"Support Our Troops" – Let’s Start With Being Honest

In the vitriolic public debate about the quagmire resulting from the US invasion and occupation in Iraq, the phrase “support our troops” is frequently tossed about. Quite frequently it is used as a talisman to fend off any careful and rational discussion of an appropriate strategy. Supporters of the Administration argue that any criticism of the US involvement in Iraq fails to support or even undermines the US troops fighting there. Their reasoning is that once troops are deployed, any critique or criticism of their mission is disloyal and may be disheartening to the troops. They argue that such discussion is advocacy for "surrender" and that the US must stay and "win" the conflict. This argument is both facile and dishonest. It is possible to support the men and women serving their country admirably in the field of battle and still question the basis for their deployment and the reasons for their being placed in harm’s way. Moreover, if there is not discernible strategy or prospect for success, then talk of "winning" is a deception or a delusion.

One fact that seems to be missing in the use of the “support the troops” argument is that the job of soldiers is to execute orders, not to make policy. The fundamental basis for the “chain of command” structure that underlies military discipline is that soldiers are required to follow orders and not to question the policy decisions that resulted in those orders. In addition, refusal to follow orders or dissention on the field of battle could cause dangerous situations with potentially lethal consequences. After all, the battlefield is an inherently dangerous place. During the Viet Nam conflict, the public made a serious tactical and philosophical error by blaming the foot soldiers for the results of the orders that they carried out. The American public does not appear to be buying into that same mistake with regard to the Iraq situation.

The broad and firm consensus of the American people is that US military troops stationed in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter, should be provided with the tools that they need to accomplish their assigned mission. No proponent of any legislation offered in Congress has suggested that US military troops be deprived of equipment and resources to carry out their orders. There have been measures introduced in Congress and discussed in the media that fault the Bush Administration for failing to adequately equip troops that the administration deployed in Iraq. The true question is not about providing equipment and funding support for the troops. The issue is whether the equipment and funding should be expended on a mission in Iraq that seems to have no clear strategy, has shown very little if any progress and has shown no reason for optimism that such progress will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

The shifting dialogue is turning toward the question whether huge sums of public funds and, more importantly, mounting numbers of US military casualties should be expended in Iraq. Thus, the properly stated question is “how” to support the troops. Are the US troops best supported by a strategy and continuing orders from the Commander in Chief to remain in Iraq and struggle to bring stability to a civil war among competing Iraqi factions, all of whom want the US to leave Iraq? Or, alternatively, are the US troops best supported by a different strategy and orders to redeploy outside Iraq in a manner that enables any necessary response to support allies and legitimate regional interests should the Iraqi internal conflict spill out beyond the current internal civil strife. The sincerity of the Bush Administration's call for support for the troops is belied by the Administration's failure to provide adequate medical care and treatment for the military personel returning from deployment in Iraq. Some would argue that spending a fraction of the iraq budget on universal healthcare would do more to support our military personel [and all Americans] than continuing to pour money into a failed mission that has no military solution.

Using US military personnel as pawns in the political debate is both unfair and disingenuous. While deployed, any public comment by soldiers that challenges the Iraq “mission” could be viewed as a basis for military discipline. Regardless of what an individual soldier may think about the Iraq mission and orders, he or she is duty bound to carry out orders to the best of that soldier’s ability. In fact, many soldiers who have served in Iraq and their families have spoken out publicly [once removed from the battlefield] that they do not believe that the US presence in Iraq is based upon any clear or winnable strategy. They say that without a clear mission and the support of the Iraqi people, the US should withdraw its troops.

In simple terms, if we do not know what we are doing or why we are doing it, we should step back and re examine the mission. If we continue to lose soldiers in a poorly directed and ineffectual venture, there is no reason for staying. This is a justifiable analysis that is based primarily upon function and common sense. As was the case in Viet Nam, the Administration that ordered the troops into battle had no clear idea what the specific mission was or specific objectives to be achieved. "Halting the spread of communism" is a convenient political slogan, but an extremely flawed and useless military strategy. Fighting terrorism is a similarly useless military strategy or justification for deployment of soldiers. That the Bush Administration continues to assert a demonstrably false link between Saddam Hussein or Iraq and the Al Qaeda sponsored attack on the US World Trade Center to support its call for loyalty to its Iraq venture demonstrates the absence of any realistic and cogent strategy.

If one looks beyond the sloganeering to the concrete actions, a plausible conclusion would be that the purpose of deploying US troops in Iraq is to establish some measure of permanent control over Iraqi oil reserves. Despite the fact that the current military effort seems to be failing in that effort as well, the rationale and strategy would explain many of the Bush Administration actions relating to Iraq and a stubborn refusal to reconsider or debate its professed "mission." Such a strategy would explain the move to build permanent military bases in Iraq. It would also explain US demand for Iraqi approval, as a “benchmark” of progress, of an “Oil Sharing”agreement drafted by US representatives with far less favorable terms to Iraqis than any agreement currently in place with any other Middle East oil producing nation. The “Support” that the Bush seeks is not really support for the troops, but rather support for his agenda for establishing a permanent presence in Iraq.

However, as long as the Bush mantra continues to be “support our troops,” more and more Americans will continue to question why the best way to support our military personnel is not to remove them from harm's way in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. This group of Americans from all political walks is growing at such a rate that its presence and momentum has created a political crisis that the Bush Administration is having a very difficult time contending with.