Sadly, 'Support our troops' has become an empty catchphrase used to silence criticism of the Iraq aggression. I've seen more than a few bumper stickers and lawn signs that read 'I support our troops and President George W. Bush' next to an American flag.
I was a bit skeptical of 'support our troops' from the beginning. Not because it was an inherently bad phrase. The sentiments of the literal words are perfectly reasonable. No one I know, and I know some pretty hard core anti-war folks, has suggested we spit on or curse at returning Iraq vets like they did during Vietnam. A colleague's son returned from Iraq recently and was welcomed back by a big gathering; a big gathering organized by some friends of mine who I know opposed the Iraq war.
The problem is that while the words and the phrase may be reasonable in a vacuum, they are used in a particular context in the real world.
I objected to how the otherwise reasonable sentiment has been exploited: in favor of an unjust war. But seeing this signs were the last straw. The signs represent a insidious propaganda of the highest order: equating the troops, the president and the nation. Not only because they are on the same sign, but because they are part of the same, indivisible sentence. The implication of these signs is clear: if you oppose one, you oppose the other two.
I believe we can best support our troops by not sending them on unprovoked invasion of non-threatening countries based on bogus reasons. But that doesn't fit neatly onto a bumper sticker. And it also doesn't really appeal to our society's instincts for macho chest-beating first, thinking later.
It's sad when a phrase that seems honorable enough on the surface gets hijacked for political reasons.
The 'support our troops' folks mostly insist that the phrase is separate from support or opposition to the war. Yet in my town, and in most towns, 'support our troops' rallies only started AFTER anti-Iraq war rallies started happening. And in my town, like most towns, the big 'support our troops' rallies generally stopped once the anti-war rallies petered out. If it was really only about 'supporting our troops,' then shouldn't the rallies continue regularly since American troops are still fighting, being injured and dying abroad? Do we only 'support our troops' when liberal hippies criticize belligerence and militarism? Aren't troops the #2 victims of that belligerence and militarism?
The 'canonize the veterans' movement is an offshoot of 'support our troops.' And it has the same characteristics. All veterans should be canonized, except for those who disagree with patriotically correct orthodoxy of support the wartime Leader no matter what.
John Kerry is a veteran. He even voted for the Iraq invasion. But once he started criticizing President Bush, he became a traitor and a turncoat. Ralph Nader is an Army veteran but 'canonize the veterans' movement would spit on him in a second if they had the chance. I'm sure they loathe the Veterans for Peace organization.
The worst part is that many people mouth 'support our troops' but don't mean it as substance.
When there were long delays in getting body armor and armor plated vehicles to American troops in Iraq, the 'support our troops' crowd should've taken to the streets to demand that 'support our troops' be translated into action. Especially when it was reported (by Fox News nonetheless) that the Pentagon was giving protective vests to foreign troops before providing them to American troops. I guess preserving the facade of the 'coalition of the willing' was more important to the administration than protecting American lives. The 'support our troops' crowd should've gone ballistic about this. But they didn't. They were too busy demanding everyone support the wartime Leader no matter what.
[Incidentally, that US troops were in many cases poorly equiped was a problem brought to widespread public attention by the supposedly liberal, troop-hating news media]
The hawkish Washington Post ran an editorial illustrating the lunacy of the Don't Ask Don't Tell farce that is the military's policy against gays. It points out how this sham policy is used against soldiers who the military had previously lauded.
ARMY SGT. ROBERT Stout received a Purple Heart after an exploding grenade in Iraq last May left shrapnel in his face, arm and legs. He would like to remain in the military, and he said in an interview that he would reenlist were it not for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy... Now he'll be lucky if he's allowed to serve out his tour, which ends in May, without being kicked out of the service. For under U.S. policy, even the most decorated and patriotic gay soldier is just a homosexual to be rooted out at the military's earliest convenience.
When he was injured, he instantly became one of 'our heroes', a great man, a profile in courage. But when he admitted he was gay, he just as instantly became a pariah, a scumbag, worthy only of being expelled from the Army. No one's demanding we support him. The instant he admitted he was gay, he was no longer one of OUR troops.
The editorial also points out the practical effects of this stupid policy. They are pretty much the same as any irrationally exclusionary policy.
According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the services have spent $190 million recruiting and training replacements for gay service members kicked out during the past 10 years. More than 750 of the 9,488 men and women discharged from the military during that time, moreover, "held critical occupations"; many had training in languages important to the war on terrorism. The gay ban, in other words, is as self-defeating as it is demeaning to people who want to serve their country at a time of great need.
A military acquaintance of mine once said that it was sad that so many otherwise talented people won't even consider a career in the military. I suspect many of them HAVE considered such a career but felt they weren't wanted. Maybe they've seen all these cases of honorable soldiers who gave years of loyal service (and possibly their well-being), received many honors and then were stabbed in the back by the institution that once claimed them as heros.
Maybe they're realizing that 'support our troops' might not apply to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment