We, the undersigned, pledge that we will abstain from voting in 2008 for any elected official or candidate who votes or declares her/his intention to vote to continue funding of the war, no matter the electoral consequences.

(Or, in other words, "Bad candidate! No vote for you!" Hey, it's a start.)

you know, i've been agonizing over this for quite some time. on the one hand i hate it when the republicans accuse the other side of not supporting the troops. on the other hand, this is clearly a straw man and democrats (of whom i am not one, really) shouldn't fall into that trap. and on yet another hand (i am drafting those of other people in my house), i am SICK AND TIRED of forever bringing up the Vietnam War and how the troods weren't supported and were spit on, and that was a lie/rumor anyway!a
What i am is-- sick sick sick that this war is in my name. i am guilty by complicity or by association or whatever. i feel responsible. iraq and its people have been totally fucked up to protect my 'freedom' - i know that's not really true, but you know. i still have a draft post about this. but i can't seem to find the time to write it. but i need to say it and put it out there. this war, it's in my name only under duress. under protest.

and yeah, at the very least, what Lisa said.

Good post. You're absolutely right, I've been saying this and taking either a little bit of criticism from the left or hella criticism from the right depending on where I post. I don't support the troops, supporting them is like supporting a rapist but opposing rape. They are adults who chose to join the military and they have guns. The people in Iraq are defending their nation from an occupying army. Yeah I know many of the troops didn't know what they were getting into, but the majority are so stupid they think they are in Iraq because Saddam was behind 9/11. I am no rocket scientist and I work hard and am busy too but I'm informed, they should be too. If you are gonna take up arms against someone you sure as fuck should want to know something about it.
Imagine being an Iraqi whose family has just been obliterated, who's wife or daughter has been raped and murdered, who has just been merely tormented with their boots on his head at a checkpoint if he's lucky, killed if he's not so lucky. Would this hypothetical Iraqi see the troops as "Kids" ? They're not kids. We need to stop looking at the trooops the same way affluent White people look at pigs. They may seem like kids and harmless-when they got a gun at your head your outlook changes.

yes, turtlebella. if one thinks in terms of political games, it may be confusing. i was thinking in terms of what i believe in my own heart.

and if we go down the path of forgiving brainless, will-less zombies whose guns and bullets can be fired by old, crazy, Whitemen in D.C....where does that authorization end?

peace begins with each person realizing their own part in bringing it about.

it makes me angry that poverty compels so many to become soldiers, and it makes me sad to say i don't support them. but i don't.

Aaaah - great post and thread ... nothing original to add, but yeah ...

Nez, this is a courageous piece of writing, and an admirable stand.

Nevertheless I'm left with the question, What does it mean to "support our troops" or "not support our troops"? Is there a definition somewhere of what concrete actions these positions indicate that one is prepared to take? Because I guess the expression "support our troops" just strikes me as hollow jingoism, devoid of substance; which means, I oppose the entire concept of blindly saying that one "supports our troops" without that statement implying anything substantive, since one can't actually derive a counter-position from a non-position.

I guess I'm really not into all the "emotional support" kind of talk when it comes to war, as though the vague sentiments of faraway people matter when bombs and bullets are flying at human bodies. To me, supporting troops means offering some kind of actual service, like providing guns and ammo, bandaging wounds, moving supplies, providing intel. And the opposite of that is opposing troops, which means picking up a gun or RPG and firing at them, sabotaging supply lines, disrupting communication, planting false intel. Those are concrete ways of supporting or not supporting troops. Short of that, I'm not totally sure what we're discussing.

thanks kai. what i mean down to the last minute detail is for me to know or find out, i suppose. and it could be as simple as telling people at any opportunity that i do not Support the Troops. to counter that empty sentiment (you have mentioned) with the truth. because i've seen many times in my life that people want to tell the truth, but dont feel able until they know it's "okay" to do so. in this way, huge majorities of people are cowed by small groups who would lever them in such a way.

so i am just putting it out there baldly to kill the manipulative trick that so many lay upon the voice of the people. i am preempting that lever that is used to force us into silent acquiesence. and i guess i imagine that it could catch on. that is what solidarity is about. that is what people take stands for. so those around can decide to add their voice or not, and avoid the eternal mire of such a hazy, nonactive stance as "well i support this, but dont support that part of This."

i guess even on a small level, i imagine that (just as in this thread) those voices can begin to gather together. before you know it, maybe those threads will happen in many places. and then out in the 3D world. again, not the background noise of nuanced half-support/halfDontSUpport, but a strong, unequivocal stance that cannot be missed. and then, as i said in the post, i imagine a "vocal wave" of non-support could embolden more and more people. and perhaps some of those people will be soldiers. which is really what needs to happen. and what i was trying to get at.

as far as your last lines, well. i think "not supporting the troops" doesn't have to be as extreme as "fighting the troops." in fact, i think that black and white division of action keeps many people nodding in agreement when others try to guilt us into Supporting the Troops®. they, too, feel that it's either nod along, or be seen as such an agent as you describe, picking up a gun and such. and i feel there is just as much power in simply standing up and saying, "hell no. i do not support them and i am immune to your pressure."

i hope that makes it clearer.

I understand the position you've taken here. And I respect it.

But. (Yes, you probably saw that coming.)

While I don't want to reduce soldiers to pawns, and I don't want to support the war machine or the political agendas of the commander-in-chief, I have my own interpretation of supporting the troops as supporting the people in the uniforms. But that consideration does not extend to when they stop using their consciences and when they commit atrocities. I think there should be actual latitude -- not just pretty talking points -- for soldiers to refuse to follow morally reprehensible orders, and that hasn't happened. I think that wounded soldiers and vets should have better health care and benefits than they do since it takes a lot of circumstance to want to be a hired mercenary. I don't like U.S.Apes who don't question government, and I clearly don't want this illegal conflict to continue. But I understand the importance of an armed force when it's used properly and for the right reasons -- and the only justifiable reason I know is defense.

But that's my thoughts, and I can't say I'm a military expert. But there are some areas where I do support soldiers as human beings, and there's some circumstances where that support well runs dry. And the latter comes up when I see pictures like the ones above.

Kudos Nezua.

hi sylvia...i'm a little confused on the stance. or where, exactly, the "but" falls. i am not sure we disagree for the most part. after all, when i condemn a person for following a horrific path of murder and lending their hand to crimes against a People, i am implicitly supporting them as human beings. after all, human beings have minds and hearts they must use for themselves. should they choose to use their creation-given free will to join in such a crime as the Iraq invasion and occupation, they are opening themselves to judgment.

we all have our own feelings about what is moral, in terms of an armed militia. and my condemnation of those doing what Watada is not doing—aiding this war that most of knew was bullshit before it was launched, back when Bush was rushing to an irrelevant violent act of invasion that he tried his best to tie to 9/11—is separate from believing humans should be cared for medically, as in your statement about health care and bennies. my empathy with the Iraqis and my disgust at what Tha Troopz are doing is actually exactly in line with the same paradigm of wanting the vets to receive good health care. it is caring for human beings. and not for empire, or oil wars, or the greed of Halliburton investors.

you separate the soldiers following orders from them deviating and then "committing atrocities" and i guess that is one clear place i must disagree with you. i feel their orders are atrocities.

who is bombing homes? wedding parties? who bombed those civilians dancing around the burning copter? i saw that film. it was kids and citizens and even some journalists. the murkan copter opened fire on them, bombed them. the soldiers were upset about losing a copter and were pissed that iraqis were dancing. did they kill those people against orders?

this is what happens when you tell people it is okay to murder. after that, what is not okay? and that is only one tiny example. if you watch enough clips, you can clearly see how many US soldiers think of Iraqis. just as they would have to think of them in order to kill them. they are dehumanized to them. "ragheads." for what? what did these people do to us? they are human beings. it is easy to see them as some anamalous mass of "irakees," but read enough iraqi blogs and your ambivalence may melt away. above is but one picture. a picture of soldiers driving by starving children who are killing themselves foraging for food in ordinance. are these soldiers acting against orders? no. they are driving right by.

personally—and i mean nothing directly aimed at you—i feel it is a joke and a sham to think if only the soldiers would just listen to orders over there, everything would be okay!

remember: we bombed them and aired it on TV like it was a reality TV show of the most dazzling magnitude...happy, whispering embedded journalist freaks riding in the back of tanks and trucks under a green nightscope light like it was a fucking disco on death wheels. and with NO reason. we haven't even apologized. and you know what? i bet we never will.

the original order was a crime. anything after that adds to the crime. that is my stance.

Nezua, thanks for your response. I think I see what you mean, you're using the phrase "I Do Not Support Our Troops" to undermine the jingoistic pressure that's exerted on us with the phrase "Support Our Troops"; in other words, you're saying, I do not go along with that jingoism. Which of course I agree with. It was just a bit confusing to me since the original jingoism is (purposefully) confusing. But I can get behind "I support telling the truth about the troops", which means saying that some are good and some are bad, they include war criminals and working class heroes, they're not monolithic, they're human. I'd also be comfortable saying that I do not automatically stand in solidarity with every individual US soldier, which might be another way of saying what you're saying. Am I getting closer? Well I hope so, and I hope I didn't upset you by carrying "support our troops" to logical extremes in my last graf, that's just how I normally see it: "Support our troops? Go fight with them or say what you really mean, which is that you're a Bush fan." And I'm not a pacifist either, so I also don't mean anything negative by suggesting that there's a time for armed resistance to "our troops". But yes, you're absolutely right that there's a whole range of political options short of armed resistance, and that I suppose it's nobody's business just what that entails for you.

Like Sylvia, I do tend to sympathize with working class kids trying to pay for college or get citizenship and getting a limb blown off. In that sense, I do support "our troops" in the sense that I support "taking care of human beings", not just tossing them into the streets to fend for themselves after their traumas. But of course, I'm pretty sure you, Nez, agree with that too, I think you're just not willing to go along with the blanket of mind-numbing sloganeering that makes up much of the political discourse about the war and the use of our troops as emotional proxies for the government which issues their orders...

hi kai. i hope i didn't come across as angry, i wasn't at all. my opening sentence wasn't meant to be rude. i reworded it a few times looking for the right way to say, "i can't say because i dont know all the ways my life wil require me to enact this belief yet." (wow, i guess that's it!)

what i mean, if a clearer statement is needed is that i condemn the iraq war. and i do not support any reason for any soldier going to join this war. i support, at this point especially, only what Watada and the others are doing. if it is to be desertion, than it ought to be. at least you live with a clean conscience. just as i would refuse a draft, were it to be a choice i'd have to make.

please remember, i was one of those poor kids looking for a way out, did the day long physical in Newark, and all the horrible embarrassing shit that entailed, stood there in the room full of recruits, raised my hand and swore to the flag and the military that i would blah blah. called the skipper personally to get a waiver for past law trouble. this was in 1991, during the first iraq war. but i thought it all through. and even threatened, i refused my shipdate. of course i empathize. but i must stand firmly and without equivocation in condemnation of anyone who does not walk away from this.

i know i am drawing big philosophical divides by saying "too bad, poor or not, you still have the weight of your own choice to deal with." that's kind of how my brain and mind and heart work sometimes.

not everyone has to agree with me. i don't expect them too. i am here to provide a firm stance. it's just my truth. it doesn't mean i am enemies with people who don't share it.

Yes, I think you may have misread my point about orders. From what I understand about the soldiers to whom I've spoken at home and abroad, the regimented social structure of the military suppresses the conscience. Understatement of the year, but it does. It suppresses rational thought, and it wires men to perpetrate violence with as much distance -- whether physical, mental/psychological or emotional -- from the targets as possible. And to some extent, those same men have to give up those inclinations to function and to earn a living in the military system. I don't support that. I don't condone that. And I think you don't either, so that's where we agree.

I stated that there are already provisions that allow a soldier to refuse to follow orders if they compromise his conscience or are morally reprehensible. I didn't say anything regarding blindly following orders and the world being swell -- I said the exact opposite. In military culture, soldiers are trained to suppress these inclinations to disobey as often as possible -- they are demoralized. I don't condone that. They created the provision for a reason, and people serving in the army should be left with enough humanity to exercise it. I don't think many soldiers are left with that much humanity after the Army pumps them full of ideology and training, and then points them at a brown target. Perhaps we need to take our elected officials (since they raise and fund the military) and our president (since that person is the head of the armed forces) to task for reforming that huge flaw.

Finally, I concluded by stating the only permissible function I think the military should serve is a defensive function.

So, I agree with you because I support restoring and preserving the humanity of the troops. I don't support their current actions, their agency, or this war, nor do I support the military's current direction.

I think we're agreeing, except I narrowed my position down into very specific points. I guess that's the danger of tackling a vague soundbyte, huh...

Argh! I just explained my comment and my computer ate it!

Okay. Let's try this again.

I support restoring and preserving the humanity of the troops. The current military structure drains and distances soldiers from the wars and conflicts in which they fight. This practice does a lot more harm than good. (Understatement of the year!) I think that we need to hold the president as commander-in-chief and Congress as the body that raises and funds the military accountable for this protocol. A soldier should possess enough humanity to refuse to execute morally reprehensible orders. I don't know where you interpreted in my comment that I thought soldiers should blindly follow orders -- that's exactly what I do not condone.

From the soldiers I've interacted with, while at home or while abroad, they talk about the pressures and constraints of military culture. Their focuses when they're in is what they'll do once they get back out. Never on the present or on what they're doing. This is obviously a problem. This distancing is convenient for our corrupt government to direct soldiers at any target and expect their dirty deeds performed. This culture that promotes emotional, mental/psychological, and physical distance from a very real and very damaging conflict should not continue. I do not support it. And I think its influence in this illegal war is especially pervasive. I don't support the war, I don't support the agents in this current war, and I don't support the military structure as it stands.

i believe that i did misread. because i had a hard time following the thinking.

we do agree on those points you mention. i guess what i'm disagreeing with is the route at which you arrive. or rather, i don't "disagree with your route" but i cannot go along with that path. i'll meet you at the river, but we'll have to take different roads.

because it is not relevant to me what the military does to a person's thinking. i agree they are a dangerous mind control outfit. but should i not give people the expectation of their own free will and analysis powers? i don't want to "take our elected officials" to task. i don't want to blame leaders. i want to put the onus on each person. i consider human beings agents of free will, unless they are children, who have an automatic deference to authority, often. and are smaller and weaker.

for people to get anywhere, we must stop deferring to outside authorities. especially when assigning accountability for wars.

i'm happy to agree with you. but if we do not agree, i don't want it to be an issue. if i angered you, i'm sorry.

that was a reply to your first explanation. :)

Nez, I finally gotcha, loud and clear. Sorry for making you spend all those extra words on clarification. ;-) I do think a lot of the confusion is caused by the confusion of the propaganda in the first place, which clouds the meanings of the words you've flipped in this piece; and as I've previously asserted, I believe that a fundamental part of the reactionary agenda is an attack on language, a separation of word and actuality, a fragmentation of meaning. And as we can see here, it's working! Okay not quite. ;-P But hey, there's no way you'll find me beefin with you on such a thing, or anything for that matter. We can't reasonably expect to see 100% eye-to-eye on every philosophical point ever, so no worries on minor disagreements, amigo. Indeed I'm pretty close to your position on this matter; just a couple shades of gradation away, is all. I really appreciate your explanation and fully respect your position. :-D

I concur, you should make the "support the truth" ribbon image available for down load with the url built in....
paz

I just wanted to clarify where I stood because I think it got muddled somewhere. I think the language got sterile in the explanation, but there's no anger. I understand your position better, too. No bad blood; I think I'm getting a little bit stronger with this whole blogging thing.

I brought it up and Kai mentioned it too; the statement itself inspires confusion, so where we take its interpretation will guide our agreement and disagreement. We did take two different paths, but we wound up at the same river. And as long as you don't hog all the sun, places to sit, and fishing poles, we're cool. :-p

nah, kai, dont' be sorry. because i'm clarifying for myself, too. but you make a great point about language. and it has always infuriated me to the degree the govt has destroyed language on purpose. the more my reverence for orwell's powers of prophecy grows, the greater revulsion i feel for those who made it come true.

i appreciate your effort, too, 'mano. thanks.

--

jerry, that's a great idea. i'm gonna do it. gimme a little while.

okay, cool, sylbia. i'm glad, 'mana.

will you hook my bait for me? i could never do it. i end up empathizing with the worms.

Maybe we could use something else...I can't deal with sacrificing worms after a high school bio experiment. But I heard something about some cheese coming in from down south, 'mano... ;)

jerry, that's a great idea. i'm gonna do it. gimme a little while.

that sounds like a fun project, LG.

and i know i have a sticker factory somewhere in here....

meanwhile, there's this, jerry.

"Support our troops" is code for supporting the war, and I don't.

Many troops are my students. We send them packages, talk to them on e-mail, welcome them home, and try to support them through the transition, including but not limited to lending moral support for fighting the VA, and doing other silly things like explaining to their commanding officers that if they are required by the Army to take a class that meets at a certain time, they cannot also be on post at that hour.

In these ways I probably give more material support to troops than most troop-supporting Americans. At the same time I am very well aware of what these people have been up to in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I do not support it. Actually I should probably send Baghdad Burning a dollar, or perhaps significantly more, every time I do a favor for a Troop.

And this is really sacreligious to say, but here goes: we learned from Viet Nam, supposedly, not to be mean to individual soldiers for having fought. Support the troops, not the war, and so on. However: the more pictures of, and interviews about torture I see, the more pictures of civilians raped and killed in their homes, the less I am able to separate the troops from the war.

There were some regiments around here after Katrina, in addition to the Blackwater mercenaries. Mothers' sweet sons all, I am sure, but I am also hip to some of their less sweet behavior.

Best way to support troops: get the government to stop harrassing them via the VA, and get them some healthcare already. For as long as they need it, and in decent conditions, and without B.S. Make the government come clean about Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome / depleted uranium, et cetera, and do something real about it. Cause social policy to be such that people do not become Troops in the first place.

cero, you're a very active person and i greatly respect that. between the petitions you always sign, the letters you take action on, in addition to your work—i've noticed this, and i really admire a human like you who takes hold of the world with both hands.

"Cause social policy to be such that people do not become Troops in the first place." --Cero

Yeah. Someone else said this too, about poverty and enlisting. And I agree from the individual sense (poverty/lack of other options leading an inividual person to enlist) to the societal (the 'need' for an military).

I guess in a way I am a pacifist. Because IN THEORY I think an army raised for defense of a nation/state, or on behalf of a people who cannot fight for themselves (Is this the philosophy behind having a military? I don't actually know! And I can't help channel bfp here for a second and say that perhaps nation/states should not exist anyway! but that's another story) is all fine and good. But the problem I see is that the military is too often used for nothing less than nefarious purposes. To make defense contractors (read: war-mongers) rich. To follow out some extreme neo-conservative, take over the world agenda. To make it possible for the US to have access to all the resources and products we want at the lowest possible price even though we richer than every one else. And none of these actually seem to contribute to the original purpose (at least, as I have stated it) of the military.

Darfur, and other places, Somalia, languish in chaos (is that contradictory or what) while we - or at least the Administration - send a few more troops to Iraq and contemplate going to war against Iran. And if I am going to accept that we have an army. I still cannot stand silent and implicitly accept the status quo of 'defending' our 'freedom' to get oil and reign supreme over the middle east.

But I'm not sure that I accept the military, either in the aggregate (need for military) or at the level of the individuals that make up the military.

I definitely do not accept the sickening amount of profit made by companies that are contracted and subcontracted by our military.

I do not accept the acts of atrocity perpetuated by individuals. I do not accept that these individuals are solely responsible for these atrocities.

[I will stop here as 1) this is long enough and anyway my argument may be flawed by my initial premise and 2) I can feel myself going down a path about WHY certain individuals commit such horrible acts and that's really another story, innit? Related but different. Sorry to take up so much space. But I am working some of this out in my head as I write]

Maybe the song 'Universal Soldier' by Buffy Sainte-Marie said it well:-

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.

that's it right there, Rick. thank you for dropping that here.

a pleasure as always, can I blog pimp the beginning of Iran Blogapalooza

http://tenpercent.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/rejoice-its-iran-blogapalooza-meet-inside-iran/

Re "Universal Soldier" - it underscores an important point: the military, if called to quell 'domestic unrest', will not act like sweet mothers' sons here either. 'Ask not whether you support the troops, but whether the troops support you' - ;-) that is supposed to be amusing, but it is not a joke.

so true, cero. while i hope that never happens, bush may be planning or anticipating just that. he was pleading for and posing the possibility of martial control of the citizenry way back when Avian Flu Fear was all the rage. and should such an unprecedented horror happen in our country—martial law, i mean, not this fantasy of deadly birds wiping out the populace—let's see how many people Support the Troops® then.

Yes, I am waiting for martial law any day, and I am being outspoken while I still dare! No kidding! But people they may kowtow to the troops if they occupy our streets - maybe they will enjoy it - or am I being too cynical? I really wonder sometimes!

Meanwhile, here is how the Army itself supports its troops: the LaVena Johnson story:
http://www.waveflux.net/archives/2007/02/the_coverup_of_a_soldiers_deat.php

Nezua,

Again today, digging through the archives (Lord, how could I possibly ever catch up here), I've found another stellar posting.

Have to say, browsing and clicking on different little buttons on the main U.M. page never is a dull experience. This is one thought-provoking post (obviously written a while back). Muchas gracias.

I very much like the "support the truth" phrase, is it yours?

"Support the troops" always had a feel of guilting one into supporting the war(as in your a real sorry-ass coward who doesn't love your brother if you don't support the troops).

Of course, by now every candidate knows "supporting the troops/war" is political suicide. So, a little tiny bit of progress has come since your writing this.

Take care,
M.

Hola, Mimi. Yes, as far as I know, that is my phrase.

Thank you for reading these posts I spent so much time on. What makes me sad about blogs is that your old stuff is somehow....lost almost. Not like early good chapters in a book...like notes you throw ina box and lose. So thanks so much for making me feel these still live on.

Yes, I can see where the blog's "here-and-now" could be frustrating.
But newspapers get recycled everyday too. But maybe, someday historical archeologists will sift through old blogs...

P.S. I'm just now getting to the second chapter of Gabriel Garcia Marquez' "Love in the Time of Cholera" and look how long ago that was written. Speaking of such, I should be turning off this damn computer and leave work. There's old-fashioned books to be read. Lawns to be mowed. Carrot cake to be made.

amazing characters in that book. i'm still a sucker for sensual description and unrequited love. although the plot is terribly...vague at times. but i love the experience of moving through that book. again, the characters, wow.

Absolutely phenomenal. This is some powerful writing. I want these words to sink in deep because they are resonating in my mind as nothing other than pure truth. And you know what? The truth hurts. It always does, but ignoring it only prolongs the misery. And that is the truth. Thank you for your words, convictions, and beliefs--and not being afraid to be vocal.

thank you so much, karen. i somehow missed your words until now.

Speaking of dissenting soldiers, Amy Goodman/Democracy Now ran parts of the Winter Soldiers congressional testimonies. It was disturbing what some of these soldiers were ordered to do. Not surprising though.

HBO has a documentary titled 'Generation Kill' which will be airing in June or July. It looks to be about the 'Let the bodies hit the floor' mindset being hardwired into soldiers brains. Hopefully it will touch down on the subject of the Christianization of the military, which disturbs me more than any other aspect of this war. Its far easier to get people to kill in the name of religion than any other reason.