefensive, reactions from people. It's clear the state of American society is very hypersensitive. It's clear that 'shoot the messenger' is the predominant mentality. Especially by supporters of the present administration.
First, there was the Abu Ghraib scandal. While many in the general public expressed disgust at the crimes, many conservatives reserved their ire not for those who committed the atrocities, but for reporter Seymour Hersch, whose articles revealed them. To them, it was Hersch (the messenger) who dishonored America by reporting these incidents, rather than the apparent war criminals who committed those atrocities.
Now, there's the case of the reservist supply unit who refused orders in Iraq to go on what they considered a suicide mission. They are being attacked by conservatives for treason; I've heard them called modern-day Benedict Arnolds. Apparently, the right has taken a brief pause from their 'canonize the troops' movement to launch their vitriol toward these soldiers.
You'll notice a pattern. The 'canonize the troops' movement is always suspended when the troops in question disagree with the president's insane plans or otherwise does or says something that might conceivably be construed as embarassing the president or the administration. John Kerry's war record was being smeared. Max Cleland's patriotism was smeared. Two political opponents of the president, coincidentally.
But the soldiers who said Don Rumsfeld should resign were also smeared. Soldiers who refused to follow orders to go on a suicide mission are being smeared by right-wing yapping heads.
The AP reported, that the platoon of 17 soldiers refused to go on a fuel supply mission Wednesday because their vehicles were in poor shape and they did not have a capable armed escort.
In fact, it was the commanders who betrayed the soldiers, not vice versa. The commanders who betrayed the soldiers by ordering them into battle without maximum protection.
A National Guardsman from the armory in my town was killed in Iraq earlier this year because the vehicle he was using did not have any protection. So if I don't blame that platoon from refusing suicidal orders, you'll have to excuse me.
The members of that platoon should not get a free pass, nor should they be condemned to prison with a hearing. They should be forced to explain their decision before military justice and that justice should decide if their actions violate or not the Uniform Military Code of Justice. The rule of law should apply here just as it should be applied concerning Abu Ghraib.
I suspect the soldiers did not take their decision lightly. Those who rush to condemn the soldiers as traitors should ask why they would've taken such a decision, even though they knew it meant there was a strong possibility they might do prison time as a result. To me, the dramatic nature of their action shows how suicidal they thought the mission was and how ill-prepared they felt for it. Why else would they risk prison time?
The 'shoot the messenger' smokescreen allows people to ignore the central question: WHY were they so grossly unprepared?
When I first saw this story, I was furious. Not at them, but at the Pentagon. I'm sure someone will try to blame this all on Bill Clinton, even though Republicans controlled the budget-approving Congress for almost all of his tenure.
I was furious because I didn't understand how could you send soldiers into combat zone without giving them as much protection as possible. While death and injuries are inevitable in any war, how can you send soldiers into combat zone without reducing their risk as much as humanly possible? If we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on this war and occupation and soldiers still don't have basic stuff like armor-plated vehicles, then where in God's name is all the money going? Maybe it's all being wasted on Star Wars and other high-tech toys. Who knows?
And that, my friends, is the real outrage.
The soldiers' mistake was not understanding something. They were under the delusion that 'support our troops' was something more than an empty phrase mouthed to show your alleged patriotism. They were under the delusion that 'support our troops' was something more than wearing yellow ribbons on your lapel. They thought that 'support our troops' meant that we actually supported our troops in, gasp, a SUBSTANTIVE WAY rather than via shallow platitudes.
They were naive.
And they may spend time in prison for their naivete.
No comments:
Post a Comment