You wrote, in your recent correspondence, that you told the servicemen and women in Iraq "that Congress and the American people are proud of them and back them one hundred percent..." Since you presume to be speak for not only your constituents, such as myself, but for the American people in general, I think it is incumbent upon you to explain what it means to be "proud" of the troops in Iraq, and what it means to "back them one hundred percent."
Is not to say that one is "proud" of the soldiers also to say that one is proud of what they have accomplished? In this case, what has been accomplished is a war of aggression, defined as "the supreme international crime" at Nuremberg. Are Americans proud of this? Should they be proud of this? Are we to "back" this "one hundred percent"? Should we? Why should Americans be "proud" of soldiers who participate voluntarily and willingly in a war of aggression? Why should we "back" such a crime "one hundred percent"? What is there to be "proud" of in that? What is there to be "proud" of about a heinous international crime containing within itself numerous lesser war crimes? Shall we be "proud" of the estimated 600,000 Iraqis that have been killed as a result of this crime? Shall we "back" this violence "one hundred percent"? Shall we be "proud" of the chaos Iraq has been thrown into as a result of this crime? Should we "back" it "one hundred percent"? Or perhaps we should be "proud" of these soldiers because they obey orders?
Another principle enshrined at Nuremberg is that "individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state.... The true test...is not the existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible."
I, for one, am proud of those members of our armed services who have courageously stood up and refused, saying, "I will not fight an unjust war predicated upon lies and deceptions." Among those who have gone to Iraq, I am proud of those who have spoken out against crimes and abuses they have seen there. I am proud of those who used their position to prevent or mitigate further atrocities and further violence, rather than willfully escalating them or doing nothing; men like Joseph M. Darby, who acted with the modicum of decency and morality necessary to report the abuses he witnessed at Abu Ghraib to his superiors in order to try to put an end to it.
As for support, I supported the troops one hundred percent prior to the invasion of Iraq on March 20 and the escalation of bombing on March 19 of 2003. I supported them by doing what little I could to prevent them from going to fight an unjust, immoral war. I supported them by writing to friends and family to declare my protest of the coming war and to encourage others to similarly speak out against a planned war of aggression. I supported them by pointing out the patent lies and blatant deceptions of the Bush administration in making their case for war (you and everybody else knows that this notion of an "intelligence failure" is a myth; the emperor has no clothes, so let us dispense with this thinly veiled pretense of naivete). I supported American servicemen and women one hundred percent prior to the invasion by trying to prevent them, in whatever meager way I knew how, from being sent to fight and die in a war of aggression. I support them now by saying they should come home. Now.
Given the wide variety of meanings different people associate with the notion of being proud of and supporting American servicemen and women, I think a clarification of your meaning would be appropriate.
Sincerely,
Jeremy R. Hammond
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: Bring the troops home now!
Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent researcher and writer whose articles have appeared in numerous online publications. He maintains a website (www.yirmeyahureview.com) dedicated to critical analysis of US foreign policy, particularly with regard to the US "war on terrorism" and the Middle East.
Mr. Hammond, you've pushed logic to it's ultimate conclusion. Although you may receive unflattering feedback for this courageous stand, I've been asking the same questions since before March of 2003.
In his narrative "The Violence Within", brilliant social commentator Utah Philips says, "Friends, if that trigger gets pulled, if that dropped bomb falls and you say, "I support the troops", you're an accomplice."
One excuse I hear far too often is that anyone who would refuse an order to go to Iraq and participate in that catastrophe would be maligned and vilified by his fellow soldiers as well as by his family and people in his home town. The answers to these "problems" are relatively easy, though.
First, what's more difficult, to be criticized or to take a life you didn't even know for a reason that doesn't exist? Those that criticize soldiers who refuse to participate in The Regime's murderous schemes have obviously forgotten what death is. It's so easy to talk about "war", "battles" and "insurgencies" if one forgets about the finality of death. After all, isn't that what outraged Americans about September 11, 2001? Didn't Americans say that only cowards would purposely kill people who had never hurt them and whom they didn't know? Somehow, the finality of death is lost in all of the talk of revenge or retaliation. In the case of Iraq, the reality of death is blended with the reality of Iraq's innocence in any crime carried out against the FUSA (Former United States of America).
Secondly, supporting the troops is akin to insulting the troops. There's a reason why soldiers are taught not to question an order and it's a legitimate reason. In the midst of a truly provoked conflict, there's no time for debate. A soldier needs to trust his commanding officers in the moment.
This doesn't mean that soldiers, men and women, human beings, must allow common sense and awareness to be sucked from their person. While following orders during a legitimate war of self defense is necessary, being aware that there exists a legitimate war of self defense is even more important. When we say, "We don't support the war but we support the troops", we are, in essence saying that the troops are too stupid to realize that what they're doing is wrong.
Thirdly, who are those who are criticizing soldiers who refuse to participate in The Regime's war of choice? Are they veterans who served in past wars? Although criticism of soldiers who refuse to fight in Iraq may seem more valid if it comes from a veteran of a past conflict, the veteran may want to consider the "war" in which he or she participated and decide whether it was a legitimate war of self defense. Criticism from a veteran of the Vietnam conflict could be negated by the fact that the particular veteran participated in the Vietnam conflict.
Finally, a soldier who shows the courage to lay down his or her arms because she or he knows that what he or she is doing in Iraq is wrong shouldn't much care what fellow soldiers think about the decision. A soldier's decision to refuse to kill or to potentially be killed when that soldier knows no legitimate reason exists raises that soldier's moral standing and value of life above those who continue to kill without questioning why.
One supports the war if one supports the troops because, without the involvement of the troops, there is no war.
Michael Bonanno
by
Michael Bonanno (70 articles, 16 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 122 comments)
on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 9:40:39 AM
Perhaps this has been said before but this is the first I've seen someone word it so well. Just wanted to let you know that I, and many others, share your feelings and, like you, have done so since before the troops were committed to this insanity. Your letter deserves to be publicized in newspapers throughout the country!
by
BSchatz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 9:59:25 AM
.. That we support our troops willingness to try to protect our country, that we honor their willingness to put themselves in harm's way for the sake of their countrymen, and the world's peace. And let it be said that we aren't willing to have this conflict continue for another second longer than enough time to retract as much of the mistake our nation has made as we can, and put the Iraqi people in a position to take control of their country with the help of foreign nationals of their choosing, begin to forge their own country or countries of peace, as they will it. Let is be said that it doesn't dishonor our soldiers, nor the individuals in our country with the decency and wit to admit that we have made a greivous mistake, and that we owe the Iraqi people that have suffered so much a boundless apology. And let it be said that we will no longer cloak anyone who happens to be a soldier with everlasting honor, if his behavior as a soldier is heinous. Let it be said that the US government would finally admit a mistake, as our governments never have before. And let it be said that we beg their forgiveness. And let it be said that we will provide as much as we can in materials and money and effort to repair the terrible damage that we've done. And may it not just be said, may it all be true, so that we can have a country that we may be proud of, instead of being ashamed at the evil we have allowed to be done in our names.
by
brantl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 9:35:58 PM
