With this post by Doug Roscoe, Associate Professor of Political Science at The University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, The Grass is Greener in Left Field begins the transition to community blogging. Please remember, your comments on these or any posts are always welcome - the goal, after all, is democractic discourse.
Since the wars began in Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq, I’ve felt uncomfortable with the ostentatious displays of support for our men and women in the armed forces. I never much plumbed the reasons for my discomfort, writing it off as part of my general distaste for highly overt demonstrations of patriotism, which are all too often louder than they are deep. Plus, there’s some cognitive dissonance that bubbles up in this context since I do, sincerely, feel much gratitude and appreciation for the individuals in military service to our country.
And then, this morning while out on a bike ride, I saw one of these displays and the roots of my annoyance became clear to me. Here was a sign on the side of a sleepy rural road in Westport, Massachusetts:
What bothered me about this sign is the “We.” We support the troops. The implication is all too clear: we do, and some of you don’t. And, I suspect, they’d put me in the latter category.
I don’t think we should be fighting these wars. I believe there is some justification for our action in Afghanistan and virtually none for being in Iraq. I believe that any justification that exists is outweighed by the costs, material and personal. Whether we should pull out of both places immediately is another question, better left to another post. But neither of these wars should have commenced. These were bad wars. Unneccesary wars.
I’m guessing these opinions disqualify me for We in the eyes of the sign builders.
And that’s what angers me: I do support the troops. I respect them. I value their service. I reflect on a regular basis about the sacrifices and hardships they and their families endure. So it irks me when it is implied that I don’t.
But, there’s more going on here. Something deeper bothered me. To get at it, I had to figure out where this creation of us-vs.-them, in group-vs.-out group, is coming from. It’s possible there is still some residual sentiment from the domestic turmoil surrounding the Vietnam war. Opponents then often expressed views implying that military personnel were complicit in the mistakes of that war. Draftees were encouraged not to go, and returning veterans were disparaged.
But, I think the left in the US has learned a lot on reflection from this period. I think the left—always skilled at empathy—has come to understand the perspective of the soldier. It has come to see the importance of military service and the integrity of the commitment it entails. It understands, now, that bad wars are propogated by mistakes at the top, not at the bottom.
I think maybe We understands this change of heart on the left. After all, anti-war protests this time around have not been directed at the military personnel. They’ve been directed at President Bush, his administration, and the Republican Congresses that supported his policies. There’s really no evidence that any significant number of doves blames the troops.
So, it seems that what bothers We is not that I don’t support the troops but that I didn’t—and still don’t—support the policies of George W. Bush. Their sign plays a subtle but insidious sleight of hand. Supporting the troops is proper and right. And supporting the troops means supporting the war. And supporting the war means supporting Bush. So, working backwards, opposing Bush means opposing the troops and opposing what is proper and right.
In the end, the sign is not about troops at all. It’s a bald political statement. It really says, “We support President Bush and if you don’t support him you oppose what we all agree is proper and right.”
At last, I’m at the root of my discomfort: they’re using the troops. It’s not a genuine expression of support for the military. It’s a way of making a political point. They may not even be fully aware of it, but the message turns “support for the troops” into an instrument; it treats them as means, not ends.
The troops deserve better.
Doug Roscoe, PhD, teaches political science at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment