fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

“Support Our Troops”

There is a negative attitude of the public to demonstrating some real solidarity with the soldiers, in terms of making sacrifices here at home, finds its corollary in the insistent, imperative nature of the superficial solidarity we see displayed all around us: bumper stickers that no longer express support, but demand it. “Support Our Troops,” […]

There is a negative attitude of the public to demonstrating some real solidarity with the soldiers, in terms of making sacrifices here at home, finds its corollary in the insistent, imperative nature of the superficial solidarity we see displayed all around us: bumper stickers that no longer express support, but demand it. “Support Our Troops,” these stupid, yellow magnets bark at us, with the assumption being that we are not doing so, or not doing so sufficiently. What it betrays, I suspect, is a nagging feeling among the people who put these stupid magnets on their cars that they have done nothing to “support the troops” and that the antiwar people, for instance, whom they despise have actually made more of a commitment, in their way, to the welfare of the soldiers than most of these people have ever done. It is also the only thing they have left to say about a war they started and cannot finish, because there is nothing else they could say that would not cause people to run them off the road. Above all, it is a sign of guilt and the means for the brief atonement of the fast-food mentality, costing them less than a burger and requiring even less deliberation. It announces to the world, “Yes, I have done nothing for the soldiers, even though I was all for the war and will always support it, but look at my nice little ribbon-magnet. That makes everything OK.” ~Daniel Larison


Of course, to ask for sacrifice to “the cause” rests on the assumption that anyone knows what “the cause” is anymore or that “we” support “the cause.” The retreat into the lame, weak-willed “support the troops” rhetoric and the even weaker “defend democracy” rhetoric is evidence that the warmongers know their “cause” has no legitimacy and no appeal in the public mind. The yellow ribbons were born in Desert Storm because the political class was still unsure whether people would unite behind a foreign war after Vietnam (of course, a foreign war in which we have virtually no casualties is just great fun for the mob), and the persistence of these stupid yellow symbols (isn’t yellow the colour of cowardice, after all?) is a sign of the failure of these very yellow symbols–we would not need them if “the cause” was obvious, just and right, or if we agreed about what “the cause” was. It has ceased to be any of these things, we have nothing remotely like a consensus, and a few thousand soldiers still fighting in Afghanistan does not change that reality.

We could be stirred to retaliation against an appalling attack on our country, or at least certain parts of it, and there was, for a moment, the brief sense of having been deeply wronged, regardless of what had ultimately brought about such a wrong. Quite honestly, that sense has faded and been wasted in the cheap theatrics of mobilising for an unrelated war. The broad consensus that would have summoned the will to sacrifice has evaporated, and now that Iraq is the only war theater of note for Americans it is impossible to recapture the old spirit that “we” are taking it to the people who attacked “us.” Of course, die-hard partisans of the president remain as convinced as ever, but they no longer hold sway over the debate.

The new line from those partisans is that the “liberal media” is subversive and a detriment to the war effort because it pays more attention to American deaths than bombing attacks in Iraq or, if attention is paid to the attacks, it is excessive in comparison to the coverage of the “good news”. All of this is demoralising, we are told. Translation: a few casualties here and there are demoralising for people who have no idea why their sons and brothers are dying, so for goodness’ sake stop talking about them! Of course, the jingoes will immediately solemnly intone that “we mourn every loss, blah blah blah…” No one seems interested in asking the question: if these losses are not necessary (as the war no longer has an objective), isn’t your mourning of them just a sick con-game designed to play off the best sentiments of the public for your own petty advantage? One might put it more diplomatically, of course, but this is the basic issue.

Okay, we’ve had elections in Iraq. So what? There are no more objectives now, and you cannot fight a war without them. If the objective is to “beat” the insurgency, then we have already lost. We may as well define Israel’s peace in terms of “beating” Hamas or law and order as the elimination of all crime everywhere–these are objectives that cannot be reached. More importantly, there are no more “turning points” that the War Party can use to con people into “staying the course” just a little longer.

Bush’s rejection of accountability (“we had our accountability moment,” he said of the election) works in favour of the masses as well: if he doesn’t have to be held accountable to them anymore, then they are not morally accountable for what he does. It is the perfect way for everyone to wash their hands of their wrongdoing. Psychologically, what ought to have been a disgusting slap in the face of the public by the president has become a nice pat on the back: don’t feel bad if more Americans die, because you, the public, cannot be held responsible any longer. We’ve had our accountability moment, and it stinks. So, if the people think they are free of the obligations to the soldiers they have sent to die, what sacrifice could be required of such people?

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here