While covering the anti-war protests in Washington D.C. today, The NBC Nightly News interviewed a woman who was taking part in the "pro-war" counter protest. A mother, with two children serving in Iraq, she made a claim that has been repeated by many of the Iraq War’s supporters: That, in order to "support the troops," you must also "support what they’re doing."
Because war is a type of policy, this statement, at the most fundamental of levels, amounts to saying that "support for the troops" equals a "total and unqualified support for a particular governmental policy," no matter how ill advised it may seem. Tying support for the troops together with support for governmental goals, however, raises disturbing questions about what that would mean for democracy itself.
In "A Taste of Armageddon," an episode of The Original Star Trek, the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise encounters a planet that’s been fighting a long, drawn out war with one of its neighbors. The twist on this war, however, is that, in order to avoid much of the "damage and destruction" associated with a "conventional" war, it’s fought entirely with computers. Attacks are simulated, and, for every simulated attack, the appropriate number of casualties is calculated. Anyone who is counted as a "casualty," meanwhile, has twenty-four hours to report to a disintegration chamber, so that their deaths can be recorded. Most ordinary citizens, who view this system as being "better" than a "conventional" war, comply with it without question or protest.
The absurdity of such a system – herding people to death, like cattle, all in the name of a theoretical war, rather than putting in the effort to make total peace – is abundantly clear to outsiders. And, while that episode of Star Trek is science fiction, and science fiction only, it should be noted that there are ample cases, throughout recorded history, of governments engaging in absurd, ill advised, or downright frightening policies that don’t have the best interests of their citizens in mind. The free speech element of a democracy – especially the willingness of citizens to question the actions of their government – is an essential part of keeping governments and politicians in line, of making sure that they adhere to the best interests of their citizens.
Therein lies the troubling implication of the equation that the "pro-war" protester in D.C. set forth. If "supporting the troops" – something which every well meaning American must do, as troops are not responsible for setting policy – equals "supporting a specific government policy" (the war), what happens when that policy is fundamentally flawed, outlandishly ill advised, or just plain wrong?
What if, for example, America had disintegration chambers, such as the ones from "A Taste of Armageddon"? And, what if, rather than fighting a war in Iraq, we were, as in that episode, using computers to "calculate" the appropriate casualties for a "simulated" war, and sending 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 American troops to disintegration chambers each day to meet the "projected number of casualties?"
Basic common sense would tell us that this is wrong, that it’s straight forward murder, that we're throwing away the best of our military for a policy that’s simply ill advised, and will bring us no gain. But, under the equation of "support the troops = support the policy," we’d have no avenue for questioning the government. We’d have no choice but to blindly follow our ill advised leaders over a cliff, and we’d have no ability to take to the streets, and demand that our government put an end to a commitment that is morally and intellectually unwise.
Such a system is not a democracy. Such a system is not free. Such a system is not the type of government that our troops are pledged to serve, and fight, and die for.
As it stands, the Iraq War today is only slightly wiser than sending our troops straight to disintegration chambers, and just as wasteful. Not only has the government of Iraq failed to meet an overwhelming number of the political goals that the surge was supposed to give them "space" to accomplish, but projections that the surge is "working" are highly suspect, as they were put together by the very people who have political and professional stakes in the surge being successful. According to The Washington Post, such projections fail to count casualties by car bombings, and, bizarrely, only count assassinations if the victim is shot in the back of the head, rather than the front. This could explain why a truly independent account of the surge, done by the Government Accountability Office, shows that violence in Iraq is actually up, not down.
Keeping the United States engaged in the quagmire of Iraq at a time when the Iraqi government is unwilling and unable to make its own political progress, and at time when our troops are exposed to increasing risk for unclear to non-existent benefits, makes no more sense than sending our troops straight their deaths. In many cases, it’s the same thing. The "payoff" from Iraq, whatever it may be, is not worth the death, suffering, and sorrow being caused by the war, nor the long term weakness that it brings both to America’s credibility, and to our military. Therefore, America’s policy on Iraq – it’s war – is fundamentally flawed, and must be brought into question by the civilians who realize this. Indeed, bringing this policy into question is a civic duty – and, in a democracy, where the military exists to support freedom, voicing one's opinions, and doing one’s civic duty, is never in conflict with supporting the troops.
The moral implications of questioning ill-advised government policy are abundantly clear in the case of the Iraq War, and they come down in favor of protesting, rather than against. However, I should also note that the very future of our country may hinge upon our continued willingness to separate supporting the troops from supporting policy, upon our willingness to question the military direction our political leadership chooses to take us.
In 2007, we know nothing about what kind of domestic political movements might develop in the U.S. later in the 21st century. Nor do we know what kind of leadership future elections might bring into power, or what kind of goals they might have.
The military – and the troops - while essential to protecting our freedom, are also an instrument of the policies set by government. What if, decades from now, an administration comes to power that decides to use our military for pure economic and territorial gain? What if, decades from now, our country, subject to unforeseen social and economic movements, has political leadership that decides to use our military for the goal of racial or ethnic cleansing in some far away land?
It is my truest of hopes that such a situation will never befall America. But, freedom relies on eternal vigilance, not only towards outside threats, but also towards our own government, and the direction that it tries to take us. And, this means that a citizenry that’s willing to take a critical look at the use of force, and the missions assigned to its military, is essential to the protection of freedom.
Too many countries have found that the equation of "support the troops = support the policy" takes them down a path of tyranny, bloodshed, and even genocide. A democracy, therefore, cannot fall into that mindset, cannot endorse that equation, without running the risk of surrendering the very values its military is ostensibly meant to protect.