Supporting The GI's In Iraq While Opposing Their Actions

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
April 14, 2005

Contradictions of the Anti-War Movement
Supporting the Troops, While Opposing Their Actions
By JOSHUA FRANK

When the antiwar movement says "support the troops," what we are really saying is, "don't send our soldiers off to die for an unjust cause." Unlike the hawkish pro-war faction here in the US, our views are political, and in fact ethical in nature. They are also tactical. Opposing our troops actions, while supporting them, may seem contradictory. Even so, on a human level, the antiwar movement needs to deal with the fact that people are complex and contradictory beings, and that is why our support for the troops implies dealing with the soldiers as human beings.

Indeed soldiers have their own thoughts and feelings. The antiwar movement must respect that. And we must also be there for the soldiers when they begin to question and speak out. The Iraq war will not end until soldiers are supported when they dissent. We must embrace them and try to understand them as they come to terms with their past actions, no matter how horrible they may have been. We must try hard not to fall into the holier-than-thou dichotomy that could very well split the antiwar movement.

Even a very antiwar soldier will shoot an Iraqi who they believe could be a threat to her life. An individual solider may also think their actions are wrong, but do not want to risk being ostracized by fellow troops whom they depend on for survival. Their fellow soldiers are enemies in one circumstance, and potential allies in another.

The antiwar movement must try to understand these inconsistencies and contradictions. When natural human agency and behaviors are thrown into situations like that of US soldiers fighting in Iraq -- things get complicated. But as those situations worsen, and the antiwar movement gains strength, the inner-feelings that so many US soldiers have, will be more prone to come out. If and when they do, we must be here for them. That's what "supporting the troops" is all about.

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank04142005.html

[MADem]

1. It took WAY too long for anyone to parse this issue during Vietnam

...and most of those poor kids were drafted.

I'm pleased that someone is laying this out on the line. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play a role in the defense of your country. What sucks is when politicians turn you into a tool so that they can gain power and economic advantage with the blood of our young.

[Melodybe]

2. I know a lot of guys over there, we are collecting money to buy phone card

s.

200 Billion dollars and our soldiers have to buy soap! One billion would buy enough soap for every person on earth!

Where is our money going and why don't our troops have armor?

[Jo March]

3. Kick. Great article

Very well written and concise.

[TWiley]

4. There must be an effective way to

drill the idea home that supporting the troops does NOT equal supporting the policy which sent them to war.

Bushwad Sr used this propaganda (I say that due to their deliberate misuse of the "equate" function) tactic during Desert Storm, and Rodent Jr has been using the same ploy.

The problem is this:

If one does not support the policy of the bushtapo, then they do not support the troops either.

Also, the actions of one individual soldier (and yes, there are a very small percentage who are prone to criminal violence) do NOT portray the temperament of the group.

Again, the bushtapo has used an equal sign where it does not belong. It is similar to the idea that if you attack one christian (who is behaving like a perfect asshole) then you are attacking ALL christians and gawd himself.

The problem lies in the blurry thinking the bushtapo propagates. We cannot disallow discussions of criminal activities in the military. Likewise, we cannot allow the actions of one to describe the many.

There must be a way to correct the bad logic the republicans use. Bad logic is the root of propaganda.

[zipplewrath]

5. It is very difficult

Attempting to stop a war already being fought, ends up implying that we're gonna say "oops" and bring them home. Which will mean their friends died, or were injured for an "oops". Working against the policy for which their actions serve, in the end works against the purpose of their service.

Becoming a soldier means choosing to follow the orders of civilian commanders. You don't get to choose which ones to follow and you may very well end up serving policies you may not truly support. You may also be asked not to serve policies you would support. You should be prepared to be asked to serve policies which may end up shifting, or be completely reversed. If you aren't prepared for that, you aren't prepared for fighting wars for democratic nations.

Unfortunately there is no nice sound bite to explain this. "Support" for most folks basically means "blind loyalty". Changing the language on this will be very hard.

[TWiley]

6. Soldiers are NOT at fault; they follow orders.

A wedge must be driven between the policy of the civil authorities who send them to war, and those who must carry out their duty.

This is a clear line.

Just because the policy was an "oops" does not mean the real sacrifices made by the soldiers is diminished. They do their jobs exactly as ordered.

We cannot disallow criticism of policy. The point must be driven home that the "Administration = bad policy" and "Troops = Job well done as ordered".

I refuse to allow the bushtapo to use our soldiers as a human shield as an outrageous way of defending ....... THEMSELVES.

Just because the hawkish Republi-KKK-lanz used this same propaganda strategy during the Vietnam war does not make it any more credible today. Unfortunately, they did manage to demonize the peace movement in the eyes of the veteran by taking the actions of a few and using it to describe the behaviors and beliefs of the many.

[0007]

7. LIke anything else, there is the bad, the good and the ugly!

[TWiley]

8. Kick for more discussion. N/T