[Reader-list] support our troops...always?

[Avishek Ganguly]

Dear everyone on the list,

here's a brilliant indictment of the dangerous
"now-that-our
troops-have-gone-in-let's-forget-all-differences-and-support-them"
argument...

Kargil or Iraq...isn't this 'crisis-patriotism' always
the last resort of all political leaderships?

Go Yossarian!
Avishek

_______________________________________________________

ZNet | Iraq

No Ribbons, No Flags, No Fireworks
An Open Letter to Pro-War Americans
by Tim Wise ; March 21, 2003

Dear neighbor,
Please spare me the lecture. Likewise, dont bother
asking me why I refuse 
to tie a yellow ribbon around the tree in my front
yard, or put out a flag, 
or slather my Honda Civic with Support the
Troopsbumper stickers. I dont 
feel like explaining it every time someone wants
answers to these 
questions, and anyway, you probably wouldnt like my
reasons to begin with.
You claim that we must now put aside our different
opinions about the 
propriety of war with Iraq, and rally round the
President, the country, and 
our men and women in uniform. But you are wrong, and I
imagine that at some 
level you know this to be true.

After all, do we really have an obligation to support
the troops no matter 
what they do as they prosecute this slaughter against
a minor league 
opponent? Would you indeed support the troops if their
mission involved 
nuclear incineration of Iraqi cities and villages?
One, two, many My Lai 
massacres?
Beyond hypotheticals, should we support the troops
even as they carry out 
the announced plan to launch nearly a thousand cruise
missiles into Iraqs 
major population centers within forty-eight hours of
war? With the UN 
estimating that upwards of a half-million Iraqis might
die as a result of 
this war, can you really say without any sense of
misgiving that we should 
support the troopscome what may, and that failure to
do so should be 
branded un-American?

Dont misunderstand. I guess one could say that I too
support the troops, 
but surely not in the way that you and other
flag-wavers intend.
I support them being able to make a living and get an
education without 
having first to subordinate their consciences to a
military establishment 
that vitiates critical thought, reflection and free
will, so as to create 
more efficient killing machines. How about you?
I support them not being lied to about the chemicals
and depleted uranium 
to which they will likely be exposed. How about you?
I support them refusing to fly their planes, refusing
to bomb civilian 
infrastructure, like water treatment facilities, the
destruction of which 
will create mass epidemics and cause the deaths of
thousands of children. 
How about you?
I support them refusing to move their tanks against
civilians. How about you?
I support them deserting, going AWOL, and disobeying
the unlawful orders 
that are the hallmark of modern warfare--unlawful
because they almost 
always violate international law, such as Article 54
of the Geneva 
Conventions, which makes it a certifiable war crime to
target any facility 
the integrity of which is necessary to the functioning
of civilian life.
I support the troops as fathers and mothers; as
children; as brothers and 
sisters; as human beings and free moral agents, all of
which they were long 
before they became the foot soldiers of a swaggering
empire, led by a 
functionally-illiterate cowboy with no knowledge of
history, who couldnt 
find Iraq on a map if it wasnt labeled first, and
whose drive to mass 
murder seems motivated as much by a desire to win the
love of his daddy as 
anything more substantive.

I support the troops arresting any American solider
who they see killing an 
Iraqi civilian, or ordering the same. They should turn
their guns on their 
own in such a situation, in the name of defending the
innocent and in 
regard to a higher law to which they are bound.
But I do not support the troops following orders that
will kill scores of 
innocent people. I will not cheer the light show over
Baghdad, the 
bulldozing of Iraqi soldiers beneath desert sand,
burying them alive as was 
done in the first Gulf War; nor will I support the
strafing of Iraqi 
soldiers as they retreat or seek to surrender, as was
also done in the 
first Gulf War, in what was described at the time as a
turkey shoot.
Any soldier that engages in those kinds of actions
deserves not support but 
rather prosecution under accepted standards of
international law for the 
commission of war crimes. Following orders was no
excuse at Nuremberg and 
it will be no excuse in Basra either.
Indeed, military personnel are sworn to obey orders
only when those orders 
are lawful, according to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. Whats more, 
in their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution,
all members of the 
military are bound by Article VI of that document
which makes international 
treaties and agreements the highest law of the land.
As such, following 
orders to prosecute this war violates the oath taken
by the troops, since 
Article 51 of the UN Charter allows war only in
immediate self-defense or 
when the Security Council has directed or authorized
use of force to 
maintain or restore international peace and security,
neither of which 
condition applies here.
And since Article 2 of the Charter makes clear that
war is not legitimate 
for the purpose of regime change, the attack underway
is by definition a 
criminal act, in violation of international law and
thus the Constitution. 
It is an impeachable offense, far more serious than
getting a blow job and 
lying about it.
And saying this is not giving aid and comfort to the
enemy, as you suggest. 
What gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the
United States is the 
prosecution of an unjust war itself. It is this war
that will aid our 
enemies, by giving them yet another issue around which
to rally terrorists, 
suicide bombers, hijackers and other assorted
fanatics.
Bombing a nation like Iraq, especially after
eviscerating it for over a 
decade with sanctions, can serve no purpose but to
enhance the likelihood 
of terrorism, and even the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, 
since only being in clear possession of such materials
(as with North 
Korea) seems capable of deterring attack by the U.S.
And no, it is not my job to fall in line, just so the
morale of soldiers 
can receive a boost. I want the morale of soldiers to
plummet. I want them 
to question the propriety of their assignments, and I
want them to be so 
conflicted about that mission that they simply refuse
to do their jobs. If 
criticism of this war harms troop morale and can
create internal dissent 
and divisions among the U.S. military, then we need
more of it, not less. 
Lives are worth more than morale; worth more than
self-image; worth more 
than soldiersfeelings.

And since it is with my money and in my name that any
killing of Iraqis 
will proceed, I have not just a right but an
obligation to speak out 
against the war if I consider it unjust. When my
nation kills, I kill, and 
I dont take the thought of collaboration lightly.
Collaboration puts my 
soul in jeopardy. So while the troops may use my money
to do their dirty 
work, dont expect me to say amen. My soul is more
important than their 
morale. So is yours.
As a father, I believe that this war will endanger the
life of my daughter 
(and my daughter to be) down the line. That by
creating even more 
embittered Muslims--embittered towards my nation
because they can, after 
all, read the markings on the bomb casings that say,
Made in the USA--this 
war will lay the groundwork for a form of payback that
will make 9/11 look 
like a global fender-bender. Survivors have long
memories, and the truth be 
told, we simply cant kill them all. It is those long
memories that will 
haunt my children and their children, for as James
Baldwin reminded us, 
There is no creation of any society more dangerous
than the man who has 
nothing to lose.
So no, I cant support the troops in the traditional
sense, because if they 
do their jobs, they contribute to the menacing of my
family in years to 
come, and my familys safety is more important than
their morale. So is yours.
But I do support the troops in the ways that truly
matter. Do you?
I support those troops of color in their continuing
quest to be treated as 
equals at all times, and not merely when they are
picking up a gun to kill 
for America: that means that I support the struggle
against the racism that 
those same troops too often face in their homeland.
How about you?
I support those troops who are women in their
continuing struggle against 
sexual assault and harassment, in general and
specifically at places like 
the Air Force Academy, where some of their male
counterparts apparently 
think it their duty to abuse them as sex objects. How
about you?
I support those troops who are gay or lesbian in their
quest for equitable 
treatment and the right to be true to themselves and
not have to hide their 
sexual orientations so as to pander to another
soldiers bigotry. How about you
I support those troops who are poor; specifically I
support their right to 
health care, and a college education and a job and
shelter, and a living 
wage. And I support these things for them whether in
or out of uniform. And 
I support these same things for the families of the
troops back home. How 
about you?
It is not the anti-war movement whose concern for the
troops should be 
questioned, but rather that of the men who send them
to battle, to face 
weapons that those same men (or their fathers) sold to
the other side in 
the first place.
Those men who never faced war themselves--and in the
case of the President 
went AWOL to avoid even a stateside National Guard
assignment during 
Vietnam--but who are quick to use others as the
fighting, bombing 
appendages to their own shriveled manhoods.
Those men who think that respect for international law
can be instilled by 
disregarding international law, international opinion
and the primary 
international decision making body on the planet.

Those men who think it appropriate to build up
monsters around the globe 
and then criticize those monsters for doing exactly
what we knew they would 
do all along.
Those men who believe they are entitled to say which
nations can have 
certain types of weapons and which cannot; which
nations can ignore UN 
resolutions and which must follow them; which nations
are allowed to 
oppress their own people and which must be held to a
higher standard.
Those men who believe that our vital national
interestslike the free flow 
of oil at market prices outweigh the right of Iraqi
children to walk, 
laugh, play, or simply breathe.
For it is these men who view the troops as expendable,
and who see them as 
one-dimensional tools for destruction, rather than as
human beings. It is 
these men who are putting the troops in harms way so
as to satisfy their 
own ambitions.
And it is we who oppose this war who seek to bring
them back in one 
piece--physically and emotionally.
So please, spare me the lecture.

Tim Wise is a writer, antiracist activist and father.
He can be reached at 
<mailto:timjwise at msn.com>timjwise at msn.com


________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
       visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com