The Contradiction of Supporting the Troops, While Opposing Their Actions: A Reply to Joshua Frank’s “Contradictions of the Anti-War Movement”
by Richard Moreno
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 18, 2005



 

Let me preface this article by stating that I consider myself antiwar in the sense of being an anti-imperialist and that I approach any military conflict from an internationalist perspective.  Accordingly, I believe that in an imperialist war that we have no country, i.e., no "fatherland."  From this viewpoint, I will analyze Joshua Frank's article titled in part "Supporting the Troops, While Opposing Their Actions" in the hope to demarcate two lines within the antiwar movement: one liberal and chauvinistic at its root and the other anti-imperialist and therefore genuinely internationalist.

At the start of his article, Joshua begins to outline violations of the Geneva Conventions by U.S. troops, such as the razing of a civilian hospital.  Then he goes on to point out the “grotesque execution of an unarmed Iraqi prisoner,” which he states is not likely an isolated incident.  Noting that these incidents are only a "fraction of the United States' misdeeds (sic) in Iraq," he goes on to ask, "how then can the antiwar movement oppose war, and yet claim to 'support our troops?'"  His answer: "Indeed we must oppose our troops' actions," but later adds strangely enough that the antiwar movement should continue to "support our troops."

With this insoluble proposition, he then manages by some inexplicable process of induction to raise the question: "Does this, then, mean we are obligated to support the 'insurgents' in Iraq?"

First and foremost, it is important to state in the clearest of terms that we are not dealing with some hollow and abstract expression when we speak of “troops.”  Moreover, it is religious dogma to metaphysically isolate practical beings, which all humans are, from their respective actions.  The idea of supporting the troops but not supporting their actions is an untenable position.  In fact, it is not only bad logic, but also very dangerous thinking.

Any attempt to reconcile this absurd contradiction can only lead to twisted and faulty arguments.  Hence, we are given by Joshua a litany of bizarre tautologies and platitudes such as:

"[T]he antiwar movement needs to deal with the fact that people are complex and contradictory beings, and that is why our support for the troops implies dealing with the soldiers as human beings."

"Indeed soldiers have their own thoughts and feelings. The antiwar movement must respect that."

"Even a very antiwar soldier will shoot an Iraqi who they (sic) believe could be a threat to her life. An individual solider may also think their (sic) actions are wrong, but do not want to risk being ostracized by fellow troops whom they (sic) depend on for survival."

And here is where Joshua's thinking becomes dangerous:

"When the antiwar movement says 'support the troops,' what we are really saying is, 'don't send our soldiers off to die for an unjust cause.'"

This is the crux!  With a sleight of hand, Joshua either intentionally or subconsciously leaves out the most important and, indeed, sinister aspect of "supporting our troops."  Not only are the troops being sent off "to die for an unjust cause," but they’re also being sent off to kill.  The exclusion of this aspect brings Joshua ironically into harmony with his Democratic arch nemeses Howard Dean and John Kerry who themselves never mention Iraqi casualties, which do not count in official U.S. records.

According to a recent report in a British journal, some 100,000 Iraqis have been killed; what is more, if we are to take the Bush administration's assertions of only "a handful" of former Bathists and "foreigners" (ostensibly non-U.S.) as truthful, which we are told range about 5,000, then, by the simple process of deduction, that makes the overwhelming majority of the casualties civilian—Iraqi civilians to be exact.

For materialists, words are not just symbols and sounds; absent mindless babble, they always have a concrete meaning and social context.  In this vein, it is obscene and extremely chauvinistic to sing “we support our troops,” while they are killing tens of thousands of people in what Joshua Frank himself acknowledges is an unjust war.

Joshua continues:

"Unlike the hawkish pro-war faction here in the US, our views are political, and in fact ethical in nature."

Now we have two lines out in the open.  One that pretends to be "political, and in fact ethical in nature (?!)," and the other one, which demands that soldiers think for themselves and assume accountability for their actions—an ethical principle, elementary to any person claiming to uphold some sort of moral standard, indeed, celebrated and set forth historically in the Nuremberg trials.  It is precisely the unconditional battle cry of "supporting the troops" that acts as a psychological-social shield for the horrendous war crimes being committed in our names; this is why we who are opposed to this war cannot remain silent on this issue.

This is not to say that this should be the dividing issue in our movement. We should always patiently explain to our fellow antiwar activists why supporting the troops should really mean supporting the troops who refuse to fight.  Nevertheless, we must untiringly combat the slogans that implicitly or otherwise neutralize the just character of our antiwar struggle. 

As for the Iraqi resistance, I can say without any compunction that it is the objective expression of the U.S. occupation.  Our task, as citizens of the aggressor country, is to denounce the war as unjust while mobilizing a movement that will hasten its end.  This is what it means to be not only antiwar but an anti-imperialist.

Richard Moreno is a student and activist at Mt. San Antonio College.  He is also a co-founder of www.globalresistancenetwork.com.  He can be reached at polyapplications@aol.com.

HOME