Playing 'The Troops' Cardby
Bill Barnwell
Here’s a lovely little letter sent from an honest American patriot:
Every so often I still get unintelligent emails like this berating me for an article I wrote last year entitled, "What Does It Mean to 'Support Our Troops'? They are usually of the same quality of argumentation and just focus on emotions and name-calling. But I chose to share this one because it’s fairly representative of the messages that war apologists send to me on a steady basis. There are all sorts of things wrong with this individual’s letter. For now let’s just ignore the atrocious grammar. Ignore the profanity. Ignore his assertion that I am Catholic, when I’m actually Protestant. Ignore his compassionate plea for me to kill myself. Let’s also ignore his argument that our invasion in Iraq has led to the liberation of women, a "proper" government, and apparently just an all-around happy and friendly environment. We’ll leave that one for another day. Instead let’s continue to examine this factually incorrect and illogical idea that "supporting the troops" means one must always support the war effort no matter what the war is. Let me describe two different types of people, both of whom are opposed to the war. Individual A has opposed the war in Iraq and hates George W. Bush and Republicans in general. Ironically enough, however, he has in the past supported "humanitarian wars" such as the Serbia invasion in ’99 launched by Bill Clinton and NATO, but now he is suddenly a born again peacenik ever since a Republican took office. In any event, be it because of his hatred of Republicans or just the fact that he thinks the war is a bad idea, he is opposed to it. So much opposed to it that he almost enjoys it every time an American soldier dies. In fact, every time there is a story of a dead soldier, he likes to send it to his pro-war friends to basically say "I told you so." He doesn’t really care about American soldiers or America in general. In fact, he despises America. He is convinced that America is a rotten and intolerant country and hopes to see his country fail in general. Individual B also has opposed the war from the beginning. He may be a liberal, conservative, or moderate. He opposes the war for a variety of reasons. He doesn’t hate his country, but he is disappointed in those who led it into war. He may be very anti-government, but because he believers government to be largely inefficient and dishonest, not because he hates his country or his fellow-man. He does not equate love of politicians and bureaucracy with love of country, as do many of his alleged conservative detractors. He is saddened to see soldiers dying on both sides and wishes to see an expedient end to the war. He believes the best way to "support the troops" is not to put a yellow sticker on the back of his car and berate anyone critical of the government, but to see these men and women back in their homeland with their families. Or if they stay in the armed forces, actually defending their country rather than trying to be the government’s world policemen fighting unnecessary wars around the world. Now, if you can’t see the difference between those two types of people, you have the problem and not me. The first type of individual is a minority of anti-war view best represented on the so-called "loony left." The other type of individual crosses ideological, racial, economic, and religious boundaries and is in the majority of the anti-war camp. They are basically just normal and intelligent people who have qualms about the war. This is also the type that the fanatical pro-war people hate the most. It’s either a pure dishonesty or an illogical mind that says that a person can’t support the troops without supporting the war. If by "support" it means to keep them in harm’s way forever fighting battles where they never needed to be in the first place, then I guess no, no anti-war person can "support the troops." But if by "support" it means to actually care about the lives of these people, desire that they get out of harms way, be back with their families, and demand that they actually be used for national defense and not for politicians’ imperialistic impulses, then yes, we can and do support them just fine. The fact is that "The Troops" have become political footballs for individuals on both sides of the war debate, but more shamelessly so by hyper pro-war zealots. They use the troop card to silence and stifle debate. Since they can’t debate the facts and surrounding circumstances of this war they resort to vilifying dissenters with scare tactics which seek to prevent them from speaking out unless they want their humanity and patriotism questioned. Their version of "Supporting the Troops" would (and does) lead to absolute intellectual tyranny when taken to its logical conclusion. It assumes that every war must be "supported," no matter how unnecessary and evil it may be, out of deference to the troops. And if you have a problem with it, then you hate the troops and you hate your country. I pointed out in the past how many of the current war-happy conservatives were vehemently opposed to the Serbia invasion of ’99. Back then it was OK to be an American and say "I oppose this war, but I support the troops." In fact, various Republican and conservative figures said it all the time. But all that changed when a Republican took office. It was OK to oppose the liberals’ war, but it’s not OK to oppose the conservatives’ war (on the flipside, many of the peace-loving liberals today were euphoric about blowing up Serbia a few years back). Hypocrisy, anyone? If Hillary Clinton became President and wanted to invade some country to "end hate" or "restore reproductive freedom" should we support her war because of "the troops"? If a crazed President one day said he wanted to drop a nuclear bomb on some unsuspecting country for no good reason, should we support that war too? If a President wanted to commit genocide somewhere, should we go along and support for the sake of "the troops"? Basically, is American foreign policy infallible? Has it ever made a mistake or is it capable of making a mistake? Unless I missed something, government can and often does get it wrong. This idea that even if it makes a colossal mistake in foreign policy that we have no business questioning anything lest we want to be considered unpatriotic and haters of the troops is illogical nonsense. Supporting any and every war out of concern for "the troops" or any other pseudo-patriotic reason would lead to pure tyranny if taken to its logical end. It would allow politicians to get away with anything and would validate even the most evil of wars (of which civilized man has witnessed many throughout history). Those who suggest today that honest and sincere skeptics of the current war effort are unpatriotic are either hypocritical or just plain dishonest. Either way, they are seeking to scare people and silence debate because their political loyalties and objectives necessitate it. In the end, "the troops" become nothing more than convenient political footballs in an attempt to scare people from seeing this war for what it really is. Now, who is really concerned about America and the troops? Is it really these hucksters?
Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor in Flushing, Michigan. He spent most of his undergraduate college career studying politics and government before feeling called to the ministry. He has completed a Master of Ministries degree and is currently working towards a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree at Bethel College in Mishawka, Indiana. Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com |
September
7, 2005