“Support for the troops” has become political cover to support the wars

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kenneth__080311__22supporting_the_troo.htm

Headlined on 3/11/08:

"Supporting the troops" = Supporting U.S. Imperialist War


In the recent political battle around the Marine recruiting station in Berkeley. California there has been much confusion around the concept or slogan of “supporting the troops,” but opposing the unjust wars of the Bush regime. Many who oppose the Bush Regime wars also say they “support the troops.” Let me say it straight out -- I do not support the troops and neither should you. It is impossible to support the troops of the imperialist military forces of the U.S. and at the same time oppose the wars in which they fight.

“Support for the troops” has become political cover to support the wars, and undermine the widespread opposition to them. In Congress, many of those who claim they oppose the wars, use “support of the troops” to vote for hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the wars. These politicians are political opportunists, but there are also people who genuinely oppose the war, but who also say “I support the troops.”

A KILLING MACHINE

The U.S. has over 700 military bases or sites located in over 130 foreign countries. The U.S. government spends more on its military than the entire rest of the world combined. The hundreds of thousands of troops stationed overseas are not there to preserve or foster freedom and democracy as the Bush regime would like to claim, but to maintain U.S. imperialist domination of the world. If you “support the troops” in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other more than 100 countries in which they are located, you also support U.S. hegemony in the world. I believe that the vast majority of people who say they support the troops do not wish to support U.S. imperialism, but that is what they are really doing by putting forth the slogan of “support the troops.”

We need to oppose the recruitment of men and women into the military. We need to support resisters within the military who have realized what they are doing and now choose to resist the role of the U.S. military. This includes people such as Lt. Ehren Watada who refused to deploy to Iraq. Watada stated, “Never did I imagine my president would lie to go to war, condone torture, spy on Americans…” He was the first officer to refuse to go to Iraq and he was court-martialed. Another resister is Camilo Mejia. In 2004 Sergeant Mejia was sentenced to one year in prison when he was court-martialed for refusing to assist the military in Iraq. Mejia said, “I am only a regular person that got tired of being afraid to follow his own conscience. For far too long I allowed others to direct my actions even when I knew that they were wrong....”

We need to expose that those in the U.S. military are trained to be part of a “killing machine.” While not every member of the military is an individual murderer, they are all part of a system that commits war crimes, including aggressive wars, massacres, rape, and other crimes against humanity, all in the service of U.S. imperialism. The bottom line is that even if these people are relatives or friends, you can not support the troops without also supporting the objective role that these troops play in the imperialist system.

[raccoon]

1. K&R. nt

[bryant69]

2. Not a viable strategy

Most Americans, even those opposed to the war, see the troops as victims of Bush Policy at worst. They aren't willing to make the transition to seeing the Troops as enablers of the Bush War Drive.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TooBigaTent]

3. Even though it is true. Just following orders does not excuse it.

I also predict that this thread will disappear very soon. Even here, the "troops" are sacred and cannot be criticized.

[bryant69]

5. Yes - even here people who put their lives at risk to protect us

are admired. It's really remarkable.

What's that you say? The troops aren't fighting to protect us? They are fighting to support the evil Bush Family and their imperialistic goals? Ah - that is how the troops are being used (or misused as the case may be). But that's not what they signed up to do.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TooBigaTent]

15. Let me ask you a direct question. Suppose you have a noble job, e.g. public defender.

Your boss instructs/orders you to purposely tank your defense effort for a client (the reason is unimportant). What do you do?

The support the troops crowd would say, obey your boss because it is an order and you are not responsible for your actions.

I would say that the "right" decision would be to not obey, even if there are consequences (demotion or firing).

What would YOU do?

[Echo In Light]

17. And there are troops who do this, that is, the right thing - guts/morals

[bryant69]

18. I think what I would do is irrelelevant in judging what someone else would do

But I think most people given a choice between doing their job, and not doing their job and going to jail would chose to do their job.

Bryant

[Echo In Light]

22. Impossible to gage with any certainty. I know if my employer approached me...

And recommended or even "ordered" me to do something I knew was dishonest or malicious/would cause others harm, etc, I'd have zero problems with not obliging their wants.

[bryant69]

23. Well you must be a special noble blessed soul

What if your employer could send you to prison for not obeying his orders?

Bryant

[Echo In Light]

26. Funny that you'd consider my position to be inordinate, rare, "noble"

Your postulation is drastically oversimplified: one, I'm simply not in a position of facing jail time for not following an illegal "order" from an employer.

Let's spin that though: would more soldiers be willing to not commit atrocities if they knew they would be held personally accountable for their actions?

[bryant69]

28. Again how many troops are committing atrocities

Any atrocity commission is obviously a big problem - but how many are doing it? And do you see soldiers as the sort of people who want to commit atrocities, and need to be held back from doing them by stricter rules?

I agree that the chain of command in Iraq has broken down, but the faults come from the Bush Administration in my opinion.

Bryant

[Echo In Light]

29. The problem has many aspects - far more complex/varied than a "broken chain of command."

[bryant69]

32. And thus we get to the nub of it

Is it fair to say that the problems in the Military is but an outgrowth of a larger sickness of our society, one that needs to be fixed before we destroy ourselves?

Bryant

[Echo In Light]

34. In my estimation, absolutely n/t

[bryant69]

35. If you could put a one or two sentance prescription of our problem, what would it be? n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

45. The occupation of Iraq is illegal and thereby the entire enterprise is

an "atrocity"

[selador]

50. bingo

it is very rare for our troops to commit atrocities.

imo, HONEST opponents of the war (myself included) who actually look at the facts realize that the US troops have fought bravely AND with restraint (as far as civilians) and atrocities are rare.

when atrocities happen - abu graib, etc. they are PROSECUTED. that's what seperates us from them.

please show me the examples of anti-us forces in either iraq or afghanistan who have been prosecuted for committing atrocities against US troops, not to mention UN workers, journalists, etc.

(insert null set below)

[coalition_unwilling]

44. Soldiers are not required to obey 'illegal orders' and, in fact, are

required to disobey any illegal order.

[bryant69]

48. Have the orders they have recieved been defined as illegal? n/t

[TooBigaTent]

30. Does that make them heroes? What if the order from your boss directly led to the

death of innocents? Would you still be a hero, deserving of a parade, for obeying? Would people be out of line if they criticized your decision?

[selador]

49. no they wouldn't

"The support the troops crowd would say, obey your boss because it is an order and you are not responsible for your actions."

no, they wouldn't

i certainly wouldn't and i'm in that "support the troops crowd"

[wuushew]

16. The war has been going on for 5 years

If one cannot reconcile the facts on the ground with the sugar coated lies the recruiter tells you, the likelihood of disagreement on other issues is quite high.

Ignorance is no crutch, how many degrees of separation is the average American from a peace advocate? Far less than the six degrees everyone is from Kevin Bacon I imagine.

[bryant69]

19. Many soldiers are conservatives; this is well known

I'm not sure what your point is.

Bryant

[riderinthestorm]

39. I can't speak for the other poster but at this stage, 5 years into BFEE's agenda

any soldier who is still in the military isn't ignorant, nor is it possible to still say "the soldiers didn't sign up for this".

And if they are conservative as you say, then they do buy into the Rethug notion of wars of aggression, acquisition, imperialism and economic rape.

[bryant69]

40. So any soldier who hasn't resigned or gone AWOL is complicit in the BFEE's crimes? n/t

[riderinthestorm]

41. Bush has been in office 7 years.

Long enough for even those who were in before BFEE's agenda became clear, to get out.

Anyone who has signed up since, or stayed in, is complicit imho. And if they participate in assisting BFEE's crimes then they should expect to answer for it. I don't think that's unreasonable. You said yourself that "most" soldiers are conservative ergo, they believe in BFEE's agenda.

[bryant69]

43. I did say that - I suppose I don't see being Conservative as being the same

as the BFEE's agenda. But I'm a moderate Democrat.

Bryant

[wuushew]

51. Moderate positions are not always the ones that result in the best outcome

The DLC's position on "free trade" has screwed over many working class people.

Moderation is not an end in itself, rather it should be a sad realization that it may or may not be the most pragmatically possible position in our country's quest to become a more perfect nation. One must strive to push that envelope continuously further to the left.

[bryant69]

52. I'm not a moderate because of pragmatism but because

I do not favor the far left solutions anymore than the far right solutions.

Bryant

[wuushew]

53. What is "far left"?

I don't see anything disagreeable about the platform of the Green Party. You feel leftist political philosophy invariably leads to an authoritarian state?

[bryant69]

56. No - but i feel it leads inevitably towards inefficiency

I favor business solutions to a lot of our societal programs; I'm a capitalist.

Bryant

[coalition_unwilling]

42. Were the troops at Haditha "protecting us"? How about the troops

at Abu Ghraib? If they were protecting anyone, it was their brothers in arms and not "us".

[Echo In Light]

13. According to Nuremberg trials, "following orders" is insufficient

[The Stranger]

4. That is why I always derailed the "Support the Troops!" thread rallies people held here on DU.

And always pointed out that there were troops committing atrocities.

[flashl]

6. No one ever asks, "how are those soldiers re-socialized"?

Today, upon returning from 'war', thousands of Reserve and National Guard soldiers are dumped back into their communities without the benefit of medical or mental health care.

[The Stranger]

7. May whatever gods there be protect them and their families.

Depression, mental illness, substance abuse, alcoholism, suicide -- these are what veterans with PTSD are facing.

[bryant69]

24. What percentage of our troops are commiting atrocities in your opinion? n/t

[TooBigaTent]

31. Irrelevant. Driving the getaway car is still holding up a bank. nt

[bryant69]

33. That says it all. n/t

[The Stranger]

37. So you support even those troops committing atrocities?

[bryant69]

38. No I don't support any body committing atrocities and thank you for asking.

But if you are going to condemn soldiers en masse for committing atrocities knowing how many of them are committing atrocities is relevant.

By the same token if a serial killer were an Episcopalian and I went on to condemn Episcopalians for being serial killers, it'd be reasonable for someone to ask how many Episcopalians are serial killers.

Bryant

[coalition_unwilling]

46. The occupation of Iraq is an "atrocity" -n/t

[bryant69]

47. No Doubt -and I hold the Bush Administration responsible for that. n/t

[The Stranger]

57. To take your own analogy --

If the Episcopalian Church was clearly condoning and, in some ways implicitly encouraging (reportedly), atrocities, and you had reported evidence that there were Episcopalians committing atrocities, then you would be right not to go out of your way in support of Episcopalians as a group.

[bryant69]

58. I suppose even in that case I would condemn the organization and the leadership first

Seeing the members as victims. I would reserve my anger for those who were hijacking it. By the same token, I reserve my anger for the President and his advisors.

Bryant

[The Stranger]

59. The leadership first --clearly -- but exclusively?

That, I think, is the difficult question. Certainly difficult enough for me not to join in the big rallies and the big obligatory jingoistic "support the troops" exercises.

[bryant69]

60. you mean rallies against the war?

Most rallies to "support the troops" are actually rallies to "support the war."

Bryant

[The Stranger]

62. I mean the rallies to support the troops, which the OP contends are implicitly to support the war.

[bryant69]

63. Hmmmmmm.

What do you make of this phrase from the OP then?

"Many who oppose the Bush Regime wars also say they “support the troops.” Let me say it straight out -- I do not support the troops and neither should you. It is impossible to support the troops of the imperialist military forces of the U.S. and at the same time oppose the wars in which they fight."

That reads to me like a condemnation of people who oppose the war, who rally against the war, and yet claim solidarity with and support for the soldiers. But possibly I'm missing something.

Bryant

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

9. Not true in all cases.

"Supporting the troops" does not always mean that, by extension, you support the war effort. I find myself qualifying the statement at times (like in the company of the especially conservative, "yellow ribbon" folk) but the majority of those around me thoroughly share my views on this.

I would agree that "Support the Troops" probably started out as an attempt to condone the war but like most things, the phrase has become redefined over time. :)

[pegleg]

10. I certainly don't agree with your portrayal of American forces. They

are a tool. they are neutral and can be used either for good or evil. The problem lies with those at the top who are using them. That is a very general statement but the fact is that we would be lost without them. That's reality. We should not be the policeman of the entire world and the invasion of Iraq was a travesty but reality dictates that militaries must exist. So, in that context, I do support our troops.

[Echo In Light]

11. Pure propaganda: potent oversimplification of emotional response

"Americanism. Who can be against that? Or harmony. Who can be against that? Or, as in the Persian Gulf War, "Support our troops." Who can be against that? Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that? Anything that's totally vacuous. In fact, what does it mean if someone asks you, Do you support the people in Iowa? Can you say, Yes, I support them, or No, I don't support them? It doesn't mean anything. That's the point. The point of public relations slogans like 'Support our troops' is that they don't mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don't want people to think about the issue. That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. It's crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about." ~ Noam Chomsky

http://www.ironiccorporation.com/do/product/STKR-CAR-SOTCH

[flashl]

12. Gen Butler said it best, 'War is a Racket'. nt

[Echo In Light]

14. Another article on ribbons:

From “Support the Troops” to Condemning MoveOn:
The Cult of the Military and the Decline of Democratic Values
by Donna Saggia

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/24/4062/

[flashl]

21. On point ...

When exposed, “support the troops” is, of course, more rhetoric than a reality. It clashes with every known incidence in which the administration and Congress have ignored the needs of soldiers in battle and at home. From protective armor to veteran health care to humane home leaves, “support the troops” never lives up to its promise.

[Echo In Light]

25. Exactly! The ones fully duped by this won't listen to the facts which reveal that those who send ...

Them into harms way, to kill and be killed, likewise fuck them over in many other ways. Talk about blind allegiance...

[TahitiNut]

20. Citizens too cowardly to SEIZE responsibility for their own self-governance ...

... often seek out those doing the DYING for scapegoats. The people with the LEAST say in their own deployment who face the GREATEST harm in doing so make handy whipping boys for those unwilling to jeopardize their own comforts and well-being in taking to the streets and non-violently facing down police power usurping democratic power.

As long as we walk (somewhat) free, pay taxes, and complain from the comforts of our own miserable little caves and FAIL to place our own bodies in harm's way for the sake of direct participation in our own self-governance, we get what we deserve. Unless and until we disarm and stand down as a nation and continue to globally project greater military force than the rest of the world combined, it is incumbent upon every one of us to share the burden of the service we have not yet made obsolete.

Democracy is not a spectator sport and the 'vote' is the last vestigial appendage of self-governance.

[flashl]

27. Support the troops?

Pentagon warned Halliburton-KBR on "dirty" food service: report

WASHINGTON (AFP) Dec 13, 2003 The Pentagon repeatedly warned contractor Halliburton-KBR that the food it served to US troops in Iraq was "dirty," as were as the kitchens it was served in, NBC News reported Friday.

---

Halliburton feeds spoiled food to troops in Iraq!

Jun 28, 2005

Mr. Rory Mayberry, Food Production Manager at Camp Anaconda in Iraq from February to April 2004, testified (via video feed) that KBR regularly and consistently fed expired food (food past its freshness date by up to a year!) to our troops in Iraq.

---

Halliburton gave troops contaminated drinking water (Halliburton cited in Iraq contamination)

January 22, 2006

WASHINGTON --Troops and civilians at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water last year and employees for the responsible contractor, Halliburton, couldn't get their company to inform camp residents, according to interviews and internal company documents.

---

The People vs. the Profiteers
November 2007

It is not unheard of for trucks in a war zone to perform hearse duty. But both civilian and U.S.-military regulations state that once a trailer has been used to store corpses it can never again be loaded with food or drink intended for human consumption. According to the U.S. Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, "Contact with whole or part human remains carries potential risks associated with pathogenic microbiological organisms that may be present in human blood and tissue." The diseases that may be communicated include aids, hepatitis, tuberculosis, septicemia, meningitis, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human variant of mad cow.

But when Bud Conyers next caught sight of trailer R-89, about a month later, it was packed not with human casualties but with bags of ice—ice that was going into drinks served to American troops.

DU Post w/links

[xinunus]

36. what?

Well I guess we should send all of our police officers home too, they are killing machines. It could be just like the movie "Escape from New York" lol..

[genie_weenie]

54. It's been that way for a while

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/genie_weenie/91">A post of mine from a year ago.

The sinister reason Chicken Hawks and Warmongers say "I Support the Troops" is it gives cover for their actions which are quite the opposite.

And so it goes...

[flashl]

55. Good post. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

61. Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy - Henry Kissinger

That said, I do not support the troops mission in Iraq and I want them home now. It is an illegal, immoral war. They are not protecting us or our freedom. Total bullshit and so often politicians will spew that crap and no one holds them accountable for it.

[NNN0LHI]

64. New Bush Iraqi adviser: Kissinger

http://swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2006/09/new_bush_iraqi_adviser_kissing.html

Peace is at hand. Henry Kissinger is back.

According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, he of Watergate fame, Kissinger is now advising both President Bush and Vice President Cheney on Iraq.

According to a new book by Woodward, the former secretary of state under Richard Nixon has been telling our two current leaders that in Iraq, "Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy."

Henry Kissinger is a good man with a quote. Anyone who utters "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac," as he did when he was Nixon's national security adviser, knows how to turn a phrase.