Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFrom "Support the Troops" to Condemning MoveOn: The Cult of the Military and the Decline of Democratic Values
Alarm bells should be ringing louder than ever in progressive circles as Congress, not content with forfeiting its powers to the unitary executive, has now decided to let the military plan foreign policy. Bush's interminable and ubiquitous "war on terror" has achieved in six years what almost half a century of the "communist scare" could not: the military is becoming the "fourth branch" of government in America.
In some ways the Petraeus hearings were just another scene in the pro-war theater of the absurd, recalling Colin Powell's smash hit at the UN and George Tenet's "slam-dunk" exuberance, and playing to those herds of Americans who wrap themselves in the flag and plaster yellow ribbons on their SUVs and Hummers.
But the hearings were also something else. They were ritual-ritual as in an act or verbal expression performed in deference to a higher authority, in this case, the authority of the military.
In a world where most western nations attempt to maintain some balance between military and social spending, Americans alone are the "true believers" in the cult of the military. For over half a century we have fed the military god more than his share of their GDP while watching our infrastructure crumble, and have allowed that god to rampage through much of the world, leaving behind more than 700 overseas temples, from Germany to South Korea, dedicated to militarism.
The roots of our deference to military authority are deep, but more important are the ongoing rituals that entrench the cult of the military firmly within the American psyche. Of these, the most potent and insidious is the incantation, "support the troops." These three words may seem to be a simple statement of support for the men and women in uniform. In reality, they say more about the embedment in the American psyche of the cult of the military than could any presidential war speech or Pentagon defense budget.
In fact, in the absence of a legitimate causis belli, "support the troops" has become the glue that binds the American people to the war, and it is no coincidence that, until recently, the dominant cry from the American public has been "support the troops" rather than "stop the war."
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. But, then, it's not supposed to. Its job is not to actually do any good for the troops, but rather to block serious debate about the troops-and the military establishment they represent.
The "troops" have become the "human face" of the military-industrial complex and the moral camouflage for the administration's war agenda. For this reason, "support the troops" represents an essential dilemma and denial within American culture. Were we to look beyond these human faces, we would have to confront the reality they stand for: the military as an institution that has grown to monstrous proportions, endangered our security by conducting unjust wars, robbed us of our children, squandered our taxes on obscene war technology, and protected the interests of greed-driven multinational corporations.
As Ira Chernus has recently noted,
`Supporting our troops' is not about helping individual soldiers to live better lives or, for that matter, making their lives safer. It's about supporting a morality play in which the lead actor, "our troops," represents all the virtues that so many believe-or wish they could believe-America possesses, giving us the privilege (and obligation) of directing all that happens on the world stage.
In other words, "support the troops" feeds the cult of the military and allows Americans to be self-righteous about our global interventions. It has absolutely nothing to do with, well, supporting the troops.
And it has cost the anti-war movement dearly. Liberals continue to become entangled in the contradictions inherent in "support the troops" because they have, as George Lakoff might say, bought into the right wing frame of the war. Brilliantly manipulated by the right, "support the troops" simultaneously puts war critics on the defensive, ties the hands of Congress to cut war funding, questions the patriotism of decorated anti-war veterans, and gives Bush all the photo ops with "the troops" that he needs to consistently snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. "Support the troops" has given Americans the only "moral" agenda for the continuation of the Iraq war, and will likely be used to rationalize and justify future wars in the region (will we attack Iran to "support our troops"?).
The ad by MoveOn (General Petraeus or General Betray Us?) was not nearly as interesting as the responses to it by Congress and the administration. Both the Senate resolution and Bush's comments against MoveOn attempted to conflate the ad's criticism of Petraeus with a lack of support for-nothing less than-the entire United States military.
The Senate resolution was insidious in this respect, and Republicans used this variation of the "support the troops" trope to frighten Democrats into voting against freedom of speech, turning against a large part of their base, and condemning one of the few voices of truth left in the "war on terror." In fact, MoveOn was doing what the Democrats should have done, but didn't, at the Petraeus hearings-question authority. The "support Petraeus, support the troops, support the entire US military" was the Republicans' umpteenth use of the "divide and conquer" tactic, yet the Democrats still fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Bush's response to the MoveOn ad followed suit: "I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. Military.... Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military." One wonders just how afraid Americans should be of "irritating the United States military," and what might the consequences be?
The Petraeus hearings were just the latest example of how the cult of the military, with its centerpiece slogan, "support the troops," is trampling our democracy to death. Despite ample warnings that the general would give the same old "stay the course" rhetoric based on conflicted and parsed intelligence reports, and despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans want this war to be over, Democrats deferred. Bush preserved his Republican support, bolstered his pro-war agenda in Congress, and reinforced the authority of the military. Subsequent legislation to end the war-none of which proposed cutting war funding because that would "harm the troops"-went in favor of pro-war Republicans.
While it seems that the cult of the military has a grip on the American psyche that even a fully-exposed illegal and unjust war can't shake loose, we must ask the question, How could liberals have countered "support the troops"? Could, for example, a determined and principled support for the Geneva conventions, which forbid torture, have exposed the military's human rights violations and punctured the blind mantra of "support the troops"? Could an insistence on adhering to the Nuremberg principles, which hold all military personnel accountable for their actions, have made us realize that there's no such thing as "just following orders" or "just doing my job"? Could the Congress have put principles before polls and exposed the "support the troops" rhetoric for what it was: a cynical tool that exploits military recruits in order to quiet criticism of an illegal war?
Liberals blew it on Iraq, but may still redeem what few democratic values and moral integrity remain by sending a clear message to the executive and legislative branches: that pre-emptive wars against sovereign nations posing no imminent threat are wrong, and we won't support either the government that starts them or the military that fights them.
The right-wing framing of this war has dominated debate and damaged the anti-war movement. The ritual repetition of "support the troops" is a destructive rhetorical device that will never do what it proclaims, and will insure that future wars are impervious to criticism. The cult of the military will, ironically, be the death of democracy in the land that purports to export it. That we didn't see this coming may be understandable; but that we continue to allow it to be used to prolong an unjust war is unconscionable.
Donna Saggia is a freelance writer living in Saint Paul, Minnesota. She can be reached at donnasaggia@msn.com
57 Comments so far
Show Allmightygorg,
Sorry about that -- I meant to include Buffy Sainte-Marie's name, and perhaps mention that Donovan did a cover of it as well. Good song, and I believe there's a core of truth to it. But until we get a progressive in the White House, we can't possibly afford to foster any new wedges between the working- and remnant middle-class.
When a progressive leader controls the armed forces, he can reshape the whole weltanschauung back to where it belongs on a modern/civilized democracy. They aren't to be prostituted as socialized security to protect private interests. They aren't to be employed in aggressive/preemptive wars based on cooked intel. And there's arguably no sane room for imperialism in the 21st century. We can give them good & honorable missions which result in net lives saved, a utilitarian approach (or better).
I may be the last person on the planet to feel this, but I'm certain that genuine leadership is both earned and demonstrated, it is not given by fiat or title. Our society has drifted far away from this, and it shows.
To my yellow-ribbon neighbors I say this:
How dare you say, "support our troops" because you haven't got the guts to say "support my war". Leave the troops out of it, you cowards.
To MoveOn I have to say this:
Your ad in the Times was asinine. It would have been just as effective without the "Betrayus" quip. Or, the quip would have been seen as more "fair" if published AFTER the general had his say. Learn from your mistakes, and keep working for change.
turtle20 You the man! Right on! You hit it directly on the head. Why would anyone support the troops that torture and murder men women and children for corporate profits. I felt this way during the Vietnam War and I feel this way today about the phony "war on terror" and the occupation of Iraq.
Thank you.
The best way to support the troops is a long way from flying the biggest flag from your car or plastering it with as many yellow ribbons as you can.
It is bringing the troops home now and Impeaching and putting on trial the whole Bush Cheney gang who sent them off to a war based on lies.
And Paul Bramscher if you are going to quote Buffy Sainte-Marie's great song Universal Soldier... it would be nice to at least give her credit.
TheLorax
During earlier antiwar movements, protest songs were part of the folksong tradition.
Unfortunately, that tradition has been expunged from the young "dude's" consciousness.
Most rap, hip-hop, heavy metal, etc. tend toward nihilism and personal fashion statements as a form of protest.
Of course, none of these forms of protest are primarily oriented toward progressive social action. They tend to be individualistic protests, or protests of a group of people.
For most of these younger artists, the driving motivation for their work is popularity, success and status.
Folk artists tend to be more intrinsically motivated. As a result, they also protest the influence and domination of music by a music industry that commercially manipulates its "customers."
In fact, many folk artists don't usually view their listeners as customers; instead, they think of them as citizens.
"Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home"
"Support Our Selves: Stop The War"
"Support Our Democracy: Stop The War Industry"
"Support Our Jesus: Love Our Enemies"
"Support Our Money: Buy Less Gas"
"Support The World: Listen To People"
Glad to see a article on the slogan, support the troops.
It was good to hear Adam Kokesh at the last demonstration say a couple of times, Support the Truth. Those are the words I have on my homemade sign.
Paul -
We really need another Phil Ochs now. Bob Dylan is too old to do it anymore. Barry McGuire is 70 years old now and he can't do it either. At least Joan Baez is still going.
Where's "All the young dudes?"
Anyone who joined the military after VietNam should have their head examined. Actually, I kind of sympathize with them because 18 is way too young to be making a decision like that. As my husband says, they are too "young and dumb and full of come."
Today I had the fanciful idea of making yellow ribbon stickers that say SUPPORT HALLIBURTON/BLACKWATER.
Many good ideas here and I agree with most of them. However, not enough people are listening or seem to care that could or would do something about this disaster. I believe too many just will not admit to themselves that this "war" could be such a horrible mistake. A slogan and a sticker is so much easier to believe in. We may as well buy some ammo and prepare for the militaristic, theocratic police state that is just around the corner.
Now we should recall the lyrics to the song "Universal Soldier". But I'm not entirely sure I agree here. If it were just this simple, then nobody would join, everyone would refuse a draft, and we'd have no more wars. It's not been so simple.
He's five feet two and he's six feet four
He fights with missiles and with spears
He's all of 31 and he's only 17
He's been a soldier for a thousand years
He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain,
a Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew
and he knows he shouldn't kill
and he knows he always will
kill you for me my friend and me for you
And he's fighting for Canada,
he's fighting for France,
he's fighting for the USA,
and he's fighting for the Russians
and he's fighting for Japan,
and he thinks we'll put an end to war this way
And he's fighting for Democracy
and fighting for the Reds
He says it's for the peace of all
He's the one who must decide
who's to live and who's to die
and he never sees the writing on the walls
But without him how would Hitler have
condemned him at Dachau
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He's the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can't go on
He's the universal soldier and he
really is to blame
His orders come from far away no more
They come from him, and you, and me
and brothers can't you see
this is not the way we put an end to war.
citizen1: I thought this came up before?
Exhibit #1: The right-wing created a whole mythology of how much the protest movement hated the troops (rather than the war). The Rambo movies perpetuated the "spit on" myth as well. This mythology was a propaganda decoy to split apart a key alliance which could have formed in the post-war period: returning troops and activists.
Exhibit #2: I think we've already clarified that many people join for the benefits, job training, or simply because every nation REALLY DOES need a military (at least at this point). The National Guard does do such things as assisting with natural disaster.
Exhibit #3: The troops are pawns. Troops or no troops, Bush will hire mercenaries to accomplish his ends. The bottom-line issue here is policy. We need a genuine progressive leader who'll have credibility -- himself -- as commander in chief. That journey doesn't begin by fostering a wedge between activists and troops, now, does it?
Amy Klobuchar (MN) voted for the resolution and I have sent her a letter
It's always the same - blame someone else for your (or our troops') fault. Oh well.....
Paul Bramscher September 24th, 2007 10:36 pm
How about this one:
* Lawfully elect competent leadership.
* Give the troops good orders, on lawful missions.
================
How about recognizing the fact that our troops are healthy, mature people (rather than being imbeciles without brains). Please give them the benefit of doubt that they can think for themselves. Oh no? Whatever.....
Unfortunately we have to compete in the marketplace of ideas that is the mainstream media---the dumbed down universe.
That's why liberals need to take messages like Support The Troops, Bring them Home and use the right wing's
own tactics against them.
How about this one:
* Lawfully elect competent leadership.
* Give the troops good orders, on lawful missions.
* Support our troops in following those orders.
Support MoveOn (and free speech) and condemn our troops.
"Support our troops" is an idiotic expression; people who utter or support this statement have been completely brain-washed.
A more meaningful expression would be "support our troop's xyz activity". Examples include:
"Support our troop's invasion of Iraq"
"Support our troop's killing of innocent Iraqi civilians"
"Support our troop's bombing of Iraq"
Doesn't sound too palatable? Then try these:
"CONDEMN our troop's invasion of Iraq"
"CONDEMN our troop's killing of innocent Iraqi civilians"
"CONDEMN our troop's bombing of Iraq"
What do oyu think?
From "Support the Troops" to Condemning MoveOn:
The Cult of the Military and the Decline of Democratic Values
Another distraction. Is this ADD?
There is but one issue and that is to "stop the killing now."
"STOP THE KILLING NOW"
This is such a waste of taxpayers dollars, I mean how much does it cost just heating and airconditioning those big buildings for congress to meet? This was yet another complete waste of our money. What do we get for our taxes? Wars, legislation rewarding rich people, freedom fries, this Support the Troops idiocy.
A man will give up almost anything except his suffering.
John Cleese
Like the boy in Iraq said, "Dad. Help. Get me out of here!"
Yet we do nothing
Mom4peace.The 22 Senators who voted to denounce MoveOn are moron's and idiots.
In Canada this cult of the military is just getting started under General Rick Hillier who made the alarming statement that the military is "evolving beyond political control." To me that's worth a court martial.
General Hillier has created a huge PR organization of 500 military and civilian personnel with a budget of $23 million (remember we are 1 tenth the population of the US and we have only just started down this dangerous slope). He spends 40% of his time on PR and suggests that he must "manage the perception that there is a measurable increase in [Afghan] government capacity. 'Manage the perception' sounds very much like deception to me. A recent CBC documentary called Selling the Mission documents these unconscionable comments. You can see this documentary at http://tinyurl.com/2z4z2z
The thing about the "support the troops" slogan is that it really means whatever you want to mean, therefore it means nothing. it could mean "support the troops by assuring them we want them to be there (and don't care if they die for nothing)", or it could mean "support the troops by giving them the armor they need as long as they are there and by getting them out of there before more of them die!"
I think it usually means the former though. It's just a way for magnet makers to make money.
What it usally means is "I am an unthinking idiot driving a gas guzzling car."
How about black ribbons saying, "Support Our Mercenaries".
Last night was Ken Burn's first episode of his documetary called "The War" It was on PBS.
WWII was supposedly "the good war". And like he said as he was interviewed after the show, all wars are horrible, there is no such thing as a GOOD WAR. Necessary wars, perhaps, but good?
It was from that experience, of defeating truly evil dictatorships, that the notion arose that our troops were saints, and the saviors of all that is good.
But since then, the war industry and its right wing supporters has banked on that notion, and now, with troops carrying out orders for taking war to other peoples in the name of corporate profits, not defeating the enemies of freedom.
"Someone has finally articulated the insanity of using the phrase, "Support The Troops"."
Many, many have already critiques and discarded the phrase.
"For years , the peaceniks have been chanting "Support The Troops," while American forces engage in torture, murder and rape as the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today "
SOME have; many have not.
"More than likely "Support The Troops" language came out of a neocon think tank.
It comes from Gulf Slaughter I. The war against the Vietnamese was too recent, so Papabush's propagandists came up with "Support the Troops" to avoid personalizing Iraqis.
The best support the troops could get would be to spread the word about this documentary hosted by Ed Begley, Jr. which shows how they were sent on a fool's mission by criminals.
http://tv-links.co.uk/video/9/4752/7797/50572/73689
It's free by the way.
The only support US troops need... is a noose.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS is a stand-in for these more truthful three-word phrases:
SUPPORT THE WAR
OBEY THE LEADER
KILL IRAQI KIDS
IRAN IS NEXT
I have spent my life in support of our troops.
The best I can do for them now is to speak out against "Support the Troops" as that can only keep this criminal war going. It can only continue the illegal murdering and maiming and the destruction of our children and our country.
"The roots of our deference to military authority are deep, but more important are the ongoing rituals that entrench the cult of the military firmly within the American psyche."
Actually, not so much. In the mid-1930s, our "military" consisted of a couple hundred thousand men with antiquated weapons and 10,000 calvary horses. Deference to the military didn't start until WWII, which isn't very "deep" at all. Shallow roots at best going back just a few generations.
What changed was the ability to brainwash en masse, a la TV. And the reasons "liberals" and progressives are losing the fight is because they still haven't figured out how to use TV to their advantage. Wouldn't want to be like "them" now would we?
The Senate resolution against Move-On is another demonstration of the Republican's ability to continually frame the debate about the war whether they are the majority or minority. The Democrats are so pathetic and weak and spineless that they can't even set their own agenda or frame their side of the debate before they get pinned against the wall again by the war-mongers. Abandona all hope ye have placed in the Democrats.
The New York Times has allowed Washington to force from them an apology for publishing the MoveOn ad. The fact that they published it at a reduced rate says to me that they supported the premise. The intimidation by the government will have ramifications in public media all over the country. Dissent is being silenced. Governmental repression is insidious and inexorable. All Congressional Democrats who voted for the condemnation of the ad need to hear from us. Those who voted against it need to hear our appreciation. I wrote to the Times urging them to resist pressure and to stand up for truth. Probably won't do any good, but it made me feel better.
Lots of talk. Support the troops means get them back home; their lives are being forfeit for nothing. They deserve better.
Turtle 20 --- you had best be careful on whom you spit. Your comments against our kids are out of line.
Great Article.
The problem is not slogans like support our troops, anyone can easily turn this around by saying support our troops, bring them home now!!! The real problem is, most people do not think deeper than an inch when comes to politics or religion. They equate flag waving with patriotism and professions of religious beliefs for true spirituallity. Fear and sentimentality substitute for rational informed thinking and compassion.
The other problem is that they do not take the time to inform themselves as to what it is really going on in the world. Windhorse has it right, American Empire should be required reading for every citizen of this country. The corprotacracy and its 200 ruling families are the enemy. The troops are just so much disposable cannon fodder as far as they are concerned.
It is our job to educate as many people as possible to the true facts as presented in these blogs and this and other articles on the Net and then go on to the many great books like American Empire.
We also need to encourage and support any congress persons who are willing to take a stand on any of the major issues. It has got to be difficult for the newbies especially, who are being pressured to fall in line with the corporate agenda by their leaders with threats, promises etc.
As John Perkins points out in American Empire there is constant pressure applied by corprotocracy and their servants the WTO and WB to anyone in a position of power to cave in to their agenda.
Soldiers always committed cowardly acts though. Rape and the murder of children was a common practice. The one difference is that leaders used to fight in battle-nowadays they dont.
Surely the Germans rallied around their troops for example...
Have you noticed a resurgence of sappy war movies and military hero morality tales along the lines of "Saving Private Ryan" hitting the screen again? Perhaps it is a reaction to Ken Burns latest. I hope it isn't another untimely romanticization of war just in time for Iran. Hollywood did a good job of depicting the brutality of Viet Nam. Not so much in the Middle East with it's de-humanization of Muslims. Care to speculate why that is?
Modern 'soldiers' are cowards, trained to kill innocent civilians. Anytime they encounter even moderate, capable resistance, they call in air cover for saturation bombing, more cowardice.
Go back to when a soldier had to stand toe to toe, sword in hand, at look at the man he is about to murder.
Why did 23 U.S. 'DEMOCRATIC' Senators vote in favor of denouncing MoveOn.Org for its advertisement questioning the credibility of General Petreaus?
MoveOn.org & the Military Industrial Congressional Complex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H337V_pwnbw
I agree. The "Support the Troops" lie sickens me to death. Makes me want to vomit. If anyone supports the troops its the anti-war movement. I had a screaming match in the beginning with a crotchetly old pro-war idiot. I yelled right back that I supported the troops and he didn't because I didn't think they should get killed for oil. It actually shut him up for almost 10 minutes. HYPOCRISY in everything --- that's what those people are like. I've done more to support our troops in fighting for their benefits,etc. than any of these brain-dead white male (usually) morons in their SUV's.
It's the whole AGGRESSION thing with Support the Troops. Notice how they puff their chests and bully the words to anyone in reach. It's PHONY.
I'm sick of holding the military to such a "holy" status. I do feel for many of those young men because I know they had little choice in their lives. And I've seen that many of them are very decent --- and are being USED. I don't think people who think they should be cannon fodder are "supporting" them.
How about "Support the Social Workers" for a change?! I know why. Because that's mostly a woman's thing so we don't talk about the brave women who go into dangerous inner cities to try and help the poorest of the poor to get help. Women who stare violence in the face day after day. Nope, we just honor the 'tough' male positions in our society.
Not "fuck the troops" but "fuck the army". FTA is the way to go, and we need to help troops who want to stop the killing.
We can support the troops, when they stand up to the President.
War became obsolete with the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. Back then, it was Americans most of all who recognized this and led in the establishing of the UN, whose first rule is that war is illegal. As Gwynne Dyer has written, this rule does "not say that henceforth tyranny is illegal, because enforcing such a rule would mean endless war. (First we attack Stalin, then Mao, then....) It was a hundred-year project at the very least, since human beings have been fighting wars since the dawn of civilisation eight thousand years ago, or even before. But it was necessary, because the only alternative, sooner or later, was World War III with nuclear weapons."
But America was also the first state to backslide from this recognition. Now, the rest of the world has to wait for Americans to catch up again. How many more wars is that gonna take?
Bring back the draft.
When the letters start arriving in the mailbox: "Dear Johnny (or Jane) you have been selected for induction...". Especially when they start showing up in the mailboxes in these middle class housing developments. You can bet the attitude would change in a BIG hurry.
Excellent article, and so far few are responding to what it's really saying: that our entire society is bracing for military rule.
J CONRAD added, Militarism is militarism and war crimes are war crimes. Any thought of supporting troops engaged in imperialistic atrocities is just another form of complicity." THAT is the unimpeachable truth!
GALEN offers, "So we have modern military fetishists calling for war in the name of a war god from the region that they are currently attacking. Talk about irony." To me it's proof yet again, that for the US, MARS rules, therefore war is erroneously rendered 'holy' and maniacs actually take THIS debacle, this crime against humanity for 'god's will.' INSANE!!!!!
And now Ken Turns, The Whore; flagrant, timed Bushist propaganda!
Kivals, I disagree! Besides personal experience with EHM's I can recommend a book by John Perkins, Secret History of American Empire which more than confirms my own experience. Hardly "simplistic" the global show is run by the corporatocracy and every polititcan in either party culpable.
So how do you translate 'Blood and steel' into Bush-speak? For that matter,how about the legend from above the gates of Aushwitz 'Freedom through work'?
Enjoy your police state. You earned it.
Yes, there is a Cult of the Military and US Militarism and we all pay the price for it.
Just a quick reminder of the origen of modern Millenialist Christianity.
'God' as believed in by most modern Christians is the Hebrew YHVH viewed through a rascist Roman lens, and is in turn decended from an even more ancient BABYLONIAN war diety named 'Yahweh'.
So we have modern military fetishists calling for war in the name of a war god from the region that they are currently attacking. Talk about irony.
Thank you for this analysis. For those interested in a psychological perspective on the Bush administration's warmongering success, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War." It examines how White House messsaging targets five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and offers suggestions for how to counter them. It's available for viewing HERE.
Thanks to Donna Saggia !
Someone has finally articulated the insanity of using the phrase, "Support The Troops".
Why doesn't the anti-war movement just shoot itself in the foot with a 30mm cannon ?
No wonder the "peace movement" is up to their armpits in ideological quicksand while struggling and sinking deeper.
For years , the peaceniks have been chanting "Support The Troops," while American forces engage in torture, murder and rape as the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world today ".
Militarism is militarism and war crimes are war crimes. Any thought of supporting troops engaged in imperialistic atrocities is just another form of complicity.
More than likely "Support The Troops" language came out of a neocon think tank.
How about Support Jeffrey Dhamer, he had a rough childhood and bad table manners ?
I unfortunately also "Support the Troops" through my tax dollars as much as the right wing nutjob next door, so lets all shut the fuck up about it. Allright? Mentally or morally or however you want to say it though, I don't support the troops at all. If after five years of this bullshit we can't get past any of the Democratic candidates tripping over each other to emphasize that they "Support the Troops", we're fucked. They are fighting an illegal war and are responsible for God knows how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and the most profound statement that can come out of a candidates mouth is "Support the Troops". John McCain repeats himself like every other senile old fart, during Senate hearings "the most dangerous thing is to have a demoralized military". Tell that to the dead Iraqis, shithead. I don't support our troops at all and unless people become outraged and march and scream and spit like rabid monkeys at our returning GI's, nothing is going to change. The Vietnam War scarred a whole generation as war should. We shouldn't walk into war with a feel good attitude with no concern for the people we are killing. I understand that some of the kids in the military come from poor backgrounds and this is one of their few options in life, but you know there are better things to be than a war criminal. The sky's the limit; this is America isn't it. Why not cook up a batch of crack and peddle to kids, or become a mortagage broker. At least you would be selling shit that people want. Until that happens how about a new slogan, "Fuck the Troops".
I know many at CD will argue that the Democratic Party has always been hopelessly corrupt and indistinguishable from the Republican Party, but I think such simplistic viewpoints do nothing to increase understanding or lead to solutions. However, it is undeniable that Bill Clinton needlessly corporatized and corrupted the party for his own personal gain (and his wife will do more of the same). And now the Democratic Party includes as many or more corrupted pro-corporate militarists as well-intentioned progressives.
The Democratic Party of today does not seem to be much of a political party at all and as a result it cannot mount a meaningful defense to childish schoolyard tactics by the Republicans. Instead of responding to Republican mischief by asking "Why do Republicans hate democracy and love war?", most Democrats in Congress seem to be saying "We are as militaristic and love war as much as the Republicans, so please do not accuse us of being feckless and cowardly. Please, please, and, if you want, in order to prove it we will kick sand in the face of our supporters. Watch."
Donald Rumsfeld publicly criticized General Shinseki as incompetent, wrecking his career because he disagreed with the post-invasion troop levels.
General Pace has been forced to retire due to his non-compliance with torture and failure to support the Iran weapons smuggling deception.
So now the Republican's are supporting the Generals and condemning MoveOn? Sure they are. Now that they have a puppet to play with.
"Hey here's General Petraeus! He's a real American! See his medals? Look everybody and see how we support our Generals!"
It's so much BS it's almost laughable.