The excuse making typically falls into two broad categories. The first being: “Our troops are just following orders.â€
A
simple Web search will find many reasons why this concept has no legal
basis. For example, Principle IV of Nuremberg Tribunal (1950) states:
“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of
a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international
law provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.â€
Besides
this, it can be easily posited that “only following orders†also has no
moral footing. Of course, the facile example would be Nazi Germany. But
surely every suicide bomber is merely following orders as are those
detonating IEDs in Iraq. The Left praised Vietnam era draftees who fled
to Canada. Yet, today’s volunteer warriors are given a free pass
because they didn’t give the orders in an illegal war and occupation.
This is not only illegal and immoral; it also lacks any radical
credibility. Somehow, individuals and groups can stand tall against war
and military intervention but refuse to shine a light on those who
choose (and get paid) to fight. Nowhere else in the realm of activism
does such a paradox exist.
Consider the animal rights
activists struggling to end the morally indefensible and scientifically
fraudulent enterprise of animal experimentation. Can they expose the
corporations and academic institutions but somehow "support" the actual
scientists performing the lab experiments? Surely, they are "just doing
their job" and “following orders.â€
How about those fighting to
end unfair labor practices? Is it acceptable to call out the CEOs of
Nike & The Gap but hang yellow ribbons for those who handle
day-to-day operations of a sweatshop in, say, Vietnam? These men and
women are just as “stuck in a bad situation†as any grunt in Iraq or
Afghanistan.
The second excuse usually sounds like this: “It’s a
poverty draft. These poor souls have to enlist because they any
economic options.†America is certainly an unjust economic society and
this would be a compelling argument…if it were true. A 2006 New York
Times op-ed highlighted a study by Tim Kane and Mackenzie Eaglen that
“analyzed demographic data on every single enlistee, not just a sample,
and found that in terms of education, last year’s recruits were just as
qualified as those of any recent year, and maybe the best ever. Over
all, wartime recruits since 1999 are in many respects comparable to the
youth population on the whole, except that they are on average a bit
wealthier, much more likely to have graduated from high school and more
rural than their civilian peers.†They also found that youths “from
wealthy American ZIP codes are volunteering in ever higher numbersâ€
while “enlistees from the poorest fifth of American neighborhoods fell
nearly a full percentage point over the last two years, to 13.7
percent. In 1999, that number was exactly 18 percent.â€
So, are
some of the soldiers in Iraq there primarily for economic reasons?
Sure. Did others sign up for a chance to shoot some “ragheads�
Probably. After factoring out these two relatively small groups and
rejecting the illegal, immoral, and reactionary “only following ordersâ€
defense, I ask this of anti-war activists: Exactly how are the men and
women who willingly signed up to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan
immune from any and all scrutiny and/or blame?
After all, what
do you think “our troops†are doing? "We know that 99.9% of our forces
conduct themselves in an exemplary manner,†says Donald Rumsfeld. “We
also know that in conflicts things that shouldn't happen do happen."
If
only 1/10 of 1% of US soldiers make “things happen that shouldn't
happen,†what are the rest doing to make us stand and sing "God Bless
America" during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee Stadium? How do we
define exemplary manner?
By Rumsfeld's reckoning (and the
standard company line of most every politician, pundit, and peon)
"exemplary" includes (among other things) the use of Daisy Cutters,
cluster bombs, napalm, depleted uranium, white phosphorus, and the
launching cruise missiles into crowded cities.
"Things that
shouldn't happen do happen," Rumsfeld explains. But what about all the
stuff that this society accepts "should" happen? Why would anyone
besides a sadist feel compelled to support that unconditionally?
There
are two powerful myths/ironies propping up the “support the troopsâ€
premise. The first involves what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan
in the first place. I can’t tell you how many e-mails I’ve received
over the years that read something like this: “While you sit at home in
your luxurious apartment, making money off your writing (insert laugh
track here), those brave men and women are putting their asses on the
line to fight for your freedom to write your anti-American garbage.
I say: Bullshit.
The
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not fighting for my freedom. They
are fighting to keep the world safe for petroleum. If anything, since
9/11, our freedom has been slowly eroded and the presence of the US
military in Iraq and Afghanistan makes it harder for anyone to speak up
in dissent. If I were in an airport, and I spoke aloud what I’ve
written in this article, I’d likely be detained or arrested.
Irony
#2: While most American citizens are manipulated, harassed, coerced,
and
guilted into hanging yellow ribbons—even if they’re anti-war—from
Shays Rebellion in 1787 to Coxey’s Army to the Bonus Army to the Gulf
War Syndrome to a quarter-million homeless vets today, generation after
generation of US military personnel has suffered a lack of support from
their own government (and the corporations that own it). “Our troopsâ€
are just as controlled and exploited as the US citizens that worship
them.
And one more thing: Let’s stop with the “our troopsâ€
charade. You and I may foot the bill, but “we†have no say in what they
do. If those truly were “my†men and women, I’d bring them right home
and put them to work doing something useful…like turning the Long
Island Expressway into the world’s longest organic farm.
Don’t support the troops… inform them.