Support the Troops: Bring Them Home (TIME)

[eppur_se_muova]

The resolution passed by the House of Representatives on Feb. 16, expressing disapproval of President Bush's "surge" of additional troops for the war in Iraq, is only 69 words long, and the disapproval itself takes only 27 words. It's point two. Point one, a loquacious 32 words, is an expression of approval for the troops. Not just for the troops who are currently serving, but also for those who "have served bravely and honorably" in Iraq in the past.

It appears that any expression of disapproval for the war in Iraq has to be accompanied, if not preceded, by a declaration of support for the troops. The specific inclusion of troops who are no longer in harm's way shows how empty and rhetorical this declaration of support has become. It's not that anybody around here doesn't "support the troops" — whatever that means. It's that the only reason this gets said is to block the accusation that, by opposing the war, you somehow oppose the troops — once again, whatever that means.

Sen. Barack Obama has apologized several times over for what would seem to anyone unfamiliar with the rituals and requirements of American politics to be a fairly touching tribute to "over three thousand lives of the bravest young Americans wasted" in Iraq. Unlike many, Obama has opposed this war since the beginning. "Wasted" is a strong word, but not an inaccurate one if you believe the war was wrong. (In fact, the verb "to waste" became a synonym for killing during Vietnam.) But Obama, like every other politician, has to watch his words, and must temper any sincere expression of horror and dismay, or he will be accused of not "supporting the troops."

There is something backward here. Congressional opponents of the Iraq war are "supporting the troops" in the best possible way: by trying to bring them home to safety and their families. It is those — those few, apart from President Bush — who want to send even more troops to Iraq who should feel defensive about their support for the troops. Some of those troops are on their third tour of duty in Iraq, and few of them are pleased to be there. Maybe, as Bush and his advisers no doubt sincerely believe, the drip drip drip of young American blood is worth it. Maybe the critics underestimate the peril of pulling out. Maybe the "surge" will turn out to be a huge success and vindicate Bush's strategy. But please — let's not pretend that staying the course is a favor to the troops.

Criticism of the war surely is dispiriting to the soldiers who are engaged in it. If you're killing and risking death in a miserable faraway desert, you ought to be able to believe that your sacrifice is in a worthy cause. But whose fault is it if that belief is hard to sustain? Is it the fault of people who note that the cause is not worthy? Or is it the fault of the people who sent American soldiers into this distant desert in an unworthy cause?
***
more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1591571,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

*SIGH* For some reason, the editors still attribute "noble" intentions to Bu**sh**, despite the complete absence of any sign of nobility in his entire maladministration. But at least they call the war a "horrible mistake", and say the only right thing to do is to bring the troops home.