Support our troops

In the April 15th issue of Entertainment Weekly, there was an interview with Jane Fonda about coming out of retirement for a new movie and releasing a new book that covers, among other things, her experience in Vietnam. With the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon coming up on the 30th, now's as good a time as any to consider the role Americans have in considering war.

It's become something of a cliche for those against the war in Iraq to say they simultaneously support our troops. In fact, one of the more egregious instances of this was when Natalie Maines made her remark to a foreign crowd, "we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas", and one of her fellow Dixie Chicks stepped up to the mic to say they still supported the troops. I don't doubt her sincerity, but it comes off as an afterthought, a CYA maneuver.

The reason I don't doubt her sincerity, and don't reject the very idea, as some of those on the right wing do, is because there is a very real distinction between supporting the war and supporting the troops. The troops don't get to choose who, when, or where they fight - the politicians do.

What does it mean to support soldiers being ordered to perform a job you disagree with? It means trying to prevent them from being ordered to perform that job. I don't mean to imply that all troops in Iraq believe it is wrong for them to be over there, or even wrong to fight Iraqis (although there have certainly been many anecdotal cases of this reported in the press), but that given the choice between fighting and not fighting, they would choose not to fight - most everyone would, soldier or no.

Fonda claims this is why she went to Vietnam. According to the interview, she says Nixon was considering bombing the dikes, which hold back seasonal flooding, an act that would have killed 200,000 people. "[A]ccording to the Pentagon Papers, they'd already looked at the possibility", she claims. By bringing back evidence of this plan, she hoped to prevent it by generating enough bad publicity using her fame. Of course, it didn't quite turn out that way, but it's worth noting that, according to the article, "[Most historians say the U.S. never intentionally bombed the dikes.]"

My personal opinion on the war in Iraq is that it's too early to tell what the long term results of the invasion will be. There have been good signs recently from the elections and stirrings of democracy in the region, but even more recently the violence has been picking up again, and we've seen democratic movements crushed in the past. I tepidly supported the war after Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. of evidence, since debunked, that Iraq was actively pursuing WMD, but all the other signs pointed to the success of the pressure being applied by the international community on Saddam Hussein's regime. Remember, he destroyed the missiles found in violation of distance restrictions by the U.N. teams investigating the country in the months before the war.

But the Bush administration made the decision to send our troops into battle, and they went, most of them serving honorably, too many sacrificing their lives. I support them by opposing any more wars planned by Bush that may put them in danger, and hoping for their safe return home, as soon as possible.