It's hard to have hope for America

What was a democracy has become in 200 years a nation controlled by money-hungry politicians, greedy corporations and militant empire builders.

Globalization's promoters, the corporate world, doesn't give a tinker's dam for the poor or the upward struggling people of America or the Third World, only for the "holy" bottom line.

How can one not feel sympathy for fallen soldiers and their survivors? But when false propaganda translates this into "support our troops," we should stop and reflect.

Corporate American empire builders have sent our boys and girls into battle for the sole purpose of securing the world's second largest oil reserve.

We're at war so Americans can continue to drive humongous gas guzzling SUVs and four-door pickups, so we can continue to expand our cities and towns beyond common sense.

We are in a period of massive euphoric expansionism. Can any rational person really think we can continue this folly ad infinitum?

Is it worth sending your sons and daughters to war for someone else's profit and pleasure? Think it over; it's time we start bringing some goal other than greed into our lives.

Anti-War Liberals Who Still "Support Our Troops"

There are a considerable number of bumper-sticker patriots left in America who claim not to support the war but only the troops.

This however is another logical howler, for what does this mean but to approve of what the troops are doing -- which is fighting a war these pseudo-patriots claim to reject.

There are also others who claim that as long as the troops are in harm's way, we must support them by not speaking out publicly against the war. Why not?

Because it would destroy the troops' morale, they say. Well, what would that mean anyway even if true? Discourage them from needlessly risking their lives?

Discourage them from re-enlisting? Make it harder for the neocons to find pawns to accomplish their megalomaniac plan to rule the world?

Still others will say that they support the troops because the troops are putting their lives on the line for our "beloved nation."

But if the war is not helping the nation (and in fact harming it) then they are putting their lives on the line for no good reason.

Thus they are approving of wasting the lives of those whom they claim to support, which makes no sense whatsoever.

To avoid such hypocrisy, all bumper-sticker patriots should peel the yellow "Support our troops" ribbon off their bumpers and replace it with, "Bring our Troops Home!" because that is the only rational, consistent way to support our troops.

How about the Slogan "Condemn Our Troops"?

Stickers, badges, ribbons - by parading these emblems we show empathy and compassion for the plight of these young people.

Oh, really? Don't we also show support for the callous, illegal war "our brave men and women" are fighting? Doesn't our support stifle any opposition to America's aggression?

This argument raises a number of questions that I think need to be considered before embarking on such a campaign.

I realize that by identifying these questions I run the risk of being labelled as uncompassionate and unfeeling, but I assure readers I am neither of these things. Nevertheless, the questions are deeply concerning to me.

I think it's important to ask, first, what do we mean when we declare that we "support" the troops? Perhaps an answer can be found by looking into history and identifying where we have heard this phrase before.

The first time I remember hearing the phrase was during the Vietnam War. At that time the slogan had a clear meaning. It meant, quite clearly, support for war effort.

The logic was that if people at home protested the war, somehow the troops overseas would be demoralized and defeated. They would return home suffering from depression, with a loss of meaning to their lives, and alienation.

In fact, a good many of the troops did return from Vietnam suffering from what has been identified as post traumatic stress disorder, the symptoms of which include depression and psychic numbing.

But it wasn't because they didn't feel supported by a yellow ribbon campaign. They suffered because of the atrocities they had witnessed and because they personally faced death repeatedly on the battlefield.

They further suffered when the "support" from their government and communities failed them when they needed support the most -- at home, wounded and psychologically scarred.

Another time the "support our troops" slogan was used, in recent memory, was in 1980 in the Soviet Union -- in the same theatre of war that Canada now finds itself, Afghanistan.

Nikolai Lanine, writing in the Globe and Mail in January, recounted his involvement in the war to free the Afghan people from the terrorism of the mujahidin, who at the time were being supported by the United States.

Lanine told that the Soviet government, facing a crisis of public support for a war effort that had taken thousands of young lives and led to the devastation of the Soviet economy, used the slogan to bolster public support.

In a similar manner, George Bush Sr. and George W. Bush each revived the slogan in support of both Gulf wars.

Recent history suggests then, that "Support Our Troops" means support the war effort.

Another question raised by the use of this slogan is, what are the implications of its use regarding public policy?

Again, one needs only to look at recent uses of the slogan, by governments, as a tool for propaganda.

In the U.S., the slogan has been a rallying cry for the support-the-war-movement and has stifled any opposition to the policy of aggression.

People who might stand up and question the rationality of a military solution are easily silenced by being labelled "undemocratic" or "unpatriotic" for not getting behind the banner.

The the most troubling aspect of this "support the troops" patriotism is that it inhibits us from asking important questions, like:

"Are we really liberating the Iraqis?" Or, "What has the effect been on the Afghan people of NATO's presence?" Or, "Is this war really worth the young lives being sacrificed?"

The "yellow ribbon" campaign avoids contentious issues about war and imperialism. Anyone who speaks out is accused of negating the 'heroism' of our troops, and that 3,600 deaths were in vain.

There needs to be a full and public debate about our involvement in the Middle East, about what we hope to accomplish and about how realistic it is that we can change an ancient culture and a society that has been at war for more than 25 years against occupation of one kind or another.

The slogan "Support Our Troops" has the potential of silencing a great many people in the debate precisely because they fear being labelled as lacking empathy, uncaring, lacking in compassion and, yes, even unpatriotic.

Perish the thought!

tags: patriotism  support  troops  propaganda  war  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit