Support the Troops

One of the most recurrent and meaningless phrases used in the Iraq war has been "Support the troops." Both proponents of the war (fewer and fewer as the disaster there unfolds) and opponents have used the phrase.

But what does it mean? The answer to that depends on your view of the war. To a supporter of the war support the troops means support the President's plan for the "troops," regardless of whether or not that means they are being thrown into chaos without adequate armor or downtime.

Further, until the disastrous end of this war, there will always be military professionals who will be willing to stake their careers on the chance that their leadership will bring positive change in Iraq. It's a way to win early promotions. To them, of course, support the troops means support their plans for the troops, such as General Petraeus's surge.

When GW says the nation should wait for "the military" to tell us what we should do next, he's being more than a little disingenuous: After all, over and over again he has retired generals who didn't agree with him and promoted generals who signed on to his policies; the generals in uniform are hardly independent parties.

A Major General complained that "the military is fighting a war," but the nation is not. He wants people to "support the troops," i.e. to support what they are doing over there in Iraq, but that's not "supporting the troops;" that's supporting the war.

As my wife pointed out: we can be sympathetic to the plight of soldiers and Marines over there, we can feel sorry for them; we can advocate for better care when they get back, and we don't blame them for being there; they're just following orders--except for a few of the bravest who have refused to be re-deployed again. But many of us never supported the war. Even before the invasion the peace demonstrations were huge, although press coverage was dismal, and Bush got the "authorization" he wanted from Congress (many Congress-people claim they thought they were just strengthening his bargaining power with Saddam, that war would be the last option, not Bush's first option as it turned out to be).

The point is: we didn't sign on to this war and didn't accept the premises--WMD's, links to al Qaeda, "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." So, in the general's sense, why should we "support the troops?" Not one of those premises was true. In fact, it very much looks as if the longer we stay there, the stronger al Qaeda will get, both in Iraq (its entry there made possible by the invasion), and in the world; it is very clever at using our occupation as a rallying cry to "defend Islam," and not just in Iraq. In other words, to turn the above phrase on its head, "the longer we fight them over there, the more likely that we'll have to fight them over here."

To put this website's spin on the whole conundrum: the longer we stay, the longer we support the troops over there, the greater likelihood that we'll face the threat of barbarians in our own backyard, as the Romans did when they involved themselves with the migrating Goths, Vandals, Suevii and others (fleeing the Huns). Romans ended up supporting the troops (mostly through taxes on the poor), but by then "the troops" were mostly from the above tribes and others, who progressively took over parts of Gaul, Britain, the Balkans, Spain, North Africa and finally Italy and what was left of the Empire. For more on how Rome fell, click here. Today there are two avenues to the "barbarization" of "the troops" that have accelerated dangerously during the Iraq war. One is the increasing pressure to recruit virtually anyone under 42 for the Army, and the speed-up in citizenship for foreigners recruited. Criminals and the under-educated are now eligible, as well as recruits from abroad: this seems comparable to the Goths and Vandals to me.

What about the second avenue? This administration's ideological advocacy for privatization has led to it; it is the mercenary forces, now calculated to account for about 130,000 men and women in Iraq (the most after the American forces); most of them are not American and many, especially the more combat-oriented, are from our previous wars or imperial involvements, like Serbs and white South Africans. Again, very comparable to Rome's hiring whole tribal units to fight "for" them.

With that background, support the troops has a rather different ring to it, doesn't it? They aren't all "our guys and gals," and what they are doing "over there" isn't necessarily a good thing, even if they are sometimes being heroic and dying for it. Sometimes some of "the troops" are also doing awful things over there (Abu Ghraib was just one peek at a large, nasty underside). Frankly the heroism is misplaced--except to protect their fellows--because we are trying to occupy a nation that doesn't want us there.

I support the troops back home.

For a definitive treatment of how empire affected Romans and how it affects us Click here.