Posts Tagged ‘foreign policy’

they say we must support the troops, but why do they get to decide?

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

Recently, there was an email sent to our student listserv urging students to get out and “support the troops”, because a local group of soldiers was getting deployed. The email went on to say that it was important to support the troops, regardless of political affiliation. This seems to have been a fairly common theme over the past 6 years or so, with the “support the troops” mantra being chanted nationwide. This idea of “support the troops also seems to have and an implied sub-mantra “dissent and disagreement don’t have room in this conversation, our troops need support, and by voicing your anti-war opinion, you’re not being supportive, and are therefore a bad person”. Maybe that’s just me, and maybe I’m reading into it too much, but this is the sense I get from the majority of the “support the troops” pushes that I’ve seen.

It’s curious to me that “support” has seemingly turned into “implicitly agree with” in the context of the troops and the military in this country. I say turned into, but I don’t actually know, it’s possible this has always been the sentiment, and I’m just noticing it now. Superficially, I think people are saying “show the troops getting ready to be deployed into very tough situations that you’re here for them”, which, on a superficial level I don’t disagree with.

However, because of the connotations expressed above, it seems that “support” has taken on a different meaning. In attending a rally for troops getting ready to be deployed, and waving a flag, and clapping for them as they leave, it seems as though there are other messages being sent. If I were to go to one of these rallies, and wave a flag, and clap for the troops as they leave, I would feel as though I were implicitly agreeing with their decision to go into the military, the tactics they’re going to be instructed to use while deployed, and ultimately the concept of war and destruction as a whole.

The issue is, I don’t. I admit to being a little bit extreme in my views on war and pacifism, but I stand by them. I don’t agree with people’s decision of going into the military. First, because I think the military uses unfair recruitment techniques, and I feel as though many new recruits get caught up in the grandeur of serving one’s country, the education bonuses, and the “cool” jobs they’ll get to do if they score high enough. I also disagree with the tactics the military instructs their soldiers to use, although this is probably rooted in my idea’s of non-violence. Water boarding isn’t ok, nor is other forms of torture. Keeping people held indefinitely, in a state of legal limbo, and without any hope of them ever getting released in Guantanamo isn’t ok (yes, I know this is supposed to be over, I know those people are being released, etc. That still doesn’t remove the wrong that was initially done). Furthermore, I disagree with the idea that war is the best way to solve certain problems. Invading a sovereign country, destroying people’s homes, completely destroying and rebuilding a countries government, and staying in a country for almost 6 years is not ok. We’re not building an empire, we don’t have a mandate from anyone to bring democracy to the world, and ultimately, we were wrong.

So, if I disagree with what seems to be implied in “support the troops”, why would I do so? I acknowledge that these soldiers are going into a scenario that will be very taxing on them. The things soldiers will do and see is enough to scar anyone for a lifetime. War isn’t pretty, and it’s not glorious. Ultimately, at least for me, the question boils down to the meaning of support in this context.

There’s an argument to be made that returning soldiers deserve our support as a country. Veteran’s benefits are not what they used to be, and many veterans are not being supported in near the number of ways they need support. There’s not a very good mental health system for these soldiers, and overall, the benefits are lacking. I’m all for building up veterans benefits, soliders go through way more than the average civilian, and should be helped back into the society that had them do these things. That said, there are a lot of people in this country right now that are seeing things that are also very emotionally taxing. What about the homeless people (in some cases also veterans) who don’t have a place to live, don’t have clean clothes, don’t have money or a job, and have no idea where their next meal is coming from? Don’t they deserve support also? What about the people working in shelters, soup kitchens, food shelfs, and other organizations that see homeless people come through every day, and know the situations of each one of them? The workers have food, have a job, have a house, but are tasked with seeing large numbers of people who don’t. That’s got to be emotionally taxing. What about those who’re wrongly imprisoned, for any number of reasons, and are subjected to knowing that they’re innocent, but stuck within a system that is designed to keep them their, against their will. A system that is designed to not believe them. What about those people who need support of a mental health system that doesn’t have the funding it needs? Isn’t being subjected to a “let’s try this drug and see what happens” mentality incredibly taxing?

I’m not saying that any of these situations deserve more money or time than the situations of troops returning home. Nor am I saying that any of the people in these situations are have it worse than the soldiers on the ground. What I am saying is that to me, putting money and time towards helping these people is what support means. Put money and time towards veterans benefits, that’s fine. In fact, if the nation can build up a support network for people who need help, but can’t get it, I think soldiers, homeless people, people with very emotionally taxing jobs, and mental health patients could all benefit.

Isn’t there a way to tell the troops “I disagree with your decision, I disagree with the orders you’re going to be given, I disagree with the necessity of your job, but when you get home, and after seeing what you’ll have seen, I think more money should be given to a support system for you, and I’ll be working while you’re away to reduce the need for your job”? Some would say that this all fits under “support the troops”, but I disagree. At the risk of giving the soldiers one more thing to worry about as they’re being deployed, it seems reasonable to me to make stipulations in your support. Perhaps this is too blunt, and perhaps the soldiers need more uplifting messages as they’re about to be dropped into the middle of a very emotionally and physically taxing situation. Maybe instead of being so negative, something like “I think war is wrong, and i think you shouldn’t have become a soldier. My form of support will be political action to bring troops home, and getting the United States to stop fighting wars in general” should be said.

For me, support doesn’t mean “I stand behind you whole-heartedly” or “I put you and your work on a pedestal, because you’re going through a lot in your line of work”. For me, support means “I want to help you get out your very painful, unfortunate set of circumstances”. It means actively working to stop the practice of starting wars, it means working to increase the support system nationwide (and not only for veterans), and it means being politically active to elect those who will work for this type of “support”. Yes, I support the troops, but I don’t give the military and the soldiers a free “support card” that puts them on a pedestal and protects them from criticism and dissent.

potential end of an era

Monday, April 6th, 2009

The Chicago Tribune writes that for the first time in 18 years, the media was there when the body of a soldier fighting in Afghanistan was brought back to the United States. As per a new Pentagon policy, the family of Staff Sgt. Phillip Myers was asked if they would allow media to be there when Myers’ body returned to Dover Air Force Base. The family agreed to media coverage, but did not want to be photographed or interviewed.

First, let me say, it is a horrible thing when someone dies in the military. Furthermore, the feelings of the family of the person who has died should be considered. A lot of people have attributed the change in policy of 18 years ago that stopped allowing media to be there when the bodies of soldiers returned home as a way to hide the human cost of war. That is, if the public isn’t directly seeing the number of bodies coming back to the States, they’re less likely to feel the cost of war, and less likely to protest, a la Vietnam.

I tend to agree, that is the outcome. Maybe it’s not intentional, maybe it is, I can’t say. I do however feel that it’s important for the media to be allowed access as bodies return to US soil. I also feel that it’s important for media to be allowed in a war area, at the Republican National Convention, and ultimately anywhere and everywhere something affecting the public is taking place.

Media presence when bodies are returning home is just one way the media can act as a watchdog for public policy. I tend to think of the media as the whistleblowers to the government, and notifying the public of what’s going on at all levels. Ideally this just means reporting, although it could mean exposing corruption, providing opposing opinion, and getting a dialogue going about a topic. This can’t happen if the media isn’t allowed in certain places.

What does this new Pentagon policy mean? Well, it means families will now be asked if they’ll allow a media presence at the return of their loved one’s body. Some will say yes, and some will say no. Personally, I hope all of the families say yes. I hope the American public starts seeing the human cost of war, the images of caskets draped in American flags coming home every day or two. I don’t mean to de-value the lives of those soldiers, quite the opposite. All lives are important, and I would guess the majority of the American public agrees with me. If the public starts seeing how many people are losing their lives to wars started by a ’sheriff mentality’ president who seemed to think everything could and should be solved by violence, I hope the public would start to wake up.

This isn’t about anti-military, or anti-bush, or anti-republican. It’s about anti-war, and pro-peace. It’s about acknowledging we’re losing a significant portion of our population to undermine other nations sovreignty. For me, it’s about making people care again. I hope that bringing a human element back to the numbers we still hear occassionally on the news will make people start to listen.

We, as a country, have sunk this low

Monday, December 8th, 2008

It’s hit us. The United States is no longer capable, apparently, of getting people to enlist. Is anyone really surprised? I mean, ultimately, we’ve fuddled two “wars”, because our current administration is incompetent, and enlistment is down.

What does the US government, with their massive defense budget? They sure as hell don’t take the hint that the citizenry of the United States is tired of war, and that we’re ready to move in the direction that the European Union already is. No, instead they decide to pump more of their allocated budget into propaganda. Check this out:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQXXpUK49U4]

Note the first few lines: “so don’t tell me who’s wrong or right when liberty starts slipping away. If you ain’t gonna fight then get out of the way”

Somehow, in our drive to ‘bring democracy’ to the middle east (can I remind everyone we were initially in Iraq to save the world from Weapons of Mass Destruction, not bring democracy), we’ve gotten to the point disallowing dissent. “When liberty”, the basic freedoms every human being should enjoy, “starts slipping away”, we’re not supposed to tell “me” (who I assume is the government, because I’m sure Kid Rock didn’t just get millions of dollars to produce this song without the government looking over his shoulder) “who’s wrong or right”. So, when liberty, as defined by our government, starts ’slipping away’, we’re not supposed to voice our opinion.

This message of stifling dissent is wrapped in all sorts of pretty, patriotic words, and tied to imagery of a convoy of, presumably, national guard soldiers in what looks to be Iraq (or some other desert area). It’s meant to make the viewer feel “badass” about our country. Look at all the cool things you get to do when you’re in the National Guard! Look! You get to protect liberty! You’re badass enough to decide who’s wrong, or who’s right on difficult foreign policy issues!

Not convinced? “If you’re not gonna fight, then get out of the way”? To me, this reads as “If you’re not going to enlist, die for your country, and be another body we can throw at ‘terrists’, sit down, shut up. I don’t want to hear your opposing viewpoints, I don’t want to see you protesting”. This entire video is propaganda, imagery of ‘badass’ soldiers mixed with imagery of the same people, winning at Nascar (mind you, sponsored by the National Guard, did you catch that?).

This culture of stifling dissenting voices is harmful to the United States. Sure, it makes the National Guard’s job easier, and I’m sure the government is all for making people shut up and do what it tells them. Ultimately, this is the point of government, to an extent. We accept governmental control in exchange for safety, security, and various other services (trade, etc.). At least in this country, we are supposed to have a degree of say in our government’s policies, and we’re supposed to be able to decide things like foreign policy (or vote people in who will, if you want to be technical).

Stifling dissent leads to a the populace believing that what the government is doing is right. If no one is dissenting, everyone agrees. If everyone agrees with everything the government is doing, the government can continue doing it. If the government continues to have free-reign in what it’s doing, the government can continue stifling dissenters, and it’s just a viscious cycle.

On a final note, Kid Rock isn’t the only one. 3 Doors Down likes the National Guard too:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRthpxDM10]

gross. uncensored. necessary for the American public to see

Saturday, September 13th, 2008

So I came across this link when I was stumbling today. Please note that the pictures on this page are rather uncensored, and are pretty graphic, so, if you’re interested, check it out at The Real Face of War.

It raises an interesting point. Everyone knows it, but many people forget that the mainstream media doesn’t show us pictures of what’s actually going on during war (Iraq in this case). Furthermore, they don’t allow photographers when soldiers are coming home in body bags, or at funerals. The only way to find out what’s actually going on is to sign-up for a four year plan (military, in case it wasn’t clear). I suppose that could be part of the plan, but it’s disgusting.

Could we, as the public, stand up and voice our opinions? I’m tired of the apathy that this country is showing about war, about being lied to regularly by our elected officials, about being continually forced down the road, which eventually leads to a police state. Telecom immunity anyone?

-JTS