Contact Me
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
And On Each End of the Rifle We're the Same
My friend and I have been having a conversation about whether you can really oppose the war and support the troops. Robert Jensen at the University of Texas has written some good stuff on the subject. Thanks to Karen for sharing this work from Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim our Humanity
A couple of excerpts:
"The demand during the Iraq War that -- whether for or against the war -- one must support the troops was the most effective type of rhetorical strategy: Simply by accepting that framing of the question, opponents of the war were guaranteed to lose the debate, and the chance for meaningful political dialogue would evaporate. So, when asked, I tried to refuse to answer the question of whether or not I supported the troops. Instead, I said that I don't support the "support the troops" framework. That doesn't mean I don't like the troops (of the troops I have known, I have liked some and disliked others, as is the case with every group of people I've ever run into). It doesn't mean I wish to see any of them harmed physically. But I don't support talking about whether I support them."...
The implicit demand in the "support the troops" rhetoric was -- and likely will be in future wars -- that even if I am against the war, once troops are in the field I should shift my focus from opposition to the war to support for my fellow Americans who are doing the fighting. But to support the troops is, for all practical purposes, to support the war. Asking people who oppose a war to support the troops in that war is simply a way of asking people to drop their opposition. If I had believed this war would be wrong before it began, and if none of the conditions on which I based that assessment had changed, why should I change my view simply because the war had started?
In a democratic society, the question should not be whether one supports the troops. The relevant question is whether one supports the policy. The demand that war opponents must "support the troops" is nothing more than a way of demanding that we drop our opposition to the policy.
and
"One of the best qualities of human beings is our capacity for empathy, which we should attempt to engage -- while understanding that we routinely will fail -- in all relationships. What opponents of a war owe the troops is not unquestioning support that undermines our moral and political judgments but a heightened sense of empathy, given the situations those troops will find themselves in. Whatever conclusions we reach about a war, we certainly can understand that those who fight wars face horrific choices about life and death, and often live with routine deprivations that no one wants to face. Empathy does not mean a burying of differences, but an attempt to transcend differences to understand more fully the position members of the military are in."
I think that this is a key concept and we Americans, who like to live in black and white, think that if we don't support the troops' actions in war, that means we spit on them and ignore them while they are struggling to re-enter their lives back home. But there are other choices, like empathy and compassion. If we practiced the empathy he writes about, we would have more peace and deeper, more meaningful and rewarding relationships.
And lastly,
"If I had to face these young men, I would begin by acknowledging that if we lived in a decent world, what they had been asked to do and what they did in Iraq would be unthinkable. In a decent world, the weapons they fired would never have been invented and the military in which they served would not exist. But, instead of a decent world, we live in a world where the demands of power put them in Iraq, with those weapons in their hands, facing those doomed Iraqis. I would have told them that, while I don't know what they had faced, I knew that others had faced it -- and faced the truth -- and come through it.
And I would, as respectfully as possible, tell people serving in the military that throughout history there has been not just a patriotic call to war but also a call to resistance, a plea for solidarity among ordinary people who want to build a better world, not serve the empire. It is a reminder, as John McCutcheon put it so eloquently in song, that 'the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame / And on each end of the rifle we're the same.' "
A couple of excerpts:
"The demand during the Iraq War that -- whether for or against the war -- one must support the troops was the most effective type of rhetorical strategy: Simply by accepting that framing of the question, opponents of the war were guaranteed to lose the debate, and the chance for meaningful political dialogue would evaporate. So, when asked, I tried to refuse to answer the question of whether or not I supported the troops. Instead, I said that I don't support the "support the troops" framework. That doesn't mean I don't like the troops (of the troops I have known, I have liked some and disliked others, as is the case with every group of people I've ever run into). It doesn't mean I wish to see any of them harmed physically. But I don't support talking about whether I support them."...
The implicit demand in the "support the troops" rhetoric was -- and likely will be in future wars -- that even if I am against the war, once troops are in the field I should shift my focus from opposition to the war to support for my fellow Americans who are doing the fighting. But to support the troops is, for all practical purposes, to support the war. Asking people who oppose a war to support the troops in that war is simply a way of asking people to drop their opposition. If I had believed this war would be wrong before it began, and if none of the conditions on which I based that assessment had changed, why should I change my view simply because the war had started?
In a democratic society, the question should not be whether one supports the troops. The relevant question is whether one supports the policy. The demand that war opponents must "support the troops" is nothing more than a way of demanding that we drop our opposition to the policy.
and
"One of the best qualities of human beings is our capacity for empathy, which we should attempt to engage -- while understanding that we routinely will fail -- in all relationships. What opponents of a war owe the troops is not unquestioning support that undermines our moral and political judgments but a heightened sense of empathy, given the situations those troops will find themselves in. Whatever conclusions we reach about a war, we certainly can understand that those who fight wars face horrific choices about life and death, and often live with routine deprivations that no one wants to face. Empathy does not mean a burying of differences, but an attempt to transcend differences to understand more fully the position members of the military are in."
I think that this is a key concept and we Americans, who like to live in black and white, think that if we don't support the troops' actions in war, that means we spit on them and ignore them while they are struggling to re-enter their lives back home. But there are other choices, like empathy and compassion. If we practiced the empathy he writes about, we would have more peace and deeper, more meaningful and rewarding relationships.
And lastly,
"If I had to face these young men, I would begin by acknowledging that if we lived in a decent world, what they had been asked to do and what they did in Iraq would be unthinkable. In a decent world, the weapons they fired would never have been invented and the military in which they served would not exist. But, instead of a decent world, we live in a world where the demands of power put them in Iraq, with those weapons in their hands, facing those doomed Iraqis. I would have told them that, while I don't know what they had faced, I knew that others had faced it -- and faced the truth -- and come through it.
And I would, as respectfully as possible, tell people serving in the military that throughout history there has been not just a patriotic call to war but also a call to resistance, a plea for solidarity among ordinary people who want to build a better world, not serve the empire. It is a reminder, as John McCutcheon put it so eloquently in song, that 'the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame / And on each end of the rifle we're the same.' "
posted by Carol at 7:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home