--Martin Luther King Jr.
Back in 2002 when we were burning Afghanistan, although the war fever was burning most brightly across the brow of America, even then, there were dissenters from what was sure to be the killing of innocent people branded as terrorists or as harboring terrorists. This, of course, doesn’t even bring into play the inevitable dismemberment, maiming and murder of civilian men, women and children having little if any part in regional, and certainly none in international, affairs. The United States government at the behest of the corporate controlled Bush administration and the US Congress marched forward to war with little dissent to be found among the ranks of Washington politicians. The claim was that Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was being harbored by the Afghan government, a charge that to this day has not been substantiated and thus one can only assume was a lie. Global opinion, with 3 exceptions (US, Israel, India), was opposed to the bombing campaign and subsequent invasion.
Dissenters in the US were told that despite what one thought about the ‘politics’, once the war began we all had to get in line and support the troops. This was the first instance of Support The Troops rhetoric since the announcement of the Bush administration’s global War On Terror. From the beginning, there was skepticism as to the speciousness of the phrase.
What does it mean?
As a citizen of Atlanta, what can I do to assist or support a man or woman in the Dasht-i-Margi desert in Afghanistan? The question demands no reply. The obvious answer is nothing. During WW2, American troops saved the United States, Europe, heck the world, from fascism and the fate of a prison planet. The troops fought the American Revolution and made possible this great egalitarian land of opportunity.
Agree or disagree with the history, the legacy of American troops has to it a intangible emotive component. In the face of struggling to find any tangible way in which I can actually support the troops, this intangible emotive component is all that remains. And some argued that this indeed was the point all along.
‘Support the troops’ meant wave the flag.
‘Support the troops’ meant stop protesting.
‘Support the troops’ meant support the policy.
This propaganda campaign was wildly successful, leaving peace proponents outside in the cold begging for crumbs
I support the troops...but not the war
Sprouting up throughout the American Left were various rationales; the troops didn’t aaaask to go to Iraq or the troops were duped like we were or the troops must follow orders. But the ones that asked to go have now come back. And we all know nobody (but the hopelessly naïve) was duped. And no, soldiers don’t have to, and in fact according to Article 92 of the UCMJ are legally bound not to, follow orders contradicting what is known to be a standing lawful order.
This is very clear.
Within the last 9 months there has been movement within the peace ranks to co-opt the 'support the troops' mantra but with an addendum--'bring them home now'. With reservations, I have participated in this (I'm not sure if it is ever wise in an information/thought war, to use material or ideas created and branded by the opposition) push. But who exactly are we supporting? Who are the troops? The war has been going on for 3 years now. Assuming the unlikely, assuming all troops were duped, how many of them, now that the facts show clearly that the pro-war arguments weren’t true, have now re-enlisted or joined up to participated in obvious torture and killing of civilians, war crimes.
Do I still have to support the troops? Lacking morality all along, I have serious doubts as to whether or not the troops could escape legal punishment as Article 92 of the UCMJ demands the troops not participate in illegal military activities.
This prolly won't go over well among the anti-war ranks, but as a taxpayer funding these crimes, as a citizen of the United States, as a veteran of the US Armed Forces, to remain silent amidst these crimes is to die a slow death myself.
