So perusing through the usual assortments of blogs and websites this morning, I came across a story about a “Support the Troops” rally at Yale University. Naturally, I was suspect, because c’mon, the thing took place at YALE, people. C’mon!
(No, my alma mater informs this opinion not a whit, why doth thou asketh?)
Now, I read the article because the concept intrigued me. Too often in the debate surrounding Iraq, we’ve seen a simple binary set of opposites in terms of public opinion. Depending which side of the electrified fence you’re on, you’re either labeled a “warmongerer” or “ancient Commie hippie freak out of reality and for the love of God, BATHE why don’t you?”. Well, basically those are the arguments.
What’s particularly struck me throughout the past few months is the following conceptual leap: people who are “anti-war” are “anti-soldier”. Likewise, people who support the war are labeled as salivating junkies who wanna see stuff blow up like a Michael Bay movie. While about 1% of each case may be true, I just can’t believe that these definitions apply to each side.
Firstly, to the anti-war people---with the exception of the descendants of that crazy general in “Dr. Strangelove”, very few people are going around on a global scale and saying, “Yo, who wants some? Who freakin’ wants some?” Simply because you support the cause in Iraq doesn’t make you bloodthirsty, necessarily. But the (largely politically left) population, who rally and hoot and holler and make signs that say “No Blood for Oil” and generally don’t help the peace cause a wit, seem to think so. Just because your neighbor supports the war effort does not make them a heathen. The fact that they don't recycle does. This is important to realize. Just keep it in mind.
The major problem with the anti-war crowd is that their arguments all work very well academically, but not practically. Their arguments speak of “peace” and “discussion” and all these great things people can do safely ensconced in their living rooms on a Tuesday while cutting brie and discussing how to save Iraq. However, diplomacy can only get one so far if one side simply will not back down. In a post-9/11 atmosphere, people want action, regardless of the un-PC nature of them sometimes. In the end, the people polled who support war aren’t looking forward to the carnage, they simply believe in the heart of hearts that it’s the right thing to do.
If the anti-war crowd can admit that those of opposing viewpoints maybe aren’t eating their young when not bombing the crap out of a 3rd world country, maybe the pro-war side can up a little on the sarcasm as well? Maybe? While the anti-war people spew largely academic arguments, these arguments are also based in ideals, and ideals are well worth fighting for. (Pssst, "freedom" anyone? "Democracy"? Just a few ideals there, and you seem to be behind those just fine.)
When the Dixie Chicks came out against President Bush, they weren’t coming out against the soldiers stationed in Kuwait. Yet, irate country fans called up radio stations, proudly defended their sons/daughters/friends currently enlisted, and offered to re-up into the KKK and kill the Dixie Chicks and their country-pop claptrap.
Huh?
Did I miss something? Simply staging a protest against the President, or even the “war”, in my mind doesn’t have to do disservice to the troops overseas. Emphasis on “doesn’t have to”. Yes, it can be damaging to have someone not support you, whatever your endeavor. But, as far as my limited view goes, most anti-war rallies are in service of, among many things, keeping soldiers from being killed in what the crowd feels is an unnecessary conflict.
So, back to Yale---the idea of a “support the troops” rally seemed to me a neat idea. Offer support for the people behind the war. Give it a face. One need not necessarily support the war effort in general to attend this rally. Both sides of the fence are allowed to chime in support in a measure of solidarity thus to this point missing. Great.
Sadly, this doesn’t seem to have been the case.
The “Support the Troops” rally was, in essence, a pro-war rally. Nothing wrong with that, except false advertisement, in my book. The article started to give me a bit of hope intitially, tho, when one of the rally’s organizers said,
Anastasio said U.S. troops need to know the country is behind them. Failing to send that message would only strengthen Iraqi resistance, he said.
"The most likely result will be a lengthening of the war and an increase in the number of civilian and military casualties," Anastasio said.
OK, I can sorta buy the argument that Iraq might try to capitalize on US groundswell dissent and rally either its own people or other countries. Likewise, as said before, supporting the troops is something most anti-war people I believe do anyways, and the more of that fully articulated, the better.
But then a fellow rally attendee loses me, a freshman James Kirchick:
Kirchick said he and others who back the war would "go tomorrow" if the United States were to reinstate the draft.
"And I think there are lots of others who would go, too," he said. "But I'm here now to get an education. That was the choice I made. Other people made different choices and they enlisted."
OK, OK, just a second. He just turned into the pansy liberal he’s rallying against. This is usually an argument that bugs me about the left---people who broadly proclaim their patriotism but then shy away from war itself. Me? I’m out and out glad to not be at the front lines and admire anyone who puts themselves in harm’s way. Just amazes me. But I’m not a hypocrite who toots his own patriotic horn 24/7, either.
A statement like the one above completely undercuts the rally’s statement of purpose to support the troops. I wonder what a solider, blinded by sandstorms, would think of Mr. Ivy League Freshman telling them that their enlistment into the Army to support a wife and children when all economic opportunities were dried up was a “choice”. Or the enlisted solider who reads that Kirchick supports the soldiers, but not as much as he supports his class in Human Sexuality that meets twice a week at 11 am.
You wanna enlist? Great. Don’t wanna? Hey, your choice. But don’t say you would enlist, but this pesky college education is getting in the way. Just destroys any credibility that you have, in my eyes. And especially don’t do it at a pro-troop rally. As tacky and ugly as my grandfather’s paisley sportcoat.
What’s the lesson to be gleaned? Not really sure. I guess in general a little more tolerance from each side domestically, I guess. Anti-war does not mean anti-soldier, and pro-war does not mean pro-genocide. If both sides can agree on this, maybe that’s a step forward. A small one, but an important one nonetheless.