Free,Fuck...whatever fits.
DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
By Ted Rall
Win or Lose, War on Iraq (news - web sites) is Wrong
NEW YORK--Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, opposes
war with Iraq. Despite this stance, he suggests that Americans should set
aside their political differences once the Mother of All Bombs starts
blowing up munitions dumps and babies in Baghdad.
"When the war begins, if the war begins," says Kerry, "I support the troops
and I support the United States of America winning as rapidly as possible.
When the troops are in the field and fighting--if they're in the field and
fighting--remembering what it's like to be those troops--I think they need
a unified America that is prepared to win."
Fellow presidential candidate Howard Dean, who calls Bush's foreign policy
"ghastly" and "appalling," is the Democrats' most vocal opponent of a
preemptive strike against Iraq. But once war breaks out, he says, "Of
course I'll support the troops."
This is an understandable impulse. As patriots, we want our country to win
the wars that we fight. As Americans, we want our soldiers--young men and
women who risk too much for too little pay--to come home in one piece. But
supporting our troops while they're fighting an immoral and illegal war is
misguided and wrong.
An Unjust Cause
Iraq has never attacked, nor threatened to attack, the United States. As
his 1990 invasion of Kuwait proved, Saddam is a menace to his
neighbors--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel--but he's their problem, not ours.
Saddam's longest-range missiles only travel 400 miles.
Numerous countries are ruled by unstable megalomaniacs possessing scary
weaponry. North Korea (news - web sites) has an intercontinental ballistic
missile capable of hitting the western United States and, unlike Iraq, the
nuke to put inside it. Pakistan, another nuclear power run by a dangerous
anti-American dictator, just unveiled its new HATF-4 ballistic missile. If
disarmament were Bush's goal, shouldn't those countries--both of which have
threatened to use nukes--be higher-priority targets than non-nuclear Iraq?
Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al
Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other's guts. And no matter how often
Bush says "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same breath, Saddam had nothing to do
with the terror attacks.
That leaves freeing Iraqis from Saddam's repressive rule as the sole
rationale for war. Is the U.S. in the liberation business? Will Bush spread
democracy to Myamnar, Congo, Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nigeria, Cuba,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Laos, just to name a few places where
people can't vote, speak freely or eat much? You be the judge. I wouldn't
bet on it.
Of course, it would be great if Iraqis were to overthrow Saddam (assuming
that his successor would be an improvement). But regime change is up to the
locals, not us. George W. Bush is leading us to commit an ignominious
crime, an internationally-unsanctioned invasion of a nation that has done
us no harm and presents no imminent threat.
Germans in the 1930s
We find ourselves facing the paradox of the "good German" of the '30s.
We're ruled by an evil, non-elected warlord who ignores both domestic
opposition and international condemnation. We don't want the soldiers
fighting his unjustified wars of expansion to win--but we don't want them
to lose either.
Our dilemma is rendered slightly less painful by the all-volunteer nature
of our armed forces: at least we aren't being asked to cheer on reluctant
draftees. Presumably everybody in uniform knew what they might be in for
when they signed up.
"I'm horrified by this war," a friend tells me, "but once it starts we have
to win and win quickly." For her, as for Kerry and Dean, our servicemen are
people performing a job. They go where the politicians send them.
The thing is, we don't really have to win. Losing the Vietnam War sucked,
but not fighting it in the first place would have been smarter. Losing to
Third Worlders in PJs led Americans to decades of relative humility,
self-examination and taking the moral high ground in conflicts such as
Haiti and Kosovo. Our withdrawal from Nam was mainly the result of antiwar
protests and public disapproval that swayed our elected representatives. It
also saved a lot of money that would otherwise gone to save more "domino"
dictatorships from godless communism.
Most Americans who didn't actively protest the war at least sat on their
hands during Vietnam. We should do the same during Bush's coming unjust war
of aggression. Members of our armed forces don't deserve insults, but their
role in this war doesn't merit support. Cheering them as they leave and
holding parades when they return would certainly be misinterpreted by
citizens of other countries as popular support for an inglorious
enterprise--and it would make it easier for Bush to send them off again, to
Iran or Libya or wherever. Let's keep our flags under wraps.
I want our troops to return home safely. I want them to live. Like a good
German watching my countrymen march into Poland and Belgium and Luxembourg
and France, I don't want them to win and I don't want them to lose.
(Ted Rall is the author of "Gas War: The Truth Behind the American
Occupation of Afghanistan (news - web sites)," an analysis of the
Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline and the motivations behind the war on terrorism.
Ordering information is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com.)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=127&ncid=742&e=7&u=/ucru/20030313/cm_ucru/don_t_support_our_troops
