For the Democratic Congresspersons, inserting the phrase, "we support our troops" into one of their alleged anti-war bills, may well be a way to retroactively endorse the War in Iraq.
What does it mean to "support our troops"?
Our local Greens are holding a poster contest on the theme of "Bring Home Our Troops." A reporter called to interview me for a story about it. I was somewhat taken aback when she asked me, "What would you say to people who would think that by doing this, you are not supporting our troops?"
It cut me like a knife. Maybe because up until then she had seemed reasonable and open to the peace message. How could she so calmly articulate the accusation that I–who believed in non-violence, and who had worn black for mourning as I read the names of dead soldiers at vigils–was being unsupportive?
In response, I went on somewhat of an intense diatribe about how truly supporting our troops would mean to want them to be out of harm's way, and to want veterans to receive fair benefits, and to disapprove of forcing people to serve past their agreed upon time. All of these arguments which I have heard before, as my peace movement colleagues tried to adopt the phrase "Support our troops", in part as a way to prove we were patriotic, in part as an ironic turn of phrase: "Support our troops–bring them home."
Yet, as I tried this reverse spin on the reporter, the phrase "Support our troops" started to sear into my consciousness. Not just because I knew I was the one truly supporting these soldiers, these people, sent overseas to an unjust, illegal, and failing war, but also, because the phrase "troops" started to gnaw at me. I realized that after seeing a display of the faces of soldiers' lost, and reading the names of the soldiers lost at several candlelight vigils, and after hearing the story of Ehren Watada, the word "troop" was not an adequate representation for each life that a soldier represented.
The word "troops" itself is abstract and dehumanizing. The word "troop" is intended as a cover, a way to report that another one of our people has died in an unjust war, without having to say, "Another soldier died in Iraq today." Or, "Another man died in Iraq today. Or, "Another woman died in Iraq today." How much more powerful would any of those sentences be, then the sentence, "One troop was lost in Iraq today."
When a citizen hears, "3 troops were killed in Iraq today," she can keep on driving without skipping a beat. If she had to hear the same news about the same people as: "A father, a student, and a mother died in a Iraq today," perhaps the listener would have a greater sense of reflection. Maybe she would be more likely to pause for a moment, and connect to her complicity in the war by paying taxes for war, supporting the drumbeat for war, and voting for representatives who keep the cycle of war going.
I have worked with reporters before on various kinds of projects, and, I have watched how reporters write stories. The first question a reporter asks someone who is at a demonstration, or someone who is a witness, or someone who is a candidate is: "How old are you?" Next is, "What is your profession?" Then, your age and your profession is how you are described, like it or not. Why doesn't the same press have the patience and policy, instead of reporting "3 troops died in Iraq today," to write: "A mechanic, age 28; a musician, age 31, who belonged to the National Guard; and a nurse, age 35 were killed in Iraq today."
The peace movement should find new language for the word "troops." We should always refer to our soldiers in as human terms as possible, and not adopt the slang, propaganda, or phraseology of the government and corporate media. We should never mimic them by saying, "We support our troops." We should show how more sincere our support is, we should give testimony to the humanity of our troops. We should say, "We support our servicepeople." Or, "We support our men and women overseas."
In addition, in what way should the peace movement support these servicepeople? If we support them in their capacity as troops, then aren't we supporting the war? Because "troop" is a label attached to a person as they serve in the military. Can't we support the person, but not wish that they continue in their function as soldier? Can't we support the person and not condone that they have agreed to go overseas as part of a preemptive war which includes bombing and other attacks against the Iraqi people?
There is a phrase that adults sometimes say to children, "I love you, but I don't love your behavior." Isn't it that we care for the soldiers, but we really wish–for their sake and for our sake and for the sake of the Iraqis–that they would stop being "troops"?
To say, "We support our troops," is to push the mission of war forward. "Support our troops" also sounds like you want more people to become troops. As if it is a good thing. Do we support turning more young people who are graduating from high school into troops? Do we support creating more troops by calling up reservists and National Guardspeople who meant to serve their country in ways other than foreign war? Do we support the government using stop-loss orders, forcing soldiers to stay in active duty passed the terms they signed up for?
Do we support continuing forcing the people who we have taken from productive, civilian life, into continuing in their role as "troops"? Wouldn't it be better to support that we could have more people here in the United States, home to raise their families and contribute to the economy, maybe contribute to our culture. Wouldn't it be better, even, to support that we have more soldiers on bases at home, living out as peaceful and existence as possible and being trained for times when it might actually be that our military personnel could serve in a way that decreases instead of increases violence?
Let the Democratic Congresspersons coalition with the Republican Congresspersons to pass a bill that says, "We support our troops." That bill will expose the Democratic Party for what it is, the same kind of corporate tool, war machine as the Republicans are. Let the Democratic Party and the Republican Party join forces to create a bill condoning and celebrating the fact that we have sent young people (and now older people) overseas in harms way, and that condones and celebrates changing more people from citizens into "troops." The American people should have no part of it.
I know there are citizens who are Democrats and Republicans (plain citizens) who actually want no part of that scenario. And, there are even some Democratic elected officials and Republican elected officials who want no part of that scenario.
I wrote this in Nov. 2004 as a diary entry. Still works.
Der Truppen- the Troops
We have something to love once again. Those are the troops. Our beloved sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wifes. Those man and women in uniform who perform so perfectly under fire and expanded our democracy and freedoms beyond our realms. Heil to the troops. The American flag is waving over the heroes, the Eastern Wind blows at the faces of the cameraden and Gott Mitt Unst whenever we go and whatever we do. His Majesty the Army of One, the soldierperson is a dominating figure in our shows. The generals are again wise strategic thinkers, the military secretaries are careful, all-inclusive and patriotic, the Commander in Chief possesses the God's wisdom and the public is ready to make babies. Long live the War, Death and eternal Peace of our cemeteries.
::::::::
The troops. Der truppen in German. This German word infiltrated itself into many other languages. Then the funny thing happened. Somehow in Russian language it took another meaning. It means the Dead. There is even a famous play "Zhivoi Trup", that is A Living Dead, describing a man, who orchestrated his artificial death.
Russians are maybe not the most sympathetic people, but they are victims of many wars. That is they can be good judges of the cost. And as such they have chosen to use this word directly for what it is: the people marked for Death.
Let's face it. In the capitalistic society there are occupations necessary, but not productive. The military is one of them. We have to keep the military because of the necessity of protection from the external enemies. At the same time we cannot afford a draft because it proved itself fiscally irresponsible. Thus we announce the Army as a government job and are ready to pay and throw in the benefits and other incentives for the mercenaries to join the force. This is called a professional Army.
Not that it is something new. Such armies existed in the medieval Italy and before that even in the ancient Cartage. In fact, after the First Punic War the mercenaries rebelled and Cartagenians had to crush them. That didn't save them from the Romans, who, citing the usage of the WMDs of that time by the Cartagenians, arranged for the Punic War 2 and Punic War 3 until the Cartage was totally destroyed.
I am sorry for the usage of such uncomfortable wording, but the soldiers in the professional armies are mercenaries; they serve for money. It is just a job. A dirty job, an uncomfortable job, a dangerous job, but just a job. It is not an obligation, neither it is a sacred duty. These people sign a contract and when they are through and still alive, they reap the harvest. That's simple. As it is a job, they work for us. We pick the tab. They are our tool, our machine, our screwdriver, our hammer, our drill. We must maintain them but we don't have to love them. Not a bit. Nothing personal.
The tool has to be taken care of. We have to lubricate it, store it in the dry place, inspect it from time to time. We should not use it inappropriately, dismantle it when it works, let the children use it or give it to others indiscriminately. That's what we have to do. Do we really do that?
Our Army is not ours anymore. We gave is indiscriminately to the Children of the Neocorn. They use it for their own private purposes, abuse it, endanger it, tarnish its image and make irreparable damages. We don't care. Instead of protecting us from the enemy our soldiers attack other people. We don't give a damn. Instead of enjoying the benefits our veterans suffer from all kinds of illnesses associated with the way they were abused in the Army. We couldn't care less. Women in the Army are mistreated on a regular basis. We just turn off the TV.. Our mighty mercenaries go to other countries where people never heard of us and kill those people. When those people resist, our mercenaries kill even more. Thus other people, the whole mankind identify us as a primary world problem. They hate us. We laugh our asses off.
And then they come back in coffins, der truppen, the troops, the Dead, the corpses and we love them. Love is cheap. We have plenty of it.
God, save our souls, because we've sinned. That sin is called hypocrisy and it is a deadly sin. There is no absolution because whoever sins against the common sense is doomed.
There is only one chance. If we acknowledge that our love is actually the cover-up for guilt and shame, maybe, just maybe God will come back to us in reality. Right now God is in the brig and the Devil is in charge. We better see that.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3360 comments)
on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 1:10:17 PM
