How do you support the troops if you don't support the war?
Submitted by Whit Selert on March 29, 2007 - 3:55pm.
Democrats | Iraq | Politics | republicans | Strategy | support troops | Terrorism | war
I support the troops ... because I was one. I know who they are. I respect them. For the most part, "our troops" are young Americans, even some immigrants, who truly love this Country and don the uniform believing their effort and, potentially, their sacrifice is the price of freedom .... not only for themselves, but for the continued greatness of this Country that we love.
How can you say enough about someone willing to put it on the line like that? So I support the troops. I admire their willingness, courage and commitment and believe such a gift should never be squandered for political purposes, especially not for money, and never for a lie. So I support the troops, but I don't support the Iraq war, the mission they've been assigned, which threatens to squander these sacrifices.
Iraq is just a mission. Iraq is not the troops. Iraq is what it is. I think Iraq was a mistake, based on political misjudgment and mismanagement.
Iraq was (and continues to be) a mistake that has set us back in the bigger struggle against Islamic fundamentalism.
I'm supporting the troops by asking that this mistake not be compounded any further. I'm supporting the troops by demanding a competent battle plan.
I know we can win the "war on terror." I believe we ultimately will prevail against extremism. But I fear this administration is making that road longer and harder than necessary. So I support the troops, but I don't support this mission.
You cannot associate the troops with the mission, and neither should they. "The Decider" picked this mission and the troops, like good troops do, saluted smartly and carried out the orders.
As a citizen, I have a right to question this mission, especially when it seems like a collossal mistake. But demanding a competent war plan should never be confused with not supporting the troops. To argue otherwise is crass political pandering, suggesting by its own false premise that our troops could be committed to ANY misguided purpose and nobody should EVER question that decision.
I had a debate with author Howard Bloom (Global Brain and The Lucifer Principle) six months before the Iraq war began and I questioned the prudence of invading Iraq when the war in Afghanistan was not yet over. See, he's an expert on idea propagation and the war of ideas that is at the heart of this conflict. The gist of his response, and one apparently shared by the neocons was that we must impose a pax Americana, peace through force.
Oh, did I mention? I was a troop. I was an Arabic linguist and interrogator in the late 80s. Our area of operational responsibility was the Middle East. We did area studies on the people, their politics, social systems and religious beliefs. I translated terrorist documents captured by the Israelis in Lebanon in 1982. We translated instructions for making shit like "letter bombs" and archived the different terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah, and listed their members by name. People like me spent their whole lives studying this problem. I went on to get degrees in Middle Eastern Studies and law.
9/11 was perpetrated by a virulent strain of the same terrorists we had been tracking and dealing with for decades. These guys combined anti-western views circulating throughout the Muslim world with a strong conservative religious message that incited people to "lash out" at the great Satan, to defend Islam before it was too late. With that enemy revealed and people finally paying real attention after 9/11, we seemed poised to engage and finally defeat this screwed up ideology.
Bush's response to 9/11 was awkward from the start. Slow to react. Slow to appreciate the nature of this threat. Nonetheless, we made good progress in Afghanistan and had the entire world on our side. With the right plan, we could have eradicated or minimized this radical threat and emerged as the true leader of the free world.
So when the Bush administration suddenly changed its focus from terrorism and fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden to a petty dictator like Saddam Hussein virtually overnight, my eyebrow was more than slightly raised. I knew (and I know others knew) that the purported links between Saddam and Osama were untrue. They were nothing alike, ideological opposites and enemies.
These were totally different types of threats. And I questioned the propriety of taking on a new enemy when we had not yet defeated the first and, particularly, where our actions were obviously going to reinvigorate the Al-Qaida enemy.
There was no freakin way Saddam built a viable weapons of mass destruction program capable of posing an "imminent threat" to the U.S. as forcefully, and repeatedly, argued by this Administration. No way they built that under our noses after we destroyed most of their military in 1991 and imposed "no fly" zones over huge sections of that country for the next decade. No way Iraq was linked to 9/11 or those terrorists.
The belief otherwise, whether sincere or not, betrayed a profound ignorance of the true nature of the Al-Qaida threat. Bush and his supporters grossly underestimated what they were dealing with and they never appreciated the impact that invading a sovereign Arab (and predominantly Muslim) nation under false pretenses would have on the Middle East as a whole, the Muslim world in general, and the message of fundamentalist extremists like Al-Qaida at this critical moment in history.
So I raised the issue with Bloom. Wouldn't invading Iraq play into Al-Qaida's hands? Doesn't the use of false pretense to invade Iraq give strength to Osama Bin Laden's prediction that we are only in it for the oil? Won't that make Muslims and Arabs feel threatened and victimized, sympathizing with Osama's cause, instead of helping fight it? And worst of all, won't our Army be exposed in a foreign land, ignorant of the language and culture and susceptible to frequent attacks at a frequency and intensity otherwise impossible?
No, no, no,the Administration assured us. Democracy would spring like flowers from the ground. This would all be over quickly and with little cost.
And so it seemed, initially. The initial military phase went as predicted. How could it not. The best army in the world vs. Saddam's army. Cake walk. "Mission Accomplished." The fall of Saddam's statue was visual confirmation. The administration relished the moment.
But democracy did not spring forth. We created a huge power vacuum and had NO PLAN to fill it. The Bush Administration developed that plan on the fly. It's unforgiveable. That part of the war plan was entirely glossed over. And the longer we sat there, the worse it got. How could it not. The Al-Qaida operators descended on us as predicted, moving in and out of the country at will, sowing the seeds of instability and terror. The Saddam loyalists who stood to be prosecuted for their pre-war roles in Saddam's government, fought us as well. Sectarian differences between Shi'a and Sunni inflamed.
At the heart of it all, stuck in the middle, were the troops I support.
When you add in the tragedy of Abu Ghraib (and you really can't underestimate the impact on Muslims of hearing that U.S. soldiers urinated on the Koran as part of interrogation technique) and the collateral damage and civilian casualties that always accompany an operation of this sort, you have a recipe for escalating disaster.
So I figured out in 2002 that the Project for a New American Century was the "brain" behind the Iraq invasion strategy. Shortly after shock and awe, I sent them a detailed letter outlining these concerns and posing a plan to succeed, despite what I considered a huge mistake. They never responded. Nonetheless, particularly in the past 18 months, the administration is realizing the nature of the enemy and slowly (too goddam slow) modifying its strategies.
Absent in the early days was a principled discussion of constitutional democracy, debate on the compatibility of Islam and democracy, the importance of separation of church and state in a world where religious tension runs high. Instead of being a light and a beacon on the fundamental principles of democracy, we instead appeared at all times to extoll only the virtues of capitalism.
So began the downward spiral.
One good thing to come out of Iraq, if you must find a silver lining, is that the fundamental concept of this struggle as an ideological war above all else is finally beginning to be grasped by U.S. citizens and this administration. Unfortunately, nearly six years after 9/11, we have only emboldened and strenthened our ideological enemy and created a scenario where that struggle may very likely occur on a scale much, much larger than was necessary. Nonetheless, the groundwork is laid and that part of the war remains to be fought.
Iraq's civil war is a microcosm. The passions and differences that fuel that struggle permeate the region. If we continue to exacerbate these tensions, the struggle will expand. In some ways, wider struggle is necessary. Within Islam in general and the Middle East in particular, there must be debate and resolution on the role of government vis a vis the people and the extent to which Islam and democracy can coexist or co-exist with the Western democracies.
We can and should guide that debate. We can and should force the issue with existing regimes, making them take a position. If they decide to embrace principles of democracy and tolerance of the west, then great. If they cannot, then at least they are a declared threat and we should treat them accordingly.
There is no reason for us to be in Iraq to facilitate or guide that struggle. There never was. We cannot force the outcome through arms. This is an ideological struggle, a battle of ideas and in order to prevail, we must have the better idea.
I submit to you that "unbridled capitalism" is not that idea and never was the founding principle of this Country and is just one of the reasons the capitalist ideologues of this administration have thus far proven so inept at battling these extremists.
So I support the troops. I support bringing them home. Resting them. Re-arming them. Re-building our Army and fortifying our infrastructure and economy. I support redefining the mission to focus on the real enemy and engaging that enemy with the ideas that make this Country great.
we have some differences of opinion. I will begin with "support our troops." As I see it, one of the primary problems is that--as you point out--the phrase is broad. As a result, it is capable of having multiple meanings. That multiplicity means it can be manipulated to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean in a given situation. Thus, it seems to me that one thing that needs to be done is narrow the meaning, and then it might be possible to eliminate its use. I realize this might sound semi-nonsensical, but allow me to explain. The phrase "support our troops" exists and has been in use for several years. It is not going to disappear on its own. If those who feel the phrase is inappropriate, incorrect, dangerous, etc., stop using the phrase completely, I doubt seriously that those who have used it repeatedly (and for the purposes you describe) are going to stop. If that assumption is correct, and everyone else stops using the phrase, then those who have used and abused it will be free to continue doing that in any way they please. What I am suggesting is that an effort needs to be made to eliminate the multiplicity of meanings. Force people to explain what they mean by "support our troops." (and I think Whit did that in his last paragraph). Then pointing out problems such as you have detailed can be effective, and maybe the phrase will no longer be capable of being so easily and widely manipulated. You ask "What, exactly, would constitute 'not supporting our troops?'" Whit provides some answers, and I will add a few:
- sending troops into an operation without a competent battle plan;
- committing our troops to a misguided and erroneous mission;
- using the troops to overthrow a foreign government and then not have any kind of plan for the aftermath;
- sending our troops to combat with inadequate equipment;
- sending troops into combat and other situations without adequate training;
- spending billions to have private contractors perform some the same functions as our troops (the contractors make much more money than the troops, which affects morale, and that money could have been spent on thing like adequate armor and other equipment);
- overextending and stretching to the breaking points the military;
- failing to provide adequate medical care for troops once they return home (evidenced by the Walter Reed scandal--and there have been problems for several years with medical care for Iraq war vets);
- having a President who refuses to attend even one funeral or memorial service for military personnel killed in Iraq, but will exploit certain deaths and casualties for what can only be termed as propaganda purposes...
And on and on. One of the multiple meanings of "support our troops" is--as Whit points out, if not expressly then through strong implication--"support the Bush administration." For those who take such a stand, I would ask if the items listed above constitute "supporting the troops." If they say "no," I would then point out that those are all things the Bush administration has done and ask them to explain how supporting the Bush administration constitutes supporting the troops. In other words, get them to explain what they mean by "support the troops." The phrase "support the troops" has been used as a "rhetorical cudgel" and as sloganeering to try to silence critics of the Iraq war. What I am suggesting is that the phrase can be used by those of us who are those critics to show war supporters why this war--and the Bush administration--have been bad for the troops. Maybe then, the use of the phrase as a propaganda tool can be reduced and eliminated. And then the focus can be properly placed on a true policy debate. I don't have as much to say about "war on terror," mainly because I agree with much of your penultimate paragraph, particularly the point about obviating recourse to diplomacy. Moreover, what I do have to say is admittedly contrary to what I just suggested regarding "support our troops." I suggest that applying a wholesale narrowing of the definition of "war" could have unintended consequences at this time. For instance, I take it that you are saying that a "war" requires an opponent that is a state. If my assumption is incorrect, I apologize; however, I am going to utilize that assumption. If "war" requires a "state," then one could argue that we have not been at "war" in Iraq since the end of major combat operations. Also, one could argue that there has never been a "civil war" in Iraq. To me that presents an opportunity to downplay the gravity of what has been and still is going on. On the other hand, your point about "war" in the context of due process is very well taken. I confess that I have no proposal right now to resolve the contradictions I have presented, but I think there should be some way to address all the concerns raised herein about the use of "war." I am certainly open to suggestions. In closing, I reiterate that I agree there are problems with the phrases you criticize. I agree that they are used to divert focus away from important issues in ways that lead to "repeating the same policy mistakes." However, I feel we cannot simply stop using those phrases at this time. If we do that, the sloganeers and propagandists will continue to use them and manipulate them in any way that suits their purposes. I feel that that result is also dangerous and bad for democracy.
For some reason, I could not get the above comment to obey my formatting desires. There should be paragraph breaks between "allow me to explain" and "The phrase"; "true policy debate" and "I don't have as much to say"; and "open to suggestions" and "In closing."
I often have to resort to manual line feeds (shift+enter) when the software isn't honoring paragraph marks (enter). This usually happens with text I've copied and pasted. A double shift+enter should do the trick to delineate your paragraphs.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
Hi WCharles,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Because of the formatting problems, I won't do my usual quote-reply. A couple of points, however:
As for whether we've been engaged in a war in Iraq since the fall of Saddam's government: no, we haven't. We've been engaged in an occupation.
The military had completed its job when we toppled that statue: removing any threat that Saddam Hussein might undertake operations with Al Qaeda (he wasn't) and/or provide them with WMDs (which he didn't have). What followed was a simple military occupation, with the inevitable rise of a resistance movement that such occupations engender.
One prerequisite for a rational debate on Iraq is admitting that we have been engaged in a military occupation for the past four years. We can drop illusory exhortations for "victory" and turn instead to realistic discussions of whether that military occupation is necessary and, if so, what conditions make it necessary. Americans don't like the idea of being occupiers, so those who would argue for the occupation's necessity then bear the burden of proving that to a skeptical populace, rather than arguing that their opponents are "defeatist." You can't be "defeatist" if we've already won the war....
Is there a civil war in Iraq? Yes. One of the features of civil wars is that they are not limited to state actors. The American Civil War was the exception in this regard, not the rule. But the existence of a civil (largely sectarian) war in Iraq does not prove the existence or necessity of a "war on terror." By describing our anti-terrorism policy as a "war on terror" -- thus negating the case for due process -- we neglect the very rule of law that is the basis for our opposing terrorism as a political tool.
Ultimately, with regard to state actors, "war" is a legal term. It defines a collection of exceptions to the general rules of international law, exceptions which themselves are bound by the laws of war. That collection of exceptions applies when a "state of war" exists between two states. Limiting those exceptions to a "state of war," and thus to states which have "declared war," puts the citizens of those states, their neighbors, and their trading partners on notice.
A declaration of war says: "Fair warning ... Red and Blue are no longer following the general rules of international law in their dealings with each other. If you deal with or plan to deal with either, that may spill over on you, so tread cautiously." It allows states to respect the rule of law, even as they engage in armed conflict. They have put each other (and the world!) on notice that "the rules have changed" until the war is concluded.
The undeclared and undeclarable "global war on terror" makes a complete hash of that. Who are we at war with? What are the geographical limits? Is it "legal," in the context of a "global war on terror," for the U.S. to insert a military force into France in order to capture suspected "terrorists?" If so, do we have to gain permission or even notify the French government first? What if our leaders think such notification would compromise the mission? If we don't notify the French, or the notice doesn't make its way down to the cops on the street, what do we do if our troops meet resistance from French police who don't know what's happening? What if a French fighter pilot opens fire on one of our exfil helicopters?
These questions are not mere intellectual exercises. They are gaping legal holes in our notion of a "global war on terror." They are nightmares-in-being, waiting for the inevitable time when our "warmaking" goes awry in some ally's city. Their potential consequences are the best argument against a "global war on terror."
Because if the United States does not stand for the rule of law, we lose all legitimacy in the international order. We become a "rogue state."
Crissie
So, if we're really going to fight all terrorism - we could go after stateless groups, but we could also go after lots of states - including those that authorize terrorizing prisoners, those that rain terror from the skies, and those that take revenge for terrorist acts (e.g. 9/11) by attacking innocent third parties (e.g. Iraq).
How come terrorism is OK for us to do, but really awful when someone else does it to us?
As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
I agree with much of what you say. However, keep in mind that we are lawyers (at least you are a former lawyer and I hope to be in that category sooner than later) and thus very used to dealing in precision when it comes to words, their meanings in specific contexts, and their use. I agree that we have been in an occupation. I'll take that one step further by saying that according to the official military campaign planning doctrine applicable before the war, we have been engaged in "military operations other than war."
My concern is that in order for there to be a rational debate, the public as a whole needs to be thinking along the lines you describe. I think we probably agree on that point, but disagree on how to accomplish that.
When discussing my work with non-lawyers, I find that I have to spend time explaining terms that for lawyers are very basic. In other words, I have to give a definition for some terms and also explain the concepts underlying the term. "Due process" is a good example. "Rule of law" is another (and I agree with your last paragraph). Once a non-lawyer grasps the concepts, then the discussion becomes more fruitful.
Now, back to "war." There are two situations to which this term is relevant in the context of this discussion. The first is the situation in Iraq. In a general sense, "war" is a term that people understand. "War" and "occupation" each involve military action and can both involve armed conflict, but I think most people don't think of "occupation" in those terms. The gravity of war I think is obvious to most people, while "occupation" might not resonate as much. In the context of Iraq, strictly calling the operations there an "occupation" might present an opportunity to downplay the gravity of the situation. In other words,unless the concepts and nuances underlying "war" and "occupation" are explained and accepted by the public, I think relying on the term "occupation" might not succeed in swaying public opinion. I could be wrong about that.
However, the Bush administration needs to convey a sense of gravity and urgency, so how can they do that? By invoking the "global war on terror." I agree that that term is making a hash of things, to put it mildly. I agree with the rest of your analysis regarding "global war on terror."
So I see one situation in which using "war" could help change opinions and one in which using "war" is a dangerous thing. Like I said before, I don't know how to resolve that contradiction.
What I do know is that I stand by my position on "support our troops," and that is the subject of Whit's post. And I think that his views are relevant and necessary to any meaningful debate about Iraq.
Hi WCharles,
I didn't realize you were a fellow lawyer. No wonder your replies are so thoughtful! :)
In a general sense, "war" is a term that people understand. "War" and "occupation" each involve military action and can both involve armed conflict, but I think most people don't think of "occupation" in those terms. The gravity of war I think is obvious to most people, while "occupation" might not resonate as much. In the context of Iraq, strictly calling the operations there an "occupation" might present an opportunity to downplay the gravity of the situation. In other words, unless the concepts and nuances underlying "war" and "occupation" are explained and accepted by the public, I think relying on the term "occupation" might not succeed in swaying public opinion. I could be wrong about that.
I think you may be short-selling the American people here. Americans know what a military occupation is. It calls to mind images of German troops in France, and the French Resistance blowing up trains and such. It also calls to mind images from the movie Red Dawn which was essentially the "French Resistance" story set in the U.S. We know what an occupation is ...
... and Americans recoil at the thought of being "occupiers."
The Bush White House knows this. Just the other day, while being grilled on the King of Saudi Arabia's criticism of the "illegitimate U.S. occupation," the White House spokeswoman did a verbal tap dance to argue that we're not "occupying" Iraq ("We are there at the invitation of the legitimate sovreign government"), going so far as to say that we didn't "invade" Iraq ("the U.S. military undertook operations to enforce a U.N. resolution").
She didn't deny those terms because she thought they might downplay the gravity of the situation. She downplayed them because she knows Americans do not want to be "invaders" or "occupiers." Nazis and Russians "invade" and "occupy." Not us. Saying the "war" ended with the collapse of the Hussein regime and that we've since been engaged in a "military occupation" would run against our moral sense of who we are as a nation.
If you recall, the administration's first term for the post-Saddam operations was "reconstruction." That was politically palatable. We were told about the "Pottery Barn Rule: you break it, you own it." We'd broken Iraq, so we had a moral duty to rebuild it.
No one was allowed to probe into that palatable pablum and say that what really happened in Iraq was tantamount to walking into a Pottery Barn store, breaking some of the inventory, then claiming ownership of the store itself ... as an intended first step toward bringing "new management" to the entire mall.
That image would not fit with the United States as responsible customer paying for a pot that we had accidentally broken. That image paints the United States as a Mafia protection racket. That image, however factually accurate, is decidedly not palatable.
It's tempting to think that all countries always do this: recasting their more unsavory activities in lofty language, thus painting themselves as the heroes. That's not true, however. If you read the history of the U.S. engagement in East Asia, beginning in 1848 and culminating in World War II and the post-war occupation of Japan, you will find a pointed, protracted, and public debate over whether the U.S. should join in "the Empire game."
Expansionists like Alfred Thayer Mahan and Theodore Roosevelt argued that a nation which stops pushing its frontiers outward becomes "morally decrepit." Mahan, best known for his book The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, stated outright that "war is the handmaiden of commerce," and that the United States should build and use a dominant navy to "identify, seize, and secure markets for American business." An influential newspaper noted that "American farmers grow than we can eat, American factories produce more than we can consume, and our government must use force to secure markets for the surplus, that capital can show a return on its investment."
The most potentially lucrative of those markets was China, and indeed that was the U.S. motive for the Spanish-American War. Our objective was to seize the Philippines as a base for a naval "big stick" to guarantee our access to the Chinese markets. The invasion of Cuba was to protect our strategic rear by evicting the Spanish navy from the Caribbean. In negotiating the Treaty of Paris, the U.S. gave away our gains in the Caribbean (except for Puerto Rico), but held onto the Philippines and Guam ... because those were our real objectives from the outset.
None of this happened in secret. The expansionists did not pretend to be arguing for something else. Isolationsts openly argued that imperialism was counter to American values. The American people knew what their government was doing, and could thus endorse or reject those policies in elections. The political history of 1900-1940 is the struggle between the policies of imperialism and isolationism, with candidates on each side openly stating and defending their intentions.
The debate did not end at Pearl Harbor. Indeed the most heated arguments came during the war, in debates over whether U.S. troops should fight to defend British and Dutch colonies in the south Pacific, and later whether to fulfill MacArthur's pledge to recapture the Philippines, which were by then strategically irrelevant vis a vis Japan.
The debate ended in 1948, with the Red Scare. Those who argued against a policy of imperialism were branded as "communists" or at least "fellow travelers." That debate has not truly resumed since. Instead, the government began lying to the American people, carrying out an imperialist-in-fact policy while telling the people that we were simply "defending our national interests."
The greater the divide between the facts and the desired impression, the greater the need for secrecy, Orwellian doublespeak, and outright lying, to hide those facts from the people lest we rise up and say "No, we don't want to be that!" Calling the military occupation of Iraq a "war" is part of that continuing practice of short-circuiting public debate over whether the United States ought to be in "the Empire game."
It's time to resume that debate. Indeed, it's well past time.
Crissie
Thanks for saying my replies are "thoughtful." That's kind of like me telling people I'm an "attorney" because it sounds a little nicer than "lawyer." :-)
"Our moral sense of who we are as a nation" is not what it once was. It used to be that starting a war of choice on false pretenses was against that moral sense, but that changed. Ten years ago I never would have thought that so many people in this country would buy into the BS that was used to sell this war, turn a blind eye to the facts that existed to show the false pretenses and folly of such a war, and then support it so wholeheartedly. Consequently, I am not sure that for those whose opinion still needs to be changed, the differences between "war" and "occupation" will have a determinative effect. So, am I short-selling the American people? Maybe, and I realize how harsh that sounds. However, the Bush administration has described the action in Iraq in terms of some sort of occupation without using that word--we're there to keep the peace, we're there to help make sure the new Iraqi democracy is established, we're there until the Iraqis can "stand up," we can't leave until the job is finished, etc. Up to now, many opinions have changed, but many remain yet to be changed. Somehow the gravity of this situation has to get through to them. And I am not sure that exclusively calling the situation an "occupation" is going to succeed in that regard. Like I said, I could be wrong. Perhaps some different or additional term should be used. Something like "quagmire." Something that conveys directly and clearly how irrevocably bad the situation is and always will be. To me, "occupation" does not do that. It might be that once that term and the concepts you describe are explained, use of "occupation" will accomplish that objective. Maybe that will remind people of what used to be our moral sense as a nation.
seemed to make sense to me when I wrote them, but upon further review they do not convey what I meant to convey. I sincerely thank you for calling my replies "thoughtful," for sometimes people think of them as a bit wordy and overly lawyer-like. I can't imagine why...
Hi WCharles,
Too much of American political discourse has descended into trading slogans -- "cut and run," "lie and die" -- as if the American people are incapable of conceptualizing more than "Thought McNuggets." We are not a stupid people. We are idealists, yes, and prone to buy into idealistic visions. Having bought into them, we're as prone to cognitive dissonance as anyone else, and so it takes awhile to change our minds. But we are not a stupid people, and acting as if we were is one of the greatest failings of our current "leaders" (in both parties).
Crissie
Another thing to use in my debates with Bush supporters.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
This administration has been pretty successful at defining the terms, phrases and arguments surrounding these important issues and Democrats, until most recently, have flailed to offer either a valid criticism or an alternate definition that sticks. So regardless of the loaded meanings of these terms or the perceived meaningless in some of the distinctions, the fact remains that the debate has been so framed.
Just the thing for me to share with my "troop supporting" relatives who voted for Bush. Thanks.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
It was on right wing talk radio and blogs that I hear the argument: "How can you support the troops if you don't support the war."
So this post was really for those of you who also hear that argument, but maybe haven't thought about ways to respond. Hope it helps and good luck to all.
I want to bring them all back alive.
What more supportive thing could you do than bringing someone home from Iraq alive instead of in a body bag?
Hi Whit,
I agree that the Iraq War is a mistake. Alas, your essay perpetuates some phrases that are both meaningless and destructive to our democracy:
"Support our troops." What, exactly does that mean? That you're paying your taxes and thus paying their salaries? That you hope they get home safely? That you think most of them are honorable, dedicated young men and women who are worthy of our respect and gratitude? What, exactly, would constitute "not supporting our troops?"
I suggest the phrase is so broad, so devoid if any concrete meaning, that it is nothing more than a rhetorical cudgel with which to challenge anyone with whom one disagrees about U.S. military or foreign policy. It's one of those lofty phrases -- like "family values" -- that sounds good but means nothing. And by creating a climate where no one dares to begin any discussion of foreign policy without first proclaiming that he/she "supports our troops," we make a sham of any purported policy debate. We displace reason with sloganeering. That's bad for democracy.
"War on terror" or "war against Islamic fanaticism." Both of these are equally meaningless. Are there terrorists? Yes. Are many (not all) motivated in part by ideals that can be collected under the catch-all of "Islamic fanaticism?" Yes. Are we "at war" with them? No. You can't prosecute a war against diffuse, stateless bands of extremists. You can only contain them through police and intelligence operations, and ultimately try to expose the folly of their beliefs and thus starve their recruiting.
Calling that a "war" is not simply inaccurate. It's dangerous.
In a "police/intelligence operation," we accept the requirement for due process of law. But the phrase "due process of law" is meaningless in a "war." You don't have to verify that the guys in the other trench have done or intend to do anything to hurt you. They're "the enemy," and you can take that as a given, killing or capturing them without regard evidence or procedure.
Moreover, by calling it a "war" you obviate any recourse to diplomacy. And while some of the "terrorists" are, in part, motivated by a fundamentalist vision of Islam, that is not true odf all, and it is not wholly true of any. Even the most fundamentalist Muslims have valid policy complaints about the U.S. engagement in the Middle East. If you call them "terrorists" and declare "war," you take those policy complaints off the table. There's no need to ask whether our foreign policy is in part fueling the rage that came home on 9/11. Such discussions are not a part of "making war."
So long as we keep using these phrases, we're stuck with the same narrow worldview, the same limited menu of options, and doomed to keep repeating the same policy mistakes.
Crissie