Support the Troops, or else.

I’m not sure I can say this enough times, or if I can say this in a convincing enough way for all the hostile, indoctrinated fools out there.

Disagreeing over the motives and leaderships of a war is not equivalent to dishonoring the soldiers who fight in it.

One of my colleages tells me that because I question the value of the war, I am unpatriotic and shaming the brave men and women who serve our country. Really? Because last I heard, they are fighting to defend freedom. One of those freedoms is to participate in our country’s political system. Dare I say, it might even be a sort of civic duty.

There are some people who oppose war for all but the most severe situations. Being generally opposed to warfare, bloodshed, suffering, and unbridled distruction must clearly be the mark of an unpatriotic anti-establishment terrorist, right?

Forgive this rant, it’s more characteristic of me than I would normally like to admit.

The Switch: Political Parties and Progressiveness

What did you call me? A progressive?! I’m not sure if I’m offended or pleased…

America’s two political parties have, in a sense, switched places. The party formerly known as conservative is now the party interested in pushing new frontiers and reshaping the world, reshaping old business models, and getting involved heavily in global affairs. Yes, you heard me. The republican party can now proudly be called the party of progressives.

Take for example, outsourcing of customer support call centers to other countries. The republican party is in favor of allowing American companies to take jobs overseas; using the capabilities of global telecommunications, companies can outsource call centers and throw a big wrench into old business models that were limited by long-distance telecommunications costs. The democratic party is interested in protecting American jobs and keeping companies from fully taking advantage of the capabilities of new technologies.

Obviously, the republican party is also greatly interested in playing a large role in international events – being involved in conflicts that don’t involve America necessarily. Now the democrats could be considered the isolationists: wanting to decrease the size of the military, keeping focus on domestic concerns, letting other countries duke it out, so to speak.

In defense, climate change is a big deal, and the more we can do to improve our ability to move forward into the twenty first century with our green foot forward, the better. Additionally, we will need some time to fix all the things that have been neglected for the last 7 years. Namely, Americans.

Really, there is a lot to be said for both sides, but it can’t be denied how labels can change right from under our noses.

Support The Troops

I got an email from a friend of mine about the need to support the troops. The email compared the hardships a hypothetical “you” feels with the hardships a soldier serving in Iraq. Here are a few excerpts:

You stay up for 16 hour.
He stays up for days on end.

You take a warm shower to help you wake up.
He goes days or weeks without running water.

You put on your anti war/don’t support the troops shirt, and go meet up with your friends.
He still fights for your right to wear that shirt.

You’re angry because your class ran 5 minutes over.
He’s told he will be held over an extra 2 months.

You make sure your cell phone is in your pocket.
He clutches the cross hanging on his chain next to his dog tags.

You see only what the media wants you to see.
He sees the broken bodies lying around him.

You sit there and judge him, saying the world is probably a worse place because of men like him.
If only there were more men like him.

If you don’t support your troops well, then don’t repost, it’s not like you know the men and women that are dying to preserve your right…

This is not some humble request from some ubiquitous entity known as “the troops” to be respectful; this is a bunch of absurd tear jerking comparisons someone thought it would be appropriate to slap together and turn into a chain email. Everyone has their own challenges, and it is wrong to say that your challenges don’t matter because someone else faces different challenges. It is wrong to say that someone’s struggles matter less because someone else struggles more. Life isn’t measured by comparisons unless you want to try to shame someone, like this attempts to do.

This email is cavalier enough to assume we all run around wearing “fuck the troops” t-shirts and criticize soldiers in our spare time and then live self-indulgent, hateful lives. But, it’s not bold enough to mention the politicians who started the war; the politicians and business war profiteers who are financially benefiting from the war; the military officials who signed stop-losses on soldiers; the politicians who won’t set specific objectives, goals, or deadlines.  No, this email tells you that it is your fault the soldiers are shaken awake by mortars and forced to stay months after their contract is over.  It is clearly your fault “the troops” don’t have enough food, water, or supplies (or combat armor).

I would like to go line by line and rail against this email, but it would be far too long and some are too easy.  The clutching the cross next to his dog tags sure is a heart-breaker, isn’t it?  It definitely evokes images of Platoon or Saving Private Ryan in my mind.  Must be absolutely true, because obviously all of the troops are devout Christians who pray to Jesus while clutching their cross on the battlefield.

These are the sound-bytes that are hurting free speech in this country.  The nation needs to learn that dissension is not unpatriotic.  Dissension is part of the democratic process – the very thing we are attempting to instill in other countries.  It’s true that not every nation grants as much liberty as the United States, but it doesn’t mean that your right to disagree is some cushy privilege that you don’t deserve since you aren’t serving in the military.  I dare not even imagine what the country would be like if everyone who wanted the rights provided for in our founding documents was required to actively serve in the military.  Criticizing the government, in the situation we’re currently faced with, is support for the troops.  Supporting the troops means criticizing the government that uses stop-loss tactics and doesn’t provide adequate armor. Supporting the troops means criticizing the government that attempts to increase troop levels arbitrarily with no end in sight and no clearly defined goals or objectives.

—

Not to drag this out much further, but the “anti-war/don’t support the troops shirt” line made me kind of laugh, actually.  Does anyone have a “don’t support the troops” shirt?  I’m not sure I have ever seen one.  Though, I have seen plenty of yellow ribbons with the affirming version of the catchphrase on plenty of SUVs.  Maybe, instead of paying $1 to a charity for a yellow ribbon sticker, you could not drive an SUV that fuels the instability that fuels the war.  Does anyone else get angry, and I mean really ANGRY when you see a shiny pick-up truck or SUV (that has clearly never seen a day of heavy hauling) with a “Support the Troops” sticker planted 12 inches above the exhaust pipe that churns out, literally, TONS of CO2 every year?

9/11 and Cheney’s Redundant War of Redundancy

“Their prevailing mindset, combined with a series of ill-considered actions in the House and Senate over the last several months causes me to wonder whether today’s Democratic leaders fully appreciate the nature of this danger that the country faces in the war on terror — a war that was declared against us by jihadists; a war in which the United States went on offense after 9/11; a war whose central front, in the opinion and actions of the enemy, is Iraq.”

It has become as predictable as it is frustrating, the Cheney mantra, “9/11. War. 9/11. War. 9/11. War.” Every time the motives of the war are called into question, Vice President Cheney pulls out the rhetoric linking 9/11, Al-Qaeda, and Iraq. No where has he, nor anyone else from this administration managed to link the events of September Eleventh, Two-thousand one to Iraq. Instead, we are simply reminded that we went to Iraq to find terrorists.

Wait, didn’t we go there to find “weapons of mass destruction?” I do recall that as our motivation for going, but since none were found it has been a top priority for the Presidential Propaganda Machine to tell us we really went to oust Saddam Hussein and hunt terrorists. I believe the President even at one point called Saddam, “the guy who tried to kill my dad,” in 2002.

Now, I could be wrong about this part too, but I don’t think insurgency counter-attacks count as terrorism. I do understand the grave situation facing our soldiers, the documenters of war (journalists), and the brave, brave US business representatives whose mouths are already watering trying to decide how to carve up the war torn country. I do understand that suicide bombs, car bombs, improvised explosive devices, and AK-47s are deadly and frightening weapons of war. This is why they are called weapons, and not terrorist tools. Mariam Webster defines terrorism as, “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” I do not mean to trivialize something as grave as war, but this HAS to be said sooner or later.

Enemies in a war are not terrorists.

I cannot think of any quotes of FDR referring to the Japanese as terrorists despite their use of suicide attacks and semi-religiously driven call to war against the United States.

To continue linking terrorism and Al-Qaeda to the current war in Iraq serves to trivialize 9/11 and continue using it as a political lever. It is used repeatedly to coerce and pry lawmakers and citizens into believing false pretenses and illegitimate motivations for war. It is used to justify a mismanaged war and make those responsible for the mistakes less accountable. Terrorism is a global issue. It is not confined to the war we are fighting against Iraqi insurgents. This mantra of 9/11, Al-Qaeda, Iraq, War needs to end.

Speak up, and don’t accept Cheney’s mantra as an answer. Demand real answers. Demand more than real answers. Demand solutions.

The Cost of War

 

The Senate recently passed a bill approving President Bush’s request for funding to continue the war at a taxpayer cost of $124,000,000,000. There was, however, a stipulation that troop withdrawal would commence in the coming months and all troops would be out by this time next year. The idea is that the President will have to make concessions in regard to removing military presence to be given the money he requested.

It went without saying that he would veto the bill (though, he did have a staffer say he will reject it on principle).

The amount of money being spent on the war is absurd, and to request 124 BILLION dollars additionally is ridiculous. The only way to get that amount of money from us, the taxpayers is to put some stipulations on the remainder of this war, something that we, the people, want. I certainly can’t say this for everyone, but I believe a majority of Americans see the need for change and a different approach. Letting the war become a money, energy, and human life sink is not what we have in mind when we say we want victory.

Needless to say, it is a lot of money, and as such, it should come with strings. Perhaps negotiation is still needed, but it is insane to think that we should willingly hand over such an amount of money knowing that without considerations for the future of the war, we could be signing another appropriations bill 12 months from now for a similar or perhaps grossly higher figure.

Just so you know just how big 124 billion dollars is here are some breakdowns:

• Every person in the US 18 years or older is footing $571.43
• If stretched over an entire year, we would be spending $3,932.01 every. single. second.
  • There is a significant number of Americans who make less than this amount in 6 months of work.
• Instead of spending this money in Iraq, we could give every single person on the planet $18.49
• In one-dollar bills, this amount would weigh 273,373,205 lbs.
  • In $20 amounts, it would weigh 13,668,660 lbs.
  • In $100 amounts, it would weigh (obviously) 2,733,732 lbs.
    • 2.7 million lbs is more than 411 Ford F150 pick-up trucks.
    • If all 124 Billion were stacked in $100 bills, it would be 444,333 feet tall.
      • 444,333 feet is over 84. miles. tall.
      • The Sears tower reigns in at a meager 1,730 feet, less than 0.4% the height of the $100 bills.
• We would be spending 117% the entire GDP of New Zealand in a single piece of legislation.

It is worth thinking about where your money goes.