I didn't want to go here. It is my opinion that an anti-war protestor shouldn't have to provide one's pro-military bonafides to have the "right" to protest the war. I was under the impression that our Constitution gave me that. Having said that, I am reluctantly doing so anyway for reasons I shall keep private.
My grandfather was an Army minesweeper during the second World War. My father was in the Air Force, serving in SAC during the Cuban Missile Crisis and going to Vietnam at the tail end of his term of service. Two of my uncles also served, one in the Marines and one in the Navy. Yes, that did get interesting on occasion. :-)
So let it be recorded that I feel very strongly about the value of our armed forces and its members. I was in favor of action in Afghanistan; then again, I'm from New York as well.
And yet I am against war, especially this invasion of Iraq. I am quite vocal on this particular matter. To some (particularly our friends among the chickenhawks), this is an unsolvable paradox. The chickenhawks state quite loudly that you either support the war, the President, the Republicans, and the troops, all as a package -- or you're a traitor. This is their definition of "moral clarity," after all. Black and white, with us or against us, testosterone-laden fighting men or cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Less fanatic voices note that dissent could lower morale among the troops.
The chickenhawks, I reject out of hand. Bush was the Commander-in-Thief in 2000, and he is today. While I am happy to note that there are some Republicans with consciences and backbones, it is my opinion that their party has been hijacked by NuCon imperialists, religious madmen, and megacorporate raiders. Then again, at least their party has a direction, which is more than I can say about the rapidly-imploding Democratic party. I'll take the waffles over the neoRomans any day, but that's a whole other blog entry. Finally, as far as I'm concerned, the war is about forcing "democracy" on the Arab world -- as long as they elect leaders who will do anything the Republicans tell them to do, that is.
The concern about lowering morale is a more valid one, however. Those who object to protests with more equanimity ask if we are not somehow "supporting" resistance or undermining our troops by raising questions about the conflict's validity. In response:
First of all, any nation is going to have people resisting invaders, no matter how well-justified or well-intentioned the attack. Afghanistan, which has been semi-abandoned already, has never stopped being a battlefield, and the few protests against that war were anemic at best. Will protests against the war embolden resistance? Maybe. It could also be argued that a monolithic foe could also embolden natives to resist a heartless, conquering juggernaut. Also remember that protests continue around the world, in nations which sent no troops in need of support; how, then, are those to be dealt with? Shall we attempt to suppress outrage worldwide?
The second point, while more valid, is also highly questionable. While soldiers are more inclined to simply follow orders than American civilians (arguably the most contrary people on the planet), even large numbers of them must have doubts about the dubious, ever-changing reasons for the war. Would their morale be eroded more by a bunch of outraged protestors -- most of whom express sympathy for them as well -- or by a vicious crushing of dissent when they've sworn to defend America's freedom? We have not yet come to the point of gulags and death squads for using our right to peaceably assemble and petition, thank the gods. Would our soldiers prefer the latter option? I seriously doubt it.
I do not blindly believe in the perfect goodness of every single soldier. They are all human, and the uglier war gets, the uglier warriors must become. America has bombed a city of five million, and too many civilians have died already. (One dead child is one too many.) Yet I believe with all my heart that however the protests may impact our troops, the vast majority understand that dissent is far better than the alternative.
They have, after all, sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States. The oath is quite specific on this: "from all enemies, foreign and domestic." I believe that the overwhelming majority of our armed forces take that oath seriously. That is why I have faith in them, and support them in what I believe to be the best way I can -- by supporting their swift and safe return.
(/) Roland
Still eating French Fries :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment