All week long politicians of various stripes declared “Support the troops!” as they debated Iraq war supplemental funding bill. Actually, I’ve been hearing that mantra pretty much ever since the war began. The big difference is that early on, Americans had other goals to pursue: finding weapons of mass destruction, destroying evil and bringing democracy to a benighted region. These days supporting the troops is about all that we have left.
“We can’t let the troops down. Not after they’ve given so much.”
“The troops know they can succeed, if only we give them the tools they need.”
“The nation must show itself worthy of these brave men and women.”
The debate, such as it was, seemed to center on the troops. America’s war aims are apparently not nearly as important.
At this point I will note that CheneyBush does talk about the war and its importance in protecting (insert “vulnerable America” image here; this week it was “your children”) against a growing, alien danger. Regular readers of this space know that I consider anything he says to be “...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Today, I want to consider one way that Americans blind ourselves to this distressing reality.
“Support the troops” provides cover for all sides in the debate about the war and occupation. It’s an all purpose phrase that works well as both offense and defense. But, in reality, the politicians are supporting war, not troops. At the most fundamental level, the troops are a basic tool of war, previously funded with regular appropriations. The funding bill is about equipment and operations, about how and where those troops will apply the lethal force that CheneyBush has decided is necessary in Iraq to achieve his policies. You might as well say you support the tanks and helicopters, too.
The troops may be cogs in our war machine but they are still our daughters, sons, husbands, wives, parents, siblings and friends, far more precious than mere equipment. Now that over 3400 Americans are dead and another 25,000 wounded, we apparently cannot change to a more successful strategy because that would be a “defeat”, a “loss”. “Their sacrifices would be in vain,.” we are told. “It will destroy morale.” Note that nothing in these words speaks to the national interest for which we are asking these men, women and their families to sacrifice. Here’s where CheneyBush starts bleating “Al-Qaeda!”, “Terrorist!”, “Fear!” to conjure up a threat worth dying for. As noted above, I consider this highly bogus.
Listening to the debate on funding the Iraq occupation, it seems that the politicians care far more for individual soldiers and less about the reasons for their sacrifice. It seems that we dare not tell the troops that their sacrifices did not make America safer because CheneyBush led them into an impossible situation. So the nation tells them “Keep going, keep sacrificing, we’ll make it work somehow.” We “support the troops” by continuing to put them at risk in pursuit of failed policy.
And the troops will keep on doing what they are told. They want to. That’s why most of them joined. As an organization, the military wants to demonstrate its ability to serve the nation, even under difficult, hazardous circumstances. The troops will accept challenge and risk because that’s what they prepare and train for. It’s their job to take risks for the nation, the more challenging the better. Think Normandy, Iwo Jima,
Chosin Reservoir or
Ia Drang Valley. Street fighting in Baghdad may not be so dramatic or large scale but it’s very deadly and tests our troops as greatly as any previous military challenge.
After four years of war, death and sacrifice, we are afraid to tell our forces–and ourselves–that invading and occupying Iraq was a mistake, that all their sacrifice did nothing to strengthen America. Even worse, the war and occupation has nourished future terrorists and tarnished the nation’s reputation. By any objective standard, Iraq has been a waste. That does not diminish our troops’s sacrifice, their courage or their determination. Those achievements are beyond success or failure. The nation asked. They served. We must never forget their sacrifice. But we also must continue to ask why that sacrifice was needed if it did not serve our national interests. We can truly honor that sacrifice by releasing them from CheneyBush’s lies.
A majority of Americans now see through these lies and distortions. But apparently, we dare not tell the troops. I guess we don’t think they can handle it. That’s bullshit. Not only do most of them know what their fellow Americans think, many of them think the same. They can handle the truth. They’re trained to handle just about anything. I’m pretty sure our troops can redeploy and stand down as well as they have performed in combat, if the focus of American policy becomes Iraqi responsibility and regional diplomacy rather than occupation.
Many, I am sure, will welcome the change, the chance to escape a nightmarish futility. Others will be disappointed, believing they were denied the opportunity to succeed. But, in the end, they are soldiers. Their job is to apply force, as directed, in pursuit of policy objectives. If that policy does not succeed, our troops (and especially the military leadership) should be able to understand and adapt to the change. Explaining why we asked them to sacrifice in the first place will be the tricky part since the original reasons were so dramatic, coming on the heals of the 9-11 attacks and so patently false. That’s where we must face up to CheneyBush’s lies. It seems that America is unwilling to do that just yet. CheneyBush is clearly unwilling. Instead politicians claim to “support the troops” when, in fact, they support war and occupation, a policy that has cascaded from one disaster to another, degraded our military, wasted lives and distracted our attention from real economic, diplomatic, environmental and social issues that threaten our nation.
“Supporting the troops” ignores questions of policy and war. It’s an all purpose mantra that keeps us from asking how and why we are sacrificing these brave men and women. “Supporting the troops” is wrong because it keeps us from thinking about why our leaders called for this sacrifice. If we really want to support the troops, we will continue to ask, "Why?".
Labels: iraq, language
