Supporting the Troops
by
Laurence
M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance
DIGG THIS
Now
more than any time in history, the majority of Americans are in
love with the military. It doesn’t seem to matter how many countries
the United States has bases in. It doesn’t seem to matter how many
countries the United States has troops stationed in. It doesn’t
seem to matter that the United States has had troops in some countries
since the end of World War II. It doesn’t seem to matter what the
reason is for each war or intervention. It doesn’t seem to matter
how many foreign civilians are killed or injured. It doesn’t seem
to matter how many billions of dollars are spent by the military.
It doesn’t seem to matter what the troops are actually doing – Americans
generally believe in supporting the troops no matter what.
I don’t support
the troops. I don’t support the troops in this war, and I won’t
support them in the next one with Iran or any other country.
The
typical view of the U.S. military held by the average American is
the one expressed by the American
Legion:
At this moment,
America’s finest young men and women are serving in harms way
on our behalf in places thousands of miles from our shores. In
Iraq, they liberated oppressed people. In Afghanistan, the Philippines,
parts of the Middle East and even here at home, they are preventing
another Sept. 11. In over 130 countries, the U.S. military is
finding and eliminating terrorists committed to destroying our
way of life.
This is gibberish.
Every sentence contains at least one lie, and the parts that are
true (troops thousands of miles away in over 130 countries) are
undesirable. These are the people whose patriotic juices flow when
they see a bumper sticker that says: "If You Can Read, Thank
a Teacher. If You Can Read in English, Thank a Marine." They
might even have their own bumper sticker that boldly proclaims:
"My Son Is in the Air Force." These are the people who
think that I am only able to write what I do because some Americans
in the past donned a military uniform and fought the communists
in Vietnam. These are the people who think that everything the military
does is somehow in defense of our freedoms.
Many Americans,
however, are not that gullible. They have a healthy distrust of
government. They are not in favor of the U.S. military participating
in U.N. peacekeeping operations, nation building, or regime changes.
And while some might favor the military being used to assist in
humanitarian relief efforts, others would be opposed to any interventions
on foreign soil.
It is understandable
that those in the former group who hold a glorified view of the
military might think that it is treasonous to not support the troops
in whatever military or humanitarian endeavor the president sends
them on, but it is strange to see those in the latter group likewise
say that they support the troops. At the SupportYourTroops
website we are even told:
Regardless
of your opinions on war or U.S. foreign policy, we hope you take
some time to show YOUR troops that you support them.
But why should
we? It is ludicrous to say you oppose the war but support the troops.
It is the troops that invaded a foreign country. It is the troops
that are occupying a foreign country. It is the troops that are
dropping the bombs. It is the troops that are throwing the grenades.
It is the troops that are launching the missiles. It is the troops
that are firing the mortars. It is the troops that are shooting
the bullets. It is the troops that are destroying homes and infrastructure.
It is the troops that are injuring, maiming, and killing people,
including thousands of civilians.
If more Americans
who don’t support U.S. wars and interventions would also quit expressing
support for the troops then perhaps more of the troops would quit
participating in these wars and interventions.
But what about
the Iraqis? They have killed, injured, or maimed thousands of U.S.
soldiers. Of course they have. What do you think we would do to
foreign troops that invaded our soil? But did we not remove their
oppressive dictator? Indeed we did. But there are some things about
removing Saddam Hussein that should be noted. First, wasn’t he also
an oppressive dictator in the 1980s? Why is it that he was our friend
up until the Persian Gulf War? Second, Hussein was a greater "threat"
to U.S. interests under the regime of Bush I than he was under Bush
II. Why wasn’t he taken out in 1991 after we routed his armies?
Third, why are U.S. troops still in Iraq three years after they
toppled Hussein’s regime? What happened to "victory" and
"Mission Accomplished?" Fourth, how would Americans feel
if another country said that we needed to submit to a regime change?
As much as Americans loathe George Bush, they would be outraged.
And fifth, whose responsibility was it to remove Saddam Hussein
from power? It certainly wasn’t the responsibility of the United
States. The kind of government they have and the type of leader
they have is the sole business of the Iraqi people. If Saddam was
so bad, any Iraqi could have put a bullet in his head and gone down
in history as a hero. Even Saddam had to sleep at night. Ridding
the country of Saddam Hussein was not worth the life of one American.
Not one. What comfort it must be to the mother of a dead American
soldier to know that although her son is dead and Saddam Hussein
is alive, healthy, and eating three meals a day – he has been deposed!
I have been
accused by an emotional wreck of a mother of boys in the military
of hating American troops fighting in Iraq and wanting them to come
home in body bags because I don’t support the troops. I have never
said or thought anything of the kind. I feel sorry for American
troops sent to fight without the proper equipment or training. I
feel sorry for American troops sent to fight for bogus reasons.
I feel sorry for American troops sent to fight without a clear mission.
I feel sorry for American troops sent to fight for a liar in chief.
I especially
feel sorry for those U.S. soldiers who now realize that the United
States had no business invading Iraq regardless of how quickly the
war might have ended or how few casualties we might have suffered.
I realize that they feel trapped in a war machine run by a deranged
psychotic with no regard for their welfare. But as I have recently
expressed, the troops are still
responsible for their actions. A man does not throw his morality
out the window just because he puts on a uniform, as one of my critics
recently suggested.
In spite of
everything I have said about not supporting the troops, there are
in fact some ways in which I fully support them. I support bringing
the troops home – today, not tomorrow or next week or next month
– right now. I support providing the troops with gainful employment.
I support allowing the troops to be conscientious objectors – the
more the better. I support allowing the troops to leave the military
– in droves. I support giving the troops medical treatment for their
injuries. I support giving the troops mental help for emotional
problems related to being in combat.
And
when they are all home – from Iraq and everywhere else in the world
– I support using the troops to actually patrol our coasts and guard
our borders. I support the troops so much that I don’t want them
sent to fight any more foreign wars.
Support the
troops!
October
2, 2006
Laurence
M. Vance [send him mail]
is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting at
Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. He is also the director
of the Francis Wayland
Institute. His new book is Christianity
and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. Visit
his website.
Copyright
© 2006 LewRockwell.com
Laurence
M. Vance Archives
|