Thursday, June 22, 2006

Support the Troops? WTF does THAT mean?

There seems to be some kind of a requirement that, in order NOT to be consigned to the class of 'hate-America-firster' one must 'support the troops.'

Last week, I heard some vile chickenshit chickenhawk flying monkey fucktard fascist asswipe on the floor of the House proclaiming that if one claimed to support the troops, one was (logically?) committed to supporting the mission.

What i mean by 'supporting' the troops is that I am physically and spiritually pained by the reports of their deaths and injuries, and I wish them speedy, safe exodus from that cauldron/quagmire of death and destruction into which they were led by lies and omissions from their leaders.

It does not mean I endorse or in any way countenance the mission: the invasion, conquest, occupation, and pacification of Iraq.

Nor does it mean i condone or accept the many brutalities they inflict, the outrages they commit, the abuses they encourage, even though those things may be rationalized in the framework of their self-preservation. No invading army is ever able to avoid or prohibit atrocities, because the pressures on the invaders--who cannot easlily tell the difference between a civilian and an insurgent--drive them into extermination mode.

What i support is ending the mission, now. It is an evident, bloody, ruinous failure. I support getting the troops OUT of the situations which require them to become monsters in order to survive; and i support providing them life-long care and medications if they need them to assuage the personal consequences of their actions.

I defy anyone to tell me I--a veteran--do NOT support the troops. I support them as human beings and countrymen in dire and insupportable conditions. But I cannot, and do not, support the crimes of imperialism, colonialism, and wholesale slaughter in which they are complicit, nor the crimes they are compelled to commit in the name of 'self preservation.'

2 comments:

Eli said...

Within the Republican frame, the only way to support the troops is to support the war. If you don't support the war, then that renders their misery and sacrifice meaningless.

It's a very abstract kind of support when compared against, say, wanting the troops to be adequately armored or, better yet, not fighting at all.


Has anyone asked the troops which kind of support they prefer?

Uncle Smokes said...

Yeah, it's all about abstraction. You might as well say, "Support the Best" or "Support the Brave."

Keep it nice and impersonal. It reminds me of George Calin's bit where he takes us from "shell shock" thorugh the changed terms to "post-traumatic stress disorder."

As Carlin said, "That language takes the life out of life."

'Tis better to quit the slogans and actually help soldiers. Contribute to the USO and veterans organizations. They really need it these days.