Is the phrase “Support our Troops” a colloquialism for abandoning
certain First Amendment privileges such as free Speech and the right to assembly?
The “Support the Troops” campaign, which was born out of the aftermath
of the anti-Viet Nam protests, somehow suggest that once the shooting starts,
civilians are killed, American men and women and placed in harms way, for some
strange reason unbeknownst to me, there should be silence in the land.
Am I to understand that because bombing has commenced I should no longer have
an opinion about the war? And that having any opinion to the contrary of supporting
the megalomania of this president does a disservice to the United States arm forces
in Iraq?
How does my opposition to the war effect the moral of American troops in Baghdad?
I wonder the number of soldiers who logged on to Byronspeaks.com, only to find
out that I do not support this military effort.
This is not to suggest that I wholeheartedly support the anti-war demonstrations.
I do support their right for peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience. But
as I heard someone say this week, “Blocking traffic in San Francisco to
protest the war is akin to
bombing Lithuania because of atrocities committed by the Soviet Union.”
Simply stated, this war is wrong. It was wrong last week, it is wrong as bombs
fly over Baghdad, and it will be wrong after, Bechtel, Kellog Brown & Root,
a subsidiary of Halliburton or the Parsons Corp. wins the $1 billion prize to
rebuild Iraq after it has been destroyed.
This war is wrong because this administration decided the outcome before the game
commenced. Diplomacy was something that this administration needed to demonstrate
only to the point that it could be said, “We’ve tried that and it
didn’t work!” The Bush administration was in it for regime change
and regime change alone. First, the administration tried to hide behind the skirt
of Osama Bin Laden by attempting the link Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein.When that
proved to be unsuccessful, they spoke of the eminent threat
coming from Baghdad.
After that story hit a snag, the administration utilized the business school tactic
of scenario planning whereby one projects what will happen in the future by suggesting
that one of these old day Iraq will be a real threat; sort of like North Korea
right now. The response was mild at best so they decided to marry the threat
of weapons of mass destruction with the liberation of the Iraqi people.
All of this was done in an atmosphere that said to hell with the rest of the world.
Great Britain is the only European country where a majority of its citizens supports
this military effort, and not by much (52% to 48% in a recent poll). Not even
South Korea, who lives
next one of the members of the famed axis of evil fraternity, does not support
this effort. Other than Great Britain, only Israel and the United States had a
majority of citizens in support.
When the dust settles (no pun intended), the Bush Administration had better deliver
pictures of enough chemicals for weapons of mass destruction to fill Madison Square
Garden to capacity. Anything short will leave the United States with a global
credibility gap and make
French President Jacque Chirac look like Nelson Mandela.
I realize that my feelings about this war do not harbor the genteel response of
support for the troops that many of my right wing cohorts have predetermined.
I will not be tricked into abdicating the principles on which this country was
founded because of some second
rate public relation campaign.
I am not aware of a single individual who supports harm coming to members of the
armed forces. However, if I am to be labeled as someone who does not support the
troops because I disagree with this war, so be it.
Ironically, I do support the troops. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus
said to me recently, “I support the troops! I support them coming home immediately,
engaging only in that which they were sworn to do: to serve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the
United States of America!” Amen!