What's Really Important Let’s Get On The Same Page
At the moment it’s important to me to attempt to communicate with other viewpoints. I recently read another blog in which the blogger didn’t understand how anyone could support the troops when they don’t support the war, believing it greatly undermined the soldiers. It is that post I am responding to, not in order to make right or wrong, but to create some understanding.
I can totally see your perspective on this, the dichotomy between those saying they do not support the war, but do support the troops. It seems like a contradiction in terms, yet it also seems insane to wage a war that is not supported by the majority. Certainly the troops get caught in the middle, for all the reasons you mention. In an “ideal� war, one that is truly justified, I would agree with your conclusions.
In my mind, this particular war is not justified. Even so, I still support the troops. They go where they are sent, having no say in the matter. It is a decision that is supposed to be made by the American people, through their representatives in Congress.
It’s probably also natural for them to believe their Commander in Chief would only send them in harm’s way in a “right cause.� I’m not going to debate the reasons given for invading Iraq; the various opinions have been already expressed ad nauseum. It is my belief, however, they were at best wrong, and at worst contrived and manipulated for reasons we are still not sure of. It is because of this that I cannot support the war. That does not preclude me from backing the Americans called on to serve in Iraq. Why would it?
Can you see the other side of the equation? At least half of the US population was not in favor of the war before it started, and polls indicate that 64% of Americans are not in favor of it now. The majority of Americans presently believe that supporting the troops means getting them out of a situation that has turned from bad to horrendous, and shows every indication of getting worse. This could mean the 2700 Americans that have already died, along with the over 20,000 wounded and maimed could greatly increase, and without the situation ever being resolved and victory (whatever that means) achieved.
It’s ironic that a ten member commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker (a big Bush family ally), with the stated purpose of proposing the best way to proceed in Iraq, seems to be ruling out the prospect of an American victory, even while Dick Cheney is saying, “We’re not looking for an exit strategy. We’re looking for victory.�
The commission is also looking at a "redeploy and contain" option for a phased withdrawal of troops from the country. This sounds awfully similar to what many Democrats have been proposing for several months now and which the Bush Administration has been chiding as “cut and run.� Senator John Murtha was called “unpatriotic� when he first suggested the possibility.
Perhaps Iraq is not ready for democracy. When you have three major factions in a nation that hate each other, how does an invading country force a democracy upon them and make it work? I would also suspect that since creating a democracy was a justification for invasion following threats of WMDs, the imminent nuclear cloud, and unproven attempts to make an Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection, it might not really have been a serious goal, but one which sounded good when nothing else was panning out - all reasons to make some of us suspicious of the war.
What would truly be insane is to have our troops caught in the crossfire of a civil war. The Iraqis say they are in a civil war. Several thousand of them have died in the last couple of months, and the slaughter in the streets continues at an accelerating pace. Only our administration seems to think there is no civil war, and things are progressing well. Not even the generals, retired or active, agree with that assessment any longer. Do you honestly trust the White House to tell the truth when they are doing everything they can to justify the war, not admitting having made mistakes, and still talking about “staying the course?� Would this be sufficient for you if you had a son or daughter fighting there?
Please look at your rationale. This is not a black and white situation as was WW II where we had no choice, having been decidedly attacked by those with whom we subsequently waged war. It seems to say that any time a leader decides to start a war and gets troops there, the whole nation must support that policy, whether they agree or not, simply because troops have been sent. Are you really willing to give that much power and authority to one person? “Start a war, send the troops, and they must support.� That sounds a bit crazy to me. I thought we lived in a democracy, or at least a republic, where there is “government of, by and for the people.�
I agree with you that the troops are the losers in this tug of war. Of course they are, as you say, “patriotic young Americans who believe in what they are doing and are distressed, not by the war progress, but, by the always negative Media reports.� Though I would tend to disagree with you saying they aren’t distressed over the “progress,� and I don’t assume negative media reports mean bias; they might just indicate the reality of the situation. All too often people see bias where there is simply disagreement. I would hope that in the 21st Century it is not the purpose of the media to make armies feel good about what they are doing, but instead, to report the news. I hope we as a race are beyond that juvenile behavior, and not willing to sacrifice truth for patriotic cheer leading? How much more might the troops be distressed if in the present atmosphere of futility in Iraq there were no voices crying out for an end of a situation that possibly cannot end in victory? And, whose fault is that, the people who demand an end to the situation, or the leader that sent them into an unpopular and unjustified (no WMDs found, no acceptance of the American “saviors� – 80% of the Iraqis say they want us out) war?
You don’t honestly believe any Americans want our troops harmed do you? Can you feel my anger, and the anger of the millions like me who cringe at the idea of our young being slaughtered thousands of miles from home in a cause we never believed in? Can you begin to understand how terribly frustrating it is to be put in the middle of this? On one hand we are very proud of our soldiers, and on the other, we see suffering and dying for all the wrong reasons, and in the wrong place.
Let’s get on the same page, so that if we don’t at least agree we do understand why each of us feel the way we do, and realize it is justified from our separate perspectives; and not something that makes us “want to retch.� If you support the war itself, no doubt that makes it easier for you to put your whole heart into the entire effort.
Imagine if you can for a moment, you don’t agree with the war, but it’s happening anyway. Would you then not understand the dichotomy of caring for the troops, but wishing they were not involved, and desiring to end the situation? Has there never been a situation in your life where you supported an individual or individuals, but not necessarily what they were doing or why? Then imagine it not even being their choice, but someone else’s for them, someone you don’t even trust. It’s not a fun place to be.
Comments
Well said, Stephen. I recall another time when we were against a war, had many anti-war rallies and those people were labeled "unpatriotic". Now looking back, everyone agrees we should not have been there. It seems to me we should learn from our mistakes. Hmmm, but do we?
Posted by: Sharon Bloomingcamp | October 21, 2006 06:53 AM
How many of us remember the horrible treatment Vietnam vets received in the 60's and early 70's, as protests to that war escalated. A military uniform became a symbol of American policy, and young soldiers were often reviled, never mind that many were drafted and had no choice in their service. I know for a fact that some people still carry those wounds and easily equate protest of the Iraq war to not supporting those who have to fight it.
I also recall news footage early in the Iraq war, where an Iraqi car approached a checkpoint, the driver calling out something in Arabic, while an American soldier yelled "Stop," eventually opening fire on the car, killing the occupants. I remember thinking how tragic it was for these young kids to be placed in the position of having to make life and death decisions with so little understanding to work with. Why did that have to happen?
I was opposed to this war before it started, and I remain opposed to it, more strongly than ever. Opposed to the war, not the troops; opposed to troops being in Iraq, but not to their well-being. I don't have a magnetic ribbon on my car that says "Support Our Troops," but if any inference can be made from that, it should be that I'm separating myself from those who support the war. I reject the notion that opposing the war dishonors those who have sacrificed their lives or have been wounded. On the contrary, it is a wish for a situation where there won't be more casualties.
Be that as it may, there are still very tough decisions to be made on how best to end US involvement. Whatever the reasons for going to war, and regardless of the abysmal planning and execution of the war, we're stuck in the midst of a chaotic situation. Iraq appears to be ill-equipped to stabilize sectarian fighting, and there truly is a significant "terrorist" presence. This administration has had no answers, although as you mentioned, Stephen, the administration has commissioned this bipartisan report in an attempt to find solutions. The cynic in me wonders if the deferral of the report until after the election is a measured attempt to slander the Democrats during election campaigns with "cut and run," all the while knowing that some form of disengagement is inevitable. It doesn't matter where solutions come from, but until everyone gets back to talking and working together, we're in for more of the same. And, that's just not right.
~~ dougt
Posted by: dougt | October 21, 2006 08:43 AM
Troops being engaged in a war (or in any other situation) is not about their agreement or disagreement with the action, it is about loyal and dedicated soldiers who love their country enough to do what is asked of them, whether they personally agree or disagree. We could not have a military if it wasn't so. Of course they are to be respected, even if the war isn't, and I don't think anyone who is against the war holds troops accountable for the inane actions of the current administration. We have learned that lesson from Vietnam. I feel shameful about the way the troops were treated who fought in Vietnam. Their choices there were to either fight an unjustified war, or desert. Either way they lose, and the American people heaped scornful retribution on top of that. Shameful!
I don't like the current administration (and that is putting it mildly), but I still have to pay taxes, use the post office, register my car, and basically obey the laws of the land. That is my job as a citizen. Just because I am not a Republican, just because I don't agree with the war in Iraq, does that mean I am a bad citizen? Does it mean I don't love my country? No, it only means I disagree, but we, like the troops, must still act in accordance with what our government does or doesn't allow us to do whether we agree or not. And we still deserve support and respect for being good citizens.
Posted by: Al | October 21, 2006 05:30 PM
Stephen,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I find it ironic that the same people who scream a person is unpatriotic if they oppose this war or administration., and that we MUST support the war in order to support the Troops.. When these are the same people who screamed and yelled about Clinton and our soldiers in Bosnia where there was genocide going on.
It was ok then to NOT support the administration., it was ok then to NOT support the war nor the troops... because it was a war they didnt agree with, and a president that they didnt like.
I'm sorry to say that it DOES all come down to party politics... if Bush was democrat they would screaming for his head on a post!!
But this is a republican president and a republican war that is costing thousands in lives., and that seems to be ok with the Bush supporters.
It is a sad time we live in, when we are losing lives, jobs., healthcare, pensions, international respect, all while coming across to the rest of the world as arrogant bullies.
I am angry, frustrated, and troubled by the party favoritism and their refusal to see what many have been saying since 2003 and before., and it angers me every day that I see this administration continue its treasonous acts without ANY accountability. It's inexcusable!!
Pray God helps us out of this sink hole bush has us in before its too late.
Kate
Posted by: Katerina | October 23, 2006 07:17 PM
Stephen,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I find it ironic that the same people who scream a person is unpatriotic if they oppose this war or administration., and that we MUST support the war in order to support the Troops.. When these are the same people who screamed and yelled about Clinton and our soldiers in Bosnia where there was genocide going on.
It was ok then to NOT support the administration., it was ok then to NOT support the war nor the troops... because it was a war they didnt agree with, and a president that they didnt like.
I'm sorry to say that it DOES all come down to party politics... if Bush was democrat they would screaming for his head on a post!!
But this is a republican president and a republican war that is costing thousands in lives., and that seems to be ok with the Bush supporters.
It is a sad time we live in, when we are losing lives, jobs., healthcare, pensions, international respect, all while coming across to the rest of the world as arrogant bullies.
I am angry, frustrated, and troubled by the party favoritism and their refusal to see what many have been saying since 2003 and before., and it angers me every day that I see this administration continue its treasonous acts without ANY accountability. It's inexcusable!!
Pray God helps us out of this sink hole bush has us in before its too late.
Kate
Posted by: Katerina | October 23, 2006 07:45 PM
Of COURSE a person can be against the war and still support the troops. Troops are people. In fact, a good number of them are just slightly beyond being children. Anyone with grown-up thinking skills is able to make the distinction between people and policy.
Posted by: Renee | October 23, 2006 08:15 PM
One thing I feel sure of Katerina is that the God you pray to is not the one Bush speaks to. Perhaps just today his God has told him he really didn't mean "stay the course" when he repeated it like a monkey hundreds of times in the last couple of years. And the all too clever for his own good clown of a press secretary of course found a way to blame it on the opposition, saying that they don't understand the president's meaning of stay the course.
I would imagine that anyone not understanding the president might be blessed with an IQ higher than room temperature. The Republican party of the 21st Century has definitely lent credence to the concept that "ignorance is bliss."
Renee, maybe "grown up" is the key? What I confuse as people with limited comprehension skills might only be adolescents in the guise of adults, and unfortunately physically old enough to vote.
Doug, I was also against this war long before it began. I was more focussed on going after the perpetrators of 9/11 than the separate neoconservative agenda in Iraq. It actually amazes me that there are some now that support it still.
It's rather obvious there will be no peace as long as American soldiers remain in Iraq. Our troops have become a lightning rod for violence. Considering all the trauma to the Iraqis since our "Mission Accomplished" braggadocio, including the literal dismantling of their nation, and deaths that may well reach into the hundreds of thousands, with only God knows how many seriously maimed and wounded, I can understand why. I'd hate us too, if I were them. I don't believe that if we leave the nation will become an Al Qaeda or insurgent terrorist state. I believe the Iraqis will throw the foreign insurgents out, and then most likely continue with the civil war we necessitated.
Supporting our continuance in Iraq is almost as unrealistic as those still believing there is, or can be, a democracy there. Democracies don't begin in nations with several major factions hating each other, and at the behest of a foreign invader. At least those still trusting the "stated" goals of this administration will soon be cheered by Halloween and another opportunity to commune with the Great Pumpkin.
Posted by: Stephen Rose | October 23, 2006 08:17 PM
Those who are old enough to remember and those who are smart enough to have done the requisite research, are well aware that Bush was hiring a lot of the people who were perpetrators in the Iran/Contra scandal. That should have been the heads up for anyone with an IQ better than a rabbit; that this administration might not have anything good in store for the American people.
I'm not angry with the Bush Administration. Americans have grown contemptuous of their own Constitution and laws. We are at a treacherous historical juncture that may require supreme patriotism and we really haven't bothered to examine the Constitution or its meaning for us. Until we decide we want to be a Democracy under the protections of the Constitution, we will continue to slide into chaos. There are other contributing factors but they are secondary to American hostility to democracy.
Posted by: sfstikkun | November 6, 2006 09:45 PM