Download PDF of this full issue: v36n1.pdf (6.8 MB)

Fraggin'

By Bill Shunas

We haven’t been hearing much “support the troops” rhetoric lately from the politicians and pundits who support the war. Maybe that’s because 72% of the troops in Iraq say all the troops should be withdrawn by the end of the year. (That’s according to a poll conducted by Zogby.) Also, 26% of the troops thought immediate withdrawal was the best choice. War supporters used to say that antiwar activities undermined troop morale; now the troops are out ahead of the rest of us in opposing the US presence in Iraq.

Now, if nearly three quarters of the troops are in favor of withdrawal, maybe “supporting the troops” means that we should get out of this war ASAP. The chickenhawks can’t accept that, so the “support” rhetoric is fading.

Recently Bush said that withdrawal will be up to the next president. That would be consistent with the lack of support these troops have been getting from day one: delayed medical attention early in the war, the lack of Kevlar vests, the lack of armor for Humvees, the lack of gloves for the troops in the Afghan winter. Oh yes, Afghanistan. The latest information from there says that war isn’t going well either. As far as I know, no poll has been conducted among those stationed in Afghanistan, but I doubt those troops are too happy with their situation. With the perpetrators of 9/11 long gone, what is their purpose?

In my opinion, the antiwar movement has not been as active in this war, compared to Vietnam. There are demonstrations each March for the anniversary of the beginning of the war. During the rest of the year, antiwar activity is more subdued. This is not written to diss the antiwar movement. It’s a different situation from Vietnam. Back then, we were trying to convince fellow citizens of the bankruptcy of the war; now most of our fellow citizens have that figured out. Back then, we felt we were part of the democratic process, like we could demand that the nation’s leadership change; now it seems like the nation’s leadership is oblivious to any kind of pressure. They don’t care that these wars have no purpose for those who don’t hold oil stock. They don’t know that these wars can’t be won. They are arrogant and stubborn...and don’t forget stupid.

Today’s antiwar activity is also less publicized by the media. I make these points to say that those who claim that antiwar activity undermines the morale of the troops are wrong. Morale gets undermined when you fight unjust or unwinnable wars. It is the lying leaders and the situation on the ground in Iraq that undermines morale. Troop morale is not lowered by antiwar activity, whether it is high-intensity activity (as during Vietnam) or what we have today. That brings us back to the point that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

In place of the “support the troops” rhetoric, the hawks have lately been switching over to the “those 2,400 cannot have died in vain” mode. My apologies to the families, but those 2,400 have died in vain, and there is no sense in adding to the list. That happened in Vietnam. Long after it was evident that the war was unwinnable, we kept sacrificing troops, claiming that if we didn’t keep fighting, it would dishonor those who had previously paid the price. Such rhetoric is only a cover for those who will not admit the war policy was misguided in the first place. It is an effort to shift the guilt for the 2,400 dead.

Then we get to those who claim that the US military “never tucks tail and runs,” and “these colors don’t run,” and other such phrases. Yeah, baby. You guys and gals get up front and fight this no-win war. We’ll support you all the way.

Finally, I must issue an apology. In the past, many of us have been critical of those we have called chickenhawks. This term refers to our nation’s leaders who see fit to lead us into various wars, but who, back in the day when they had their chance to serve in a war, found their way out of it.

Ronald Reagan helped fight World War II in the movie studio, but got us involved in a couple of minor wars. Bill Clinton avoided the draft. The current president avoided Vietnam by joining the National Guard, but he wasn’t afraid to get us into this mess in Iraq. Most of those who advised him on this adventure were also skilled at avoiding military service.

We used to criticize them for this, but think about it: maybe it’s good that they didn’t serve. Back in ‘Nam, if you were hunkered down in a firefight, would you have wanted Cheney with you? If you were out in the field, guys would be afraid to go off to take a dump, not knowing where Cheney would be aiming on their way back. I can picture a Three Stooges movie where Curly has his finger stuck on the trigger of a machine pistol. So I apologize. If Cheney is an example, I’m glad these chickenhawks never served in the military.