'Supporting the Troops' Redefined
Robert Fantina
August 01, 2007
A recent article in the New York Times indicates that morale among military families is dropping dramatically. The Times cites three main reasons for this: 1) multiple, extended deployments; 2) the continued chaos in Baghdad, and 3) the increasing death toll in Iraq. And still President Bush and his fawning yes-men tell the world that supporting the troops equates to continuing the war.
Perhaps within the context of the information provided by the Times, Mr. Bush might rethink his opinion of what it means to ’support the troops’. In April of this year deployments to Iraq were extended from twelve to fifteen months. Prior to that it was military policy to allow soldiers as much time at home between deployments as the length of their deployment. With their loved ones now in mortal danger for an additional three months, there can be little wonder that the morale of their families is dropping, along with their support for Mr. Bush’s military adventurism.
The situation in Baghdad continues to worsen. While civilian deaths have decreased since the president’s ’surge,’ the price of that decrease has been a dramatic increase in the deaths of U.S. soldiers. It only makes sense that sending more soldiers to a deadly battle zone will increase the number of them who die there.
In June of 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney made his bizarre comment that the insurgency (the Bush Administration’s term for Iraqis fighting a conquering and occupying force) was in it’s ‘last throes.’ This from the man who predicated prior to the invasion of Iraq that Americans would be welcomed as heroes and who, six months after the invasion, as resistance to the American occupation grew, stated that his earlier prediction had been correct. One might wonder, then, if the ‘insurgency’ was indeed in it’s ‘last throes’ in June of 2006, why Mr. Bush felt it necessary to increase the number of soldiers by 30,000 at the start of 2007, and why April, May and June of this year was the deadliest three-month period for Americans since the invasion.
And still Mr. Bush chants his worn out mantra of supporting the troops. One might ask him if supporting the troops means sending them into an unnecessary and unwinnable war. Or if it means extending the time in which they are in mortal danger. Or if it means dumping injured soldiers into a vermin-infested hospital in the nation’s capital. Possibly it means not providing them with adequate body and vehicle armor. Or maybe it means dishonorably discharging them if they dare to exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech and use it to speak out against the war.
There is, of course, another view on what it means to support the troops. This view holds that supporting the troops means assuring that the government will only put their lives at risk when all other avenues have been completely exhausted. It believes that if after all other methods to achieve peace have been exhausted and war is deemed unavoidable, soldiers will have everything possible – body and vehicle armor, competent leadership, etc. - to keep them as safe as possible in a mortally dangerous war zone. This alternate view further believes that while war is underway, all possible diplomatic avenues will be pursued to resolve the differences that led to war and minimize its length. It believes that all commitments made to soldiers, such as the length of time they will be required to serve, will be strictly maintained. This view holds that injured soldiers will have the best possible medical and rehabilitative care the world can offer.
This opinion of supporting the troops also holds that should conditions in a country make clear that the soldiers’ presence is in fact prolonging and worsening the war, they will be removed from the war zone as quickly as is safely possible.
It is beyond puzzling that Mr. Bush & Co. have successfully convinced many members of Congress that ‘supporting the troops’ means prolonging the war in which they face constant, life-threatening danger. But since he has done so, it is the role of the American citizen to make clear to Congress that this convoluted definition is not acceptable. Congress must act to bring U.S. soldiers home, and it is only the pressure of the American voter that will induce it to do so.
In the November 2006 elections, Congress received its mandate. The message was clear; America had tired of the war and elected a Congress that promised to end it. Yet Congress reneged on its commitment, leaving voters angry and frustrated and soldiers unnecessarily in harm’s way.
The 2008 elections are still sixteen months away, and that is too long to allow this travesty to continue. Citizens must write letters, send emails and faxes, telephone and visit their representatives to tell them to bring American soldiers home. They must take to the streets in large numbers, to assure that their voices are heard. And they cannot rest until the American soldiers are home, and the Iraqi people are left to resolve their own problems without the interference of America’s violent imperialistic designs.
Perhaps within the context of the information provided by the Times, Mr. Bush might rethink his opinion of what it means to ’support the troops’. In April of this year deployments to Iraq were extended from twelve to fifteen months. Prior to that it was military policy to allow soldiers as much time at home between deployments as the length of their deployment. With their loved ones now in mortal danger for an additional three months, there can be little wonder that the morale of their families is dropping, along with their support for Mr. Bush’s military adventurism.
The situation in Baghdad continues to worsen. While civilian deaths have decreased since the president’s ’surge,’ the price of that decrease has been a dramatic increase in the deaths of U.S. soldiers. It only makes sense that sending more soldiers to a deadly battle zone will increase the number of them who die there.
In June of 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney made his bizarre comment that the insurgency (the Bush Administration’s term for Iraqis fighting a conquering and occupying force) was in it’s ‘last throes.’ This from the man who predicated prior to the invasion of Iraq that Americans would be welcomed as heroes and who, six months after the invasion, as resistance to the American occupation grew, stated that his earlier prediction had been correct. One might wonder, then, if the ‘insurgency’ was indeed in it’s ‘last throes’ in June of 2006, why Mr. Bush felt it necessary to increase the number of soldiers by 30,000 at the start of 2007, and why April, May and June of this year was the deadliest three-month period for Americans since the invasion.
And still Mr. Bush chants his worn out mantra of supporting the troops. One might ask him if supporting the troops means sending them into an unnecessary and unwinnable war. Or if it means extending the time in which they are in mortal danger. Or if it means dumping injured soldiers into a vermin-infested hospital in the nation’s capital. Possibly it means not providing them with adequate body and vehicle armor. Or maybe it means dishonorably discharging them if they dare to exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech and use it to speak out against the war.
There is, of course, another view on what it means to support the troops. This view holds that supporting the troops means assuring that the government will only put their lives at risk when all other avenues have been completely exhausted. It believes that if after all other methods to achieve peace have been exhausted and war is deemed unavoidable, soldiers will have everything possible – body and vehicle armor, competent leadership, etc. - to keep them as safe as possible in a mortally dangerous war zone. This alternate view further believes that while war is underway, all possible diplomatic avenues will be pursued to resolve the differences that led to war and minimize its length. It believes that all commitments made to soldiers, such as the length of time they will be required to serve, will be strictly maintained. This view holds that injured soldiers will have the best possible medical and rehabilitative care the world can offer.
This opinion of supporting the troops also holds that should conditions in a country make clear that the soldiers’ presence is in fact prolonging and worsening the war, they will be removed from the war zone as quickly as is safely possible.
It is beyond puzzling that Mr. Bush & Co. have successfully convinced many members of Congress that ‘supporting the troops’ means prolonging the war in which they face constant, life-threatening danger. But since he has done so, it is the role of the American citizen to make clear to Congress that this convoluted definition is not acceptable. Congress must act to bring U.S. soldiers home, and it is only the pressure of the American voter that will induce it to do so.
In the November 2006 elections, Congress received its mandate. The message was clear; America had tired of the war and elected a Congress that promised to end it. Yet Congress reneged on its commitment, leaving voters angry and frustrated and soldiers unnecessarily in harm’s way.
The 2008 elections are still sixteen months away, and that is too long to allow this travesty to continue. Citizens must write letters, send emails and faxes, telephone and visit their representatives to tell them to bring American soldiers home. They must take to the streets in large numbers, to assure that their voices are heard. And they cannot rest until the American soldiers are home, and the Iraqi people are left to resolve their own problems without the interference of America’s violent imperialistic designs.
Print
Email
