Guest Post by Morbo
In a Monday post, the Carpetbagger commented on a New York Times story concerning members of the military in Iraq who are dismayed over the public’s weak support for the war.
These soldiers feel like they are fighting alone and that people on the home front are disconnected from what is going on so far away.
They are exactly right. There is a disconnect. And for that members of the military have no one to blame but the commander in chief.
George W. Bush has elevated symbolism over sacrifice. Thus, it’s easy for right wingers to say, “We support the troops” knowing they have to do nothing more than put a magnetic ribbon on the bumper of their SUVs. The Republican power elite knows their kids aren’t going anywhere near Iraq. Safe in the knowledge that this war isn’t cramping their style one iota, they can then move on to chastising the rest of us for being insufficiently patriotic.
Yet my guess is that these same rabidly pro-war right wingers have precious few connections with the people serving in the military these days — and by that I mean the average soldiers, not the officers.
Remember Jessica Lynch, the West Virginia woman who was quickly dropped by the nation after she refused to play along with the Bush administration’s made-for-TV-movie plotline about her heroic rescue? She’s a good example. Today’s Army consists of a lot of young men and women from rural areas, small towns, small cities and distressed urban areas — places the Republican power elite has read about but rarely visits. These average soldiers didn’t go to college, and their employment opportunities are limited. What do they do? Join the people who’ve joined the Army!
It doesn’t have to be a bad choice. But when your commander in chief is an easily-led loose cannon and habitual liar anxious to settle an old score it quickly becomes one.
So there you are, at age 18, 19 or 20, stuck in a strange country, lacking sufficient armor, trying to mop up after no weapons of mass destruction have been found, unclear of your mission and facing a divided population back home. That’s a lot to deal with at a young age. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I do know that at age 19, I was barely able to fix my own dinner let alone help bring democracy to the Middle East.
I’m not knocking these kids. I’m just pointing out the obvious: A president’s most awesome power is the ability to lead the country into war. It’s not to be taken lightly because it means death, destruction and chaos — and in this case all of that got dumped on those who deserved better. When the power to wage war is taken lightly, certain types of people bear the brunt of the bad decision: poor kids, kids from small towns, kids with a high school education, kids without options.
So it’s easy for a Republican stockbroker who sent Brianna and Hunter off to Princeton to drive home to his gated community at night, park the SUV in the four-car garage and sit down in front of the TV knowing all is well with the world. His kids aren’t going anywhere near the front line. When unpleasant war images come on the TV (not that our compliant “embedded” media brings us many), there are 300 other channels on the dish for distraction.
We are left with empty symbolism. It’s easy to stick another ribbon the truck. They only cost a few dollars down at the 7-11.
I’m not at all surprised that Americans haven’t been asked to sacrifice by the Bush administration. The word is not in his vocabulary. What I would like to see, as more and more Americans see the light and realize the extent of the quagmire Bush has led us into in Iraq, is fewer empty gestures of solidarity and more meaningful action.
What would that look like? For starters, it would mean lots of people standing up and saying, “I really do support the troops. That’s why I want to bring them home.”