Ron Fransell, asks in his blog Under the News if one can oppose the war in Iraq and still support the troops, and whether the troops feel supported by someone opposed to their endeavor. Ron is the Managing editor of the Beaumont Enterprise way down yonder in Beaumont, Texas, a town where I was partly raised, or at least nearby. He begins his conversation by linking to a column by Joel Stein in Monday's Los Angeles Times entitled Warriors and Wusses. Stein's conclusion is that we are equivocating morally to say we support our troops but oppose the war. I agree with most of his points, but disagree with his conclusion.
I am opposed to the war in Iraq. It was a war of choice, based on a false premise, urged on by others with hidden agendas. Presently we have about 150,000 uniformed servicemen and women there. No estimates are given for non-uniformed personnel, nor is one given for the private soldiers of fortune hired by Halliburton. There are a lot of them.
As a veteran from the Vietnam era, I am sensitive to the plight of uniformed service personnel. Prior to being drafted in 1971, I actively opposed the war in Vietnam. For 21 months and 11 days, I wore a uniform, and because military traveling in uniform got special rates for travel, I traveled as a soldier. I know there are urban myths about how poorly soldiers were treated, but it never happened to me. I flew in and out of the San Francisco International Airport dozens of times during that period. I was always treated courteously. I encountered plenty of students, hippies, and other assorted leftists during this time who were unequivocally against the war in Vietnam. They always made sure I understood the difference between their opposition to the war and their support of me. I never confused their opposition to the war as opposition to me. Most of the lower-ranking guys in those days were draftees, citizen-soldiers, if you would. We were not to blame for our predicament.
Today's soldiers are not draftees. For the most part, they're a hawkish bunch exemplified by the fact that they've chosen to be warriors for the nation. Mercenary warriors at that, receiving large bonuses for serving in combat positions. Polls taken during the election of 2004 indicate that about 75 percent of them supported not just the war in Iraq, but President Bush specifically, despite Bush's dubious record of service during Vietnam. Anecdotal evidence tells me that besides being very conservative, they are also homophobic and dangerous to anyone they perceive as being Gay. There are also strong currents of misogyny in the military culture.
I think they're as foolish in their career choices as they are in their political choices. What support do I owe them? Am I supposed to wink when they do things like this? Or this? Or how about this? And let me tell you, convicting someone like that poor girl with a learning disability and absolving every field officer is so offensive to the concept of "supporting our troops" that I'm ready to spit on and fight any Wingnut that gets into my face about it. You tell me: what does "supporting" our troops mean to you?
Support our troops? I've been through this once already. Supporting our troops is also about supporting the ones who come home crazy, on drugs, unable to maintain relationships. Supporting our troops means having an adequately funded VA. Supporting our troops means not denying that they have serious problems when they return as a result of chemicals used by both our side and the enemy, (Agent Orange comes to mind).
Usually when a nation goes to war, the leader tries to unify the country as it wages war. What did this President do to unify the country? For starters, he and his party shut out the Democrats. He lowered taxes on the rich, leaving the bill for this war to our children and grandchildren. If I didn't oppose this war, I would be disloyal to both the troops over there who are being morally and spiritually compromised, AND generations of Americans yet born.
There's your answer from me, Ron. I'm not sure if I have a moral imperative to "support our troops" without first we define what constitutes support. If I define support, then yes, I do. I want them home, I want them supplied adequately to survive, but I want them healed of their psychological wounds as well. If GOP Wingnuts define the word, probably not. I am not in favor of unchecked militarism. I believe we have a higher responsibility to the nation and the world than simply to put a yellow ribbon on our SUVs and wash our hands of all moral culpability.
As for whether or not they feel my political position is supportive or not, that is not my concern. They are not citizen soldiers caught up in a whirlwind. They are professionals who have volunteered for this mission. The best support I can give them all is to do everything I can to get them home quickly. Whether or not they appreciate it is not my primary concern.
The definition of "support" is the real nut of the matter, isn't it?
If support is "I don't want them to die," then that's different from "We should spend gazillions for on weapons for more shock and awe." I guess that's simply a question that should be posed to every person who slaps a magnetic yellow ribbon on their fender and calls it patriotism.
For me, I use the situation I described in asking the question at http://UnderTheNews.blogspot.com :
Imagine yourself talking to a young soldier and saying: "I think everything you risk your life to do is ill-advised, stupid, inhumane, murderous, sickening and the people who declared it are liars, cheats, thugs and swindlers who don't care if you get disemboweled by a roadside bomb ... but I support you entirely."
Do you think that young soldier FEELS supported?
I think your point that he's a professional and it doesn't matter to you if he feels supported throws a very interesting wrinkle in the fabric of this conversation. It bears a lot of thinking.
Thanks, Houston!
Posted by: Ron Franscell | January 27, 2006 at 03:15 PM
I like your idea about defining support. I like your definition.
I disagree with the whole issue of professionals. That may be so in the officers corps, but at grunt level what you have is a bunch of kids who cant afford to go to college or who cant abide by life as they know it in their "ghettos" and are looking for the only way out they can see. No question that they chose that route, but sometimes desperation makes you take a path and hope you don't get asked to do anything that is against your belief system.
Posted by: crismoon | January 28, 2006 at 08:12 AM
I thought about how to define professional but still take in the fact that so many young men and women have chosen to go into the military out of tradition or economic circumstances. I refuse to see them as victims, however. That doesn't show the proper respect for them, the job that they're doing and the choices they have made.
They do not have carte blanche to do evil in my name, and some of the crap they're pulling over there is wrong. They're going to come back with hidden wounds. Who's going to help them heal? Republicans? They'll just blame them for their suffering and turn their back on them. Don't think so? Take a walk with me through the area where my office is and let me introduce you to a few Vietnam vets living on the street.
We need to be very cautious when we send our young men and women to a war not everyone supports. Bush and his gang were reckless, and the worst of it is they're getting away with it.
Posted by: Houston | January 28, 2006 at 11:49 AM
You can also support the war and not the troops. That is what this admin does. You know, not providing armor and equipment, screwing veterans, stoploss...the list goes on.
Posted by: Daedalus | January 28, 2006 at 04:41 PM
I just wanted to say that not all of the people I know who are/were in the Reserves are not "professionals." My husband was in the Army National Guard for seven years and missed stop-loss by a few months. He, like most of the people in his unit, signed up when he was eighteen/nineteen because he needed help to pay for college. He didn't want to have tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt to carry for the rest of his life, like I do. He certainly wasn't interested in politics then, and still isn't for the most part. He signed up pre-Sept. 11, in 1996 or so I think, and of course had a lot different impression of what his role could/would be. Most of these guys/girls thought they would have to be ready for hurricanes, disaster preparedness, things like that. I know that's not the case with everybody, but we have to remember that an alarming number of the troops are just reservists or national guard, many who signed up in "the good old days" pre-W., with obligations that should have ran out a good year or two ago.
Posted by: Chiclit | January 28, 2006 at 05:24 PM