What Does it Mean To 'Support Our Troops'?by
Bill Barnwell
It wasn’t the first time and it probably won’t be the last. Yesterday I was accused of not properly "supporting our men and women in the armed forces" by a reader. Indeed one of the most common charges labeled against those of us opposed to the war in Iraq is that we do not "Support Our Troops." Is this really true? Does opposing the war in Iraq really amount to opposing your countrymen and women in uniform? Also, does favoring the war in Iraq really mean that one is a true supporter of the troops? The answers to these questions are not as cut and dry as pro-war individuals would have us to believe. It will be argued in this essay that many who claim to "Support Our Troops" actually care less about our soldiers and our country than most of us who want out of the Iraq mess and never supported it to begin with. Pro-war does not necessarily mean pro-troops and anti-war, contrary to the screaming and bullying of the War Party, does not necessarily mean anti-troops. Many individuals who are supportive of the war in Iraq truly do love and care about our men and women in the military. Many other pro-war zealots, however, do not care one bit about our troops and simply use them as political pawns in shouting down war dissenters. They care little about how many young lives are prematurely cut short to achieve their fantasies of "benevolent global hegemony." As long as they can shed a few crocodile tears on television while talking about the bravery of the soldiers and talk about the importance of patriotism all is apparently well. While these phonies get away with using our soldiers as pieces of property that can be easily discarded and replaced, the rest of us who have a problem with this are accused of talking down our country and our military. This is nonsense that must be refuted. Our opposition to the crazed neocon agenda hardly means we wish ill on our country or our soldiers. Instead we want the best for our nation and we are not happy about the one thousand Americans who have needlessly lost their lives and the many more who have been needlessly wounded in Iraq. It is true that some antiwar protestors during Vietnam held a deep animus against soldiers returning home from the battlefield. In the minds of many patriots, these unfortunate few represent all of those who are opposed to war. However, this is a big generalization. There were plenty of principled opponents of the Vietnam War just as there are many principled opponents today of the war in Iraq. The vast majority of those opposed to the current war in Iraq are not opposed because they love Saddam Hussein or want to see our country embarrassed. Nor do they want to see our troops harmed. They simply don’t like going to war based on faulty intelligence and exaggerated threats. They don’t like seeing young lives cut down in their prime for reasons that have nothing to do with the security of America. To put it simply, they actually value the lives of our soldiers and the integrity of our nation. This is not to say that every single person who supports the war in Iraq does not care about the troops and is an idiot. Such a suggestion would be very irresponsible and simply untrue. But it is not unfair to point out that there are many pro-war voices out there that treat the troops like political footballs. They are the people in positions of power and others all around the country who are not directly affected by this war and would have no problem sacrificing many others to achieve their questionable aims. They are not the ones losing their sons and daughters. They have not felt the pain and loss associated with burying a child, spouse or friend. Yet they sit in their comfy offices or computer screens and pontificate to the rest of us that we need to more enthusiastically support the bloodshed. To them the principle is victory at any cost – no matter how large the toll of human life and property – as long as it doesn’t affect them or their families. The majority of the conservative movement today would have us to believe that if we want to truly "Support Our Troops" then we must favor sending them to risk their lives in a war where no direct threat was posed to the United States. They refuse to answer the question "What did they die for"? Instead they resort to vague answers about "making the world a safer place" when it is highly debatable that we are any safer today than we were two years ago. Let me ask you politicians and pundits, do you think your lip service and phony displays of patriotism makes up for the thousands of lives that have ended or become seriously disrupted because of your war? "Supporting Our Troops" also apparently means that it is inappropriate to point out that both the soldiers and the general public were misled about Iraq’s mysteriously invisible stockpiles of WMD’s. Don’t ask questions. Shut your mouth. That is what it means to "Support Our Troops." Or so they say. Furthermore, to best "Support Our Troops," we apparently must support any war for any reason. Sound absurd? Well, Rush Limbaugh & Co. is constantly telling us that we can not really "Support Our Troops" if we don’t support the war in Iraq. The heck with principles and logic and ignore the very strong case that can be made against the Iraq intervention. Don’t talk about lives needlessly lost. If you start talking that way then you are a traitor! I have a question for Rush and his minions. Let’s say Bill Clinton was President once again (shudder) and decided to invade some small third world country to restore "gender rights" and "reproductive rights" to some oppressed minority. He sends the troops and the bombs start falling. Would you be talking down the troops and America if you did not support this war? Would you "get behind your Commander-in-Chief" and "Support Our Troops" by approving of this glorious invasion? Of course you would not. You’d throw a fit. You would say that this was a misuse of our military and that young people were dying for no reason. You would rightfully feel totally justified by dissenting. In fact, you made many of the same arguments five years ago when Clinton was about to bomb Serbia. Also, many of you maintained your opposition even after the bombs started falling. Back then you said you supported the troops but opposed the war. Suddenly, that option is now off the table. What gives? Don’t expect any answers to these questions or arguments from the unprincipled people who orchestrated this war or their thousands of politicized cheerleaders. Who supports the troops? It certainly isn’t the people who use them as pawns and pay insincere lip service to them and their families. Principled antiwar voices need to speak up and show that they are the true supporters and defenders of the troops, not the people who are forcing them to needlessly risk their lives.
Support our troops. Bring them home. August 10, 2004 Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor in Swartz Creek, Michigan, and a Master’s of ministry student at Bethel College. Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com |
Yes,
we support the troops. We support bringing them home so they can
live normal and productive lives. We support only using them in
wars where national security is truly at stake; where they are actually
protecting us and not protecting the reputations of hawkish politicians
and bureaucrats. The only people who seem to have a problem with
that are those who never met a war they didn’t like and would sacrifice
any number of kids to see their crazy ideas about the world come
to pass. God help us if they are successful.